2010/2/20 geni <geni...@gmail.com>: > On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other >> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL. > > Evidence? > --
Evidence of what? At the beginning on all Wikipedias as well as meta there were no license templates at all. It was just assumed that all original content is under GNU FDL - both text and pictures. The idea of license templates for media files was created to provide possibility to use pictures on other free licenses and those which are public domain. Following the copyright paranoia in such the manner you could ask if there is any evidence that articles in Wikipedia are legally under GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA. Do we have any evidence that users agreed for the license conditions? How many of them read the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use ? And how many of those who read Terms of Use followed the links to the licenses legal code or at least general explanation of their practical consequences ? In case of text content it is simply assumed with no evidence at all that editors agreed. Moreover even if the uploader to Commons chooses the license in upload form do we check if he/she knows and understand its conditions? So, it is all assumed with no evidence at all. Strange? -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
