The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible) and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia logos be any different?
Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone. Marcus Buck User:Slomox _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
