On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" > license is a copyright license.
So? What does that have to do with the post you are quoting, or anything else in this thread? > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck <m...@marcusbuck.org> wrote: > >> 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. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
