On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is > not the same as NO unfree content. It does not follow that because we cannot > have ZERO unfree content, than we should be able to use everyone elses unfree > stuff. That is not a logical conclusion, nor is it rational. > > The fact is, regardless of any other circumstance, the Wikimedia logos are > one, small, limited exception. Comparing them to Coca-Cola, or Volvo, or > anything else is ridiculous, because those companies do not operate Wikipedia. I think the point here is that different projects have a different attitude to non-free media, so that everyone wrote a different EDP when they were asked to. Some projects allow the use of non-free material under fair use (that's the case for en.wp and a lot more), some don't (I think that's the case for sv.wp, es.wp and others). Now, most company logos are copyrighted, so they can only be used in the projects that allow non-free media and in the pages regarding the company or its products. In this sense, since we adopt NPOV, the WMF is not different from any other company, like Coca-Cola or the WWF if we want to stick to non-profits. So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them. The situation is different for the UI (we are Wikipedia and we identify ourselves by our logo) and possibly for the inter-project links icons (because they are a link to the project, not to the page describing the project). Therefore, I think the policy of sv.wp is logical and I support it, although I do not necessarily think it's the best decision. Cruccone _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
