Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 15 June 2010 00:20, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> You are claiming the law is complicated. But the facts are >>> plain and simple, and no amount of FUDD is going to support >>> a view that there is any reasonable justification (by moral >>> or juridifical standards) to claim WMF is the body to apply >>> for permission to use "wiki" on something. That just ain't >>> gonna happen, *nohow*. Sorry. That is just a fact. Don't try >>> to squirm. >>> >> Frankly, if we *could* try to claim a trademark on the word "wiki", we >> *shouldn't*. At most, ask the site nicely to note somewhere they're >> nothing to do with "Wikipedia." >> > > I'm not suggesting we should claim a trademark on the word "wiki" (it > wouldn't stand up). I'm suggesting that "wiki" when used as the name > of an encyclopaedia is sufficiently similar to "Wikipedia" to cause > confusion in the market (which is what trademarks are designed to > prevent). > >
You are of course aware </sarcasm> that there are a remarkable range of encyclopaedia-like (even if limited in scope) projects not handled by WMF, which the WMF has excellent relations with, and no wish to "reduce confusion" with regard. Such as Wiki-Travel, Wikia, WikiHow, etc. I have been accused before of using too strong language on this mailing list, so I will pointedly restrain myself here with a humongous effort. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
