Anthony wrote:
> Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Do we agree with the idea, that at that
>> time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not
> Definitely not. You were supposed to release uploads under the GFDL, *if
> you were the copyright owner*, but not everything that was uploaded was
> under GF
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge:
>
>> Probabilistic arguments are difficult to establish when the majority
>> still believes in legal certainty in the same way that it believes in God.
>>
> I am not quite sure what you wanted to say :-) Anyway - this cited
> sentence is for m
By the way, here's a thread from 2007, which unfortunately never came to a
conclusion as to the answer to the question:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/94312
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/20 Thomas Dalton :
> > On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> >> Evidence? :-) Is there any formal document of Wikimedia Foundation
> >> Board of Trustees which says, that logo candidates are a special case
> >> for copyri
2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge :
> Probabilistic arguments are difficult to establish when the majority
> still believes in legal certainty in the same way that it believes in God.
>
I am not quite sure what you wanted to say :-) Anyway - this cited
sentence is for me a nice expression of "0 tolerance"
I'll engage myself on all of them (GFDL presumed)
I am tagging the 370. Already did 200 today. Will finish the last 170 by
hand tomorrow. That's a fascinating job.
Ant
On 2/20/10 6:54 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
> submi
2010/2/20 Thomas Dalton :
> On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>> Evidence? :-) Is there any formal document of Wikimedia Foundation
>> Board of Trustees which says, that logo candidates are a special case
>> for copyright issues or it is just your assumption?
>
> Why would it be a bo
K. Peachey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> You're shifting the burden onto the wrong people. If the images followed
>> the general rule that prevailed when they were uploaded the presumption
>> is that they followed that rule unless there was an exception spec
On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Evidence? :-) Is there any formal document of Wikimedia Foundation
> Board of Trustees which says, that logo candidates are a special case
> for copyright issues or it is just your assumption?
Why would it be a board document? Surely it would just
2010/2/20 geni :
> On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>> 2010/2/20 geni :
>>> On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator wrote:
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
>>>
>>>
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Yes...Copyright paranoia in action... You can always copy those files
> as long as they exists and simply create your private website with all
> of them. I wonder who is going to sue you for copyvio in such the
> case. I guess nobody...
>
> Anyway this is indeed big question
On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/20 geni :
>> On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator 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?
>> --
>
> Evide
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> K. Peachey wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
>>> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
>>>
>> Yes, but
K. Peachey wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
>> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
>>
> Yes, but not everyone knows that and any tom, dick or harry tha
2010/2/20 geni :
> On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator 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 m
On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator 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?
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-
16 matches
Mail list logo
