On 20 February 2010 23:01, 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 copyright issues
On 21 February 2010 10:33, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge :
>> 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
On 21 February 2010 10:30, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge :
>> 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, *
On 21 February 2010 11:15, Chad wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>>
>> Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities
>> "jurisdiction" and given into hands of professional lawyers or at
>> least people who had copyright law practical training.
>>
>
>
If these potential logos are not on a free license, as you suggest (and i
have no reason to assume you are wrong), then they should certainly not be
moved to commons. Meta seems like a correct place.
If the rules of meta can be changed so that these copyrighted images can
stay hosted there?
Perhaps
That sounds like a good idea, maybe make it a Wikiversity course? Or run
training on IRC?
From: Chad
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 3:15:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Moreover if the orignal copyright
> owner transferred the copyright to Foundation - Foundation do no need
> to follow GFDL when using the logo - but it cannot forbid to use the
> logo by others if they follow GFDL and do not break the tradem
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge :
> > 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 unde
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chad wrote:
> While I don't agree that we need to take this away from the community
> and hand it to a team of lawyers, I must say that the "practical training"
> caught my eye.
>
> Would it be possible for the Foundation to get Mike--and other people
> who actua
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
> Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities
> "jurisdiction" and given into hands of professional lawyers or at
> least people who had copyright law practical training.
>
While I don't agree that we need to take this awa
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge :
> 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
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge :
> 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 t
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-
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 that
randomly finds them doesn't know th
Till some moment, all updates were assumed under GFDL ... or it was
said "you agree to release your upload under GFDL with your pushing
this button" or something alike. No tagged old images could be legacy
from that era. For more details, see related mediawiki files' past
revisions.
Cheers,
On Sa
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:52 PM, geni wrote:
> On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chad wrote:
> > I know the actual logos are trademarked, but the proposals aren't
On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chad wrote:
> I know the actual logos are trademarked, but the proposals aren't. If
> these are creations by Wikimedians, then hopefully they are under a
> free license. They should be uploaded to Commons and organized, if
> so!
>
> -Chad
For the most part no. They were
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Florence Devouard
> Date: 19 February 2010 21:19
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
> To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> An editor on META is having th
2010/2/19 David Gerard :
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Florence Devouard
> Date: 19 February 2010 21:19
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
> To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> An editor on META is having the crazy idea of tagging all h
-- Forwarded message --
From: Florence Devouard
Date: 19 February 2010 21:19
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
An editor on META is having the crazy idea of tagging all historical
logo propositions made during
35 matches
Mail list logo
