Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

2010/3/31 Petr Kadlec : > On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller wrote: >> I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation >> Board of Trustees ( >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) >> specifically permits project communities to develop exempti

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller wrote: > I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation > Board of Trustees ( > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) > specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with > logos being listed

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > George Herbert wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on >>> Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cat

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mnemo...@gmail.com writes: > Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use > true > names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA?>> What I'm suggesting is that regardless of which license we decide to use as a project, an editor

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

George Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> [...] >> And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on >> Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will >> start living together openly. >> > > Please stop usi

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >> >> The purpose of defining "free" is to ensure that there will be no >> problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent >> a proliferation of individually cra

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

WJhonson writes: > I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to > write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license > to do so? Not at all. I'm pointing out, though, that there are all sorts of potential and actual rights embedded in cont

[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Wednesday, March 31, 2010, Mike Godwin wrote: > > Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the > current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine > any either. Consider a re-user displaying article contents including, for example, an inter

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

2010/3/30 John Vandenberg : > I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used > in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on > sv:template:wikisource.  To me, those uses are part of the UI of the > project, and fall under fair use of the trademark. > > However, I've seen thi

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > The purpose of defining "free" is to ensure that there will be no > problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent > a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. > Thank you for recognizing that

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

In a message dated 3/30/2010 6:50:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mgod...@wikimedia.org writes: > I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish > Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living > Persons or the true names of contributors who choos

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >> >> The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in >> article space should meet the definition of "free >> content".[http://freedomdefined.org/] > > I agree

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >[...] > And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on > Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will > start living together openly. Please stop using this example. You're living in California

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in > article space should meet the definition of "free > content".[http://freedomdefined.org/] I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right. > Th

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >> >> In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that >> Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: >> >> "I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is f

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that > Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: > > "I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to > reuse the Volvo logo > without a license." > Not quite

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >> >> Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect? >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg > > Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > > Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect? > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg > Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't know whether Volvo would accept the decl

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > (Resent with correct subject header) > > John Vandenberg writes: > > >> By the way, check out . ?I hope no one >> > thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo >> logo >> > without

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

This is a thread that accidentally became off-list due to a wrong reply-to header. Mike Godwin hett schreven: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Marcus Buck wrote: > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Buck wrote: > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers > supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own > logo on their own website? > > In what universe is this logical? > > The problem with use of co

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > 2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard : >>> That is the website UI, which is not content.  They could say that the >>> UI should also be completely "free" of copyrighted works.  IMO that >>> would be going overboard. >> >> >> If that is the case, while I

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard : >> That is the website UI, which is not content.  They could say that the >> UI should also be completely "free" of copyrighted works.  IMO that >> would be going overboard. > > > If that is the case, while I understand and actually respect the > decision not to use Wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own website? In what universe is this logical? The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the owner of that

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:25 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > 2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard : >> ... >> This means that Wikimedia logos are now _not used_ in the Swedish >> Wikipedia to illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects, I suppose. >> Right? >> >> But as I understood Lennart's first email, I t

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal 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 >

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

> Why should we > reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat > a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused. What is rational about taking a scenario to the extreme? We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not the same as NO unfre

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

(Resent with correct subject header) John Vandenberg writes: > By the way, check out . ?I hope no one > > thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo > logo > > without a license. > > That image is in the PD as it does not meet the t

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

The thread is interesting. What sv. did is, from my perspective, applying the same rules to Wikimedia logos that applies to all the other logos. Wich is just rational for me. Not that I agree, just it's rational. Wikipedia should be made of free contents, logos are not free, they remove the logos

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > > > This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions > on > > the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary > vendors > > to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content. > > But h

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Mike Godwin wrote: >> Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you >> . > > Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice > to know it's there! I do

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

>> > > Hmm. It could be uploaded under cc-by-sa (3.0) by > > user:This_logo_is_one_of_the_official_logos_used_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation > > with OTRS ticket > > They could, but that doesn't make it right. If someone uploads this > image under cc-by-sa that would be just as much copyright viol

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :) >> It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity. >> > > This is exactly right.  If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on > the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Przykuta wrote: >> > Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say >> > it's >> > not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation >> >> It is not "common sense" to depend on the relationship between the >> project and the hosti

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator 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,

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard : > ... > This means that Wikimedia logos are now _not used_ in the Swedish > Wikipedia to illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects, I suppose. > Right? > > But as I understood Lennart's first email, I think that sv Wikipedia > also has decided not to use the logos ev

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Marcus Buck 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 un

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Poor Mike. You could blog it on Wikimedia blog, even from now? Now we have the policy with a detailed FAQ though, still I guess I'll keep posting some questions - it doesn't mean the policy is poorly written, but just I'd love to see you around. /me ducks On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Mike G

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > The Cunctator writes: > > >> No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A >> "free" >> license is a copyright license. >> > > The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary).  The free > licenses we use a

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, > liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste! > And now I really, really feel it was wasted! > Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you > <

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

The Cunctator writes: > No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A > "free" > license is a copyright license. > The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the >> Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary >> dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyri

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Mike Godwin hett schreven: > My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the > Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary > dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with > regard to the rationale for their decision

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" license is a copyright license. On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are > copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no log

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Thanks, MZ! On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Mike Godwin wrote: > > Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you > > . > > Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice > to know i

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Mike Godwin wrote: > Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you > . Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there! MZMcBride ___ fou

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

masti writes: It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :) > It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity. > This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted lo

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > George Herbert wrote: >> If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere >> between "please do not be silly" and "Stop this or we will block you >> for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] )". > > Read this th

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:06 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Cary Bass wrote: >> It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get >> rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the >> same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800 >> hits a da

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Cary Bass wrote: > It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get > rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the > same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800 > hits a day from people receiving shock image links). Links are ni

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

George Herbert wrote: > If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere > between "please do not be silly" and "Stop this or we will block you > for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] )". Read this thread before making such claims. The English Wikipedia did h

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

> > Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's > > not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation > > It is not "common sense" to depend on the relationship between the > project and the hosting organisation when dealing with free content. > downstream

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

George Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > >> Marcus Buck 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > Marcus Buck 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 Sw

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

The related issues have been discussed on Commons, Enwiki, and Meta, at various times and places in the past. There is a legitimate concern that the inclusion of non-free logos is bad for reusers. On sites like Commons, which are expected to be exclusively free content, it also creates confusion

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: >... > Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's > not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation It is not "common sense" to depend on the relationship between the project and the hosting organis

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Is the argument about reuse? That downstream reusers of Swedish Wikipedia content can't freely reuse the Wikimedia marks, so they shouldn't be included in content intended to be freely reusable? This is perhaps a silly question, but can the logos not be released under the same license as everything

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Marcus Buck 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 t

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

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 f

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On 29 March 2010 22:42, George Herbert wrote: > This seems to me to be an extremely strange and unusual interpretation > of the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images.  I am not aware of > anyone else having brought this up on other Wikis. There are occasional attempts to remove Wikimedia im

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :) It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity. masti On 03/29/2010 11:36 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: > Hello, > > After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( > http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrun

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: > Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this > topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first > language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of > you find this discussion strange? Or are Sw

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: > Hello, > > After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( > http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar), > the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed "u

[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

Hello, After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar), the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed "unfree" (since they are copyrighted) and have since been removed from the