l jue 17-jun-10, Thomas Dalton escribió:
> De: Thomas Dalton
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: jueves, 17 de junio de 2010, 8:39
> On 17 June 2010 11:37, Peter Gervai
>
> wrote:
> > On
on 6/17/10 9:47 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow, this thread just needs to end.
>
> Nathan
Interesting, Nathan. "Needs to end" for whom?
Would you say the same thing if this were a live in-person discussion?
Marc Riddell
___
foundation
Wow, this thread just needs to end.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17 June 2010 11:37, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:25, Thomas Dalton
> wrote many things.
>
> My sidenote is that if you believe in what you say then you imply
> Wikipedia, Wikimedia and everything we have with 'wiki' string in it,
> and every method we use which described as
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:25, Thomas Dalton
wrote many things.
My sidenote is that if you believe in what you say then you imply
Wikipedia, Wikimedia and everything we have with 'wiki' string in it,
and every method we use which described as 'wiki-way of web
publishing' violates Ward's intellect
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 16 June 2010 08:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>>
>>>
Tardises are antiquated visual whatchamacallits, but not
even remotely "trademarks".
>>> Now y
On 16 June 2010 08:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> Tardises are antiquated visual whatchamacallits, but not
>>> even remotely "trademarks".
>>>
>> Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Check your facts:
>> http://news.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> Tardises are antiquated visual whatchamacallits, but not
>> even remotely "trademarks".
>>
> Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Check your facts:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2352743.stm
>
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 00:20, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 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 reas
On 15 June 2010 00:25, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 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
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> I happen to know there is an English phrase "Doctor, heal
>> thyself."
>>
>> You probably ANAL. But that doesn't stop you from FUDDing.
>>
>
> I'm an anal non-lawyer, at that! I may be spreading uncertainty and
On 15 June 2010 00:20, David Gerard wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 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 juri
On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I happen to know there is an English phrase "Doctor, heal
> thyself."
>
> You probably ANAL. But that doesn't stop you from FUDDing.
I'm an anal non-lawyer, at that! I may be spreading uncertainty and
doubt and something that is very uncertain
On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 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 appl
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 13 June 2010 23:33, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> If there is any party with dibs on "Wiki", that would
>> be Ward Cunningham, not the WMF.
>>
>
> Trademark law does not include an automatic right to "dibs" on a mark
> to the first person to use it. (At least,
On 13 June 2010 23:33, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> "Dog" isn't strongly associated in the public psyche with a particular
>> brand. "Wiki" is. Like I say, these are complicated issues of legal
>> interpretation and really should be left to the lawyers.
>>
>>
>>
> If t
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> "Dog" isn't strongly associated in the public psyche with a particular
> brand. "Wiki" is. Like I say, these are complicated issues of legal
> interpretation and really should be left to the lawyers.
>
What's relevant is that the WMF doe
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> "Dog" isn't strongly associated in the public psyche with a particular
> brand. "Wiki" is. Like I say, these are complicated issues of legal
> interpretation and really should be left to the lawyers.
>
>
>
If there is any party with dibs on "Wiki", that would
be Ward Cun
On 13 June 2010 22:28, Platonides wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 13 June 2010 19:04, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>
>>> But that's most likely not a trademark issue. There are doz-
>>> ens of cola brands on the market and few feature extracts of
>>> the kola nut, but th
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 13 June 2010 19:04, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> But that's most likely not a trademark issue. There are doz-
>> ens of cola brands on the market and few feature extracts of
>> the kola nut, but that doesn't mean that it is Coca-Cola's
>> right or
On 13 June 2010 19:04, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
You are aware of [[en:Wiki]] for a history of wikis and
WMF's part in it?
>
>>> In other words, the use of "wiki" predates wikipedia (wikipedia gets
>>> its name since it was a encyclopedia using the wiki system)
>
>
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I think everyone in this conversation is aware of that. Jiri said they
> were calling it "Wiki" despite it not actually being a wiki, which
> strongly suggests they are trying to associate it with Wikipedia
> (which is very commonly abbreviated to "Wiki" despite our attemp
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> You are aware of [[en:Wiki]] for a history of wikis and
>>> WMF's part in it?
>> In other words, the use of "wiki" predates wikipedia (wikipedia gets
>> its name since it was a encyclopedia using the wiki system)
> I think everyone in this conversation is aware of that.
On 13 June 2010 17:22, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> In other words, the use of "wiki" predates wikipedia (wikipedia gets
> its name since it was a encyclopedia using the wiki system)
(speaking only personally) The consistent WMF position has been that
"Wikipedia" is a proper name and a trademark - bu
On 13 June 2010 17:22, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tim Landscheidt
> wrote:
>> Jiří Hofman wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are aware of [[en:Wiki]] for a history of wikis and
>> WMF's part in it?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
> In other words, the use of "wiki" predates wikipedia (wikipedia ge
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tim Landscheidt
wrote:
> Jiří Hofman wrote:
>
>
> You are aware of [[en:Wiki]] for a history of wikis and
> WMF's part in it?
>
> Tim
>
In other words, the use of "wiki" predates wikipedia (wikipedia gets
its name since it was a encyclopedia using the wiki syste
Jiří Hofman wrote:
> One of the Czech online news services, Aktuálně.cz ( http://aktualne.cz ) has
> launched its own encyclopedia a few weeks ago. Links to the encyclopedia's
> articles are used in news articles on this server. That would not be anything
> strange if the encyclopedia wasn't n
2010/6/12 Jiří Hofman :
> The community is not unanimous. Therefore I would like to ask an
> international Wikipedia community for its opinion. Is it a violation of the
> Wikimedia Foundation rights?
The opinion of the community (local or international) is largely
irrelevant. It's not a matter o
28 matches
Mail list logo
