[Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread geni
Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- While I would regard the title of the article as

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Nathan
Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner? Nathan On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Can a noncommercial critical website

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Oldak Quill
2009/4/23 geni geni...@gmail.com: Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- While I would

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Thomas Dalton
2009/4/23 geni geni...@gmail.com: Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- While I would

[Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Mike Godwin
Nathan writes: Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner? I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to the recent Board statement on

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Thomas Dalton
2009/4/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: If they had transferred the domain name over to us, we'd have paid all their expenses and forwarded requests for some period of time to any new domain name they chose to register. There are other alternatives we might have considered as well. But, take

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread David Gerard
2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: Very true. You have to balance starting high enough that you have room to come down with not appearing unreasonable. It's a difficult balancing act, and I'm not sure you got it quite right this time. Perhaps you could have requested they make

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Mike Godwin
David Gerard writes: They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the EFF into playing along. This is precisely my own take on the situation. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Thomas Dalton
2009/4/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: David Gerard writes: They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the EFF into playing along. This is precisely my own take on the situation. I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material to work with,

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Mike Godwin
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material to work with, though, which is unfortunate. There's always a risk associated with engaging with any kind of performance artist. These guys

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Michael Snow
Mike Godwin wrote: David Gerard writes: They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the EFF into playing along. This is precisely my own take on the situation. It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on their site in the meantime.

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread David Gerard
2009/4/23 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the sources on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Michael Snow
David Gerard wrote: 2009/4/23 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the sources on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and Andrew Keen, which I

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread David Gerard
2009/4/24 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: David Gerard wrote: 2009/4/23 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the sources on their wiki page drew a comparison

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009-04-23 Thread Geoffrey Plourde
List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:53:51 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: The initial letter from Isenberg (isn't that where