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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo