On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com 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
2010/2/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com 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
K. Peachey wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
K. Peachey wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted
On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/2/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted
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 if we
2010/2/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/2/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions
On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com 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?
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 specified
2010/2/20 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com 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
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
2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
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
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/2/20 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Evidence? :-) Is there any formal document of Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees which says,
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
