On 21 February 2010 11:15, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities
jurisdiction and given into hands of professional lawyers or at
least people who had
On 21 February 2010 10:30, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Anthony wrote:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Do we agree with the idea, that at that
time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not
Definitely not. You were supposed to release
On 21 February 2010 10:33, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge:
Probabilistic arguments are difficult to establish when the majority
still believes in legal certainty in the same way that it
On 20 February 2010 23:01, 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, that logo
If these potential logos are not on a free license, as you suggest (and i
have no reason to assume you are wrong), then they should certainly not be
moved to commons. Meta seems like a correct place.
If the rules of meta can be changed so that these copyrighted images can
stay hosted there?
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Anthony wrote:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Do we agree with the idea, that at that
time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not
Definitely not. You were supposed to release uploads under the GFDL, *if
you were the copyright owner*, but not
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge:
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 -
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities
jurisdiction and given into hands of professional lawyers or at
least people who had copyright law practical training.
While I don't agree that we need to
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't agree that we need to take this away from the community
and hand it to a team of lawyers, I must say that the practical training
caught my eye.
Would it be possible for the Foundation to get Mike--and other
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Anthony wrote:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Do we agree with the idea, that at that
time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not
Definitely not. You were supposed to
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover if the orignal copyright
owner transferred the copyright to Foundation - Foundation do no need
to follow GFDL when using the logo - but it cannot forbid to use the
logo by others if they follow GFDL and do not
: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia
history ! (urgent)
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities
jurisdiction and given into hands of professional lawyers or at
least people who had
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
-- Forwarded message --
From: Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com
Date: 19 February 2010 21:19
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
An editor on META is having the crazy idea of tagging all historical
logo
2010/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com
Date: 19 February 2010 21:19
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
An editor on META is having the
On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I know the actual logos are trademarked, but the proposals aren't. If
these are creations by Wikimedians, then hopefully they are under a
free license. They should be uploaded to Commons and organized, if
so!
-Chad
For the most
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:52 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I know the actual logos
Till some moment, all updates were assumed under GFDL ... or it was
said you agree to release your upload under GFDL with your pushing
this button or something alike. No tagged old images could be legacy
from that era. For more details, see related mediawiki files' past
revisions.
Cheers,
On
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 or harry that
randomly finds
32 matches
Mail list logo
