Hi! I agree that Meta is good place for WMF-owned logos. At least many purist talks on Commons will be finaly resolved.
Eugene. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've started a discussion at >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_Copyrights >> regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a >> recognised chapter. >> >> Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are >> owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover >> images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters. > > For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more > than one shared media repository simultaneously. > > My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation > (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted > to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works. > > This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki > specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such > as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository. The latter is my > preference. Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the > shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various > logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects > exactly as they are now. > > I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content > outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories. > > -Robert Rohde > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
