2009/8/14 Robert Rohde <[email protected]>: > In the specific case of "Bob the flower", the bigger problem is that > no one has been actively defending its use as a trademark. The more > examples of use there are unaffiliated with Mediawiki, the more > difficult it would be to assert that it is a trademark representing > Mediawiki. It is also unclear who would be in the position to > authorize the use of such a trademark, i.e. who would own the rights > to the mark.
Looks like WMF doesn't claim it as a trademark either, so I'm actually just wrong about that :-) The MediaWiki logo is GFDL+CC-by-sa (originally just GFDL) with no trademark claim listed on the page, as other Wikimedia logos have: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki-logo.png Tournesol.png is GFDL, may be CC-by-sa as well (unless it's definitely past eligibility): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tournesol.png > PS. Since when did the flower have the name "Bob"? Since this thread, as far as I can recall ;-) Presumably in reference to angryflower.com. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
