No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" license is a copyright license.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are > copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's > plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the > Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to > claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they > thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just > intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does > everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The > Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible) > and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia > logos be any different? > > Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone. > > Marcus Buck > User:Slomox > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
