On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mike Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: > The Cunctator writes: > > >> No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A >> "free" >> license is a copyright license. >> > > The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free > licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. > And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make > sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we > distribute free content.
Most companies have a justification to use copyright to protect their logo. WMF's justification is to promote free content. But that doesn't make the logos free content. If I understand correctly, Sv.Wp is applying the same standard to Wikimedia logos as they apply to any other logo. > By the way, check out <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo>. I hope no one > thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo > without a license. That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license? -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
