On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Mike Godwin <mgod...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that >> Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: >> >> "I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to >> reuse the Volvo logo >> without a license." > > Not quite. I think Sv.Wp is doing the right thing but with the wrong > justification. And I was trying to say I don't think downstream re-users > should infer the appearance of the Volvo logo on Sv.Wp that they have the > right to reuse it as a public-domain image.
It is tagged by Commons as PD. If you don't believe the PD justification is appropriate, or opens us up to legal disputes, then we need to spawn a separate discussion about PD-text. > As I see the energy poured into the question of whether the Wikipedia should > use copyrighted and trademarked logos (which they are already licensed to > use!), I cannot help but agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the > Swedish Wikipedians have come up with a solution in search of a problem. The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of "free content".[http://freedomdefined.org/] The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable. The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content. If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l