On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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/] I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right. > 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 issue, though, is that there's no specific problem at all associated with the appearances of the Wikimedia copyrighted and trademarked logos in the contexts in which they are used. *In other words, all this attention has been focused on a problem that has never occurred with regard to the images in question.* I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. What seems to me to be happening here is a kind of nervous insistence on a very simplistic kind of ideological consistency, which, if it were followed further along this extreme, would threaten to make Wikipedia unusable. Consider for example the famous quotation mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance . 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. And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. > 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. > This is perhaps too broad a use of the word "understandable" than I am used to. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
