Thomas Dalton wrote: > > "Dog" isn't strongly associated in the public psyche with a particular > brand. "Wiki" is. Like I say, these are complicated issues of legal > interpretation and really should be left to the lawyers. > > > If there is any party with dibs on "Wiki", that would be Ward Cunningham, not the WMF.
Also it is worth mentioning that the MediaWiki software is not a trademark or anything remotely like that of WMF. MediaWiki serves a huge community of which WMF is just the literal butt-end. Sure, as a single site WMF is t e h biggest. But it still in toto is dwarfed by the userbase in whole. In terms of dilution of trademark of WMF properties, you would pretty much have to take a WMF projects name and use it as a part or whole of what you were offering. Just using "wiki" doesn't come close to meeting that standard. Ward Cunningham I think famously said that an encyclopaedia built over his software might be something novel, but it wouldn't be a "wiki"; so we should really not be too tight-ass about things, if Ward was laid-back to deliver a keynote at a Wikimania anyway. Getting Ward to deliver a full brimstone and hail Jeremiad against misappropriation of the term "wiki" is the best that you could ask for in the particular instance discussed here. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
