11:53:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the
foundation
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> The initial letter from Isenberg (isn't that where Saruman lived?) is
> almost entirely about trademarks, so you can understand
2009/4/24 Michael Snow :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/4/23 Michael Snow :
>>> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
>>> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
>>> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
>>> Andr
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/23 Michael Snow :
>
>> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
>> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
>> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
>> Andrew Keen, which I suppose fit
2009/4/23 Michael Snow :
> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
> Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the performance art
Mike Godwin wrote:
> David Gerard writes:
>
>> They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the EFF
>> into playing along.
>>
> This is precisely my own take on the situation.
>
It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
their site in the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material
> to work with, though, which is unfortunate.
>
There's always a risk associated with engaging with any kind of performance
artist. These guys aren't quite at the Borat
2009/4/23 Mike Godwin :
> David Gerard writes:
>
> They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the
>> EFF into playing along.
>
>
> This is precisely my own take on the situation.
I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material
to work with, though, wh
David Gerard writes:
They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the
> EFF into playing along.
This is precisely my own take on the situation.
--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: h
2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton :
> Very true. You have to balance starting high enough that you have room
> to come down with not appearing unreasonable. It's a difficult
> balancing act, and I'm not sure you got it quite right this time.
> Perhaps you could have requested they make wikipediaart.org into
2009/4/23 Mike Godwin :
> If they had transferred the domain name over to us, we'd have paid all their
> expenses and forwarded requests for some period of time to any new domain
> name they chose to register. There are other alternatives we might have
> considered as well. But, take my word for it
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> The initial letter from Isenberg (isn't that where Saruman lived?) is
> almost entirely about trademarks, so you can understand why people
> would think that was your concern.
Sure, that makes sense. But the Board's resolution had to do
2009/4/23 Mike Godwin :
> Nathan writes:
>
> Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
>> underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
>> pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?
>
>
> I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to
Nathan writes:
Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
> underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
> pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?
I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to the recent Board
statement on trade
2009/4/23 geni :
> "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
> it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
> usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
>
> While I would regard t
2009/4/23 geni :
> "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
> it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
> usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
>
> While I would regard t
Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?
Nathan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM, geni wrote:
> "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademar
"Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
While I would regard the title of the article as mi
17 matches
Mail list logo
