On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hi everyone,
As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated
version will become effective on May 25,
On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard, you removed some relevant language:
Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other
users and violate our rules,
On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Moving towards full IPv6 support is part of our responsibility as a
good Internet citizen, and this has been in the works for a long time.
It's never been an option not to do this as IPv4 addresses are being
No that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are
handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but
because it ii the way things are. And it is not at all particular to CU
issues. What really reeks of obfuscation is using words and
I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however
this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo
listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as
any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make
an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic
reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully
communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how
The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled
here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are
trademarks.
It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask
again in the way you did. It a debatable
Somehow this only replied to Nemo
Begin forwarded message:
From: birgitte...@yahoo.com
Date: July 23, 2012 12:27:56 PM CDT
To: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Federico Leva
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This
On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
Sources for the restrictions:
* http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
* PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
I really can't figure out the difference between your example
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor
The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you
struggled through it. Here it is again with copy-editing.
On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23
And here is the correct second link:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html
On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you
struggled through it. Here it is again
On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe
to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative
Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some
discussion on his question.
This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write
out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all
into snip fodder. That seems beyond
On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2012 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more
normal problem with
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere
I'm not sure what you mean by non-artistic, but if you mean purely
utilitarian, as
On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Snip
And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize
copyright on diagnostic
images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA
On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence
are diagnostic
images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays
The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. Your suggestion is not at
all practical for the fundraising team to implement.
Also it is terrible idea, which ignores the high costs of planning to hold
deliberations in a few months which is designed to nullify the results of
recently
I am not affiliated with Wiki Med. However as an American, Health to my ear
means scammy quacky bullshit that wants to pretend it is medicine for the $$$.
There are real reasons NY does not let an organization use the title Medicine
without approval from the medical board. And all those
On Dec 30, 2012, at 3:40 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the
April fundraiser being discussed?
It means multivariate testing in X languages is
24 matches
Mail list logo
