On Oct 30, 2014 6:06 AM, "James Alexander" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Allan J. Aguilar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:15:17 -0500 > > Yana Welinder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To address Allan's question, this does not affect the trademark > > > status of the logos as governed by the new trademark policy: > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy. > > > > > > > Thank you, Yana. > > > > However, as someone who understand little about copyright and > > trademarks, for me it is difficult to understand how can a logo be used > > commercially and not at the same time, and how can a logo be edited in > > any but at the same time it only can be published according to specific > > visual guidelines. > > > > Are the logos Free Cultural Works (as defined by Erik Möller on > > http://freedomdefined.org) or not? > > > I don't think Erik was completely thinking about trademarks when he wrote > that but I would say no, essentially nothing covered by a trademark would > completely meet that definition. (and there would be major issues in my > mind with not covering our major logos by trademark) Even the Creative > Commons logos doesn't (for that matter I don't think the CC Logo is even > under a CC License, at least not a by-sa one).
The license is clear, and wmf is an expert in these licenses . So a previous trademark is void in the respect where it restricts what is defined in the license? Rupert _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
