On 29 April 2012 13:14, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 13:08, Harry Burt wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews > > <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts > > > does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem > > > to spell that out. Perhaps it should. > > > > > > Charles > > > > As I understand it, there used to be a general concern that the only > > way the GFDL could be held to be compatible with pseudonymity was if > > there was a 1-to-1 mapping between pseudonyms and human beings. > > > > I'm not sure that was ever actually looked into, since it seems to me > > that many-to-many would be just as good, as long as you realised and > > confirmed you were asking to be attributed with a vague identifier > > (like 99% of humanity does when it picks a name someone else already > > has or had). > > > > > Given trademark law, I'd say a corporate name like "Disney Inc." is > significantly more rigid than a personal name like "John Smith". People > don't tend to sue you if you call yourself John Smith quite so much as they > do over using the names of multinational conglomerates... > > -- > Tom Morris > <http://tommorris.org/> > > Except that the line between a trademark and a personal name is incredibly fine: think about the likes of John Lewis, Cath Kidston and W.H. Smith.
Deryck > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
