On 2/20/2010 11:32 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > On 2/20/10 10:46 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > >> Ray Saintonge, 20/02/2010 03:03: >> >>> That's stupid!!!! When these logos were submitted these rules to >>> appease small bureaucratic minds did not exist. Anyone making a >>> submission simply agreed that his submissions were under GFDL. >>> >> This is explicit since 2005: http://meta.wikimedia.org/?oldid=125186 >> And, Meta is not Commons. >> >> Nemo >> > yeah, and the logo contest was done before 2005, and at that time, if my > memory is correct, there was a little text under the SAVE button that > stated something such as "your modifications are under GFDL". > > So, in reality, any edit made at that time followed the rules of > modifications of the website, and were gfdl. Unfortunately, later, the > rules changed and the obligation is now to put a tag ON the description > page. That does not mean that all the content put on meta before 2005 > suddenly became copyrighted because the rules changed. > > IF these images are considered copyrighted, then the entirety of meta > content written between 2001 and 2005 is copyrighted and it is probably > best to entirely delete it. > > > To be honnest, I am tempted to be bold and to add a tag "GFDL" on all > image description page. THAT WAS THE EDITING RULE at that time. > > Ant > I would not object to anyone putting a GFDL tag on all of these images!
Cary _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
