Category talk:Wikidata logo proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"freely licensed proposals"[edit]

Er... Maybe it was not a good idea in the first place to ask people to upload to Wikimedia Commons if you did not want the content to be free... Jean-Fred (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's not perfect indeed but it's the quickest we could do that is also used in the community. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
My point was rather: Commons makes you release the stuff you upload under a free license (in the sense that we allow you to upload stuff if and only if you consent to a free license). You are bound to have logos uploaded under a free license in these conditions. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It is really good that the proposals get uploaded and freely licensed on Commons. That way we have a freely licensed logo - not the (pseudo)copyrighted shit that we have with the other Wikimedia logos. Copyrighted (or copyfrauded) logos for our free projects are a ignorant idea. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Consequently, I have corrected the note on the front page a bit and warned a user regarding four unfree files. ;) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but I have to revert that edit. You cited COM:PS and it say that files that are of use for other Wikimedia Projects are fine to be hosted here. This is clearly the case. The Wikipedia Logo for example is also uploaded here. If you have suggestions about how to properly indicate the license of the ones that do not have one yet then I am happy to help make this happen. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
For other projects, yes. That is regarding scope - not regarding license. The Wikipedia Logo is tolerated as official WMF logo (like some other WMF copyrighted / copyfrauded logos). Those here are just proposals. The license of the logo proposals has to be a free one - just like all Wikimedia logos should be freely licensed (but that is another topic). Thanks for understanding our mission. You may want to read about Wikimedia's copyright politics and the relation to the community in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/04#Relicense_of_Wikimedia_logos (and the sections linked therein). --Saibo (Δ) 13:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just one question, will the wikidata logo be copyright by the wikimedia foundation ?

  • yes → Files should be uploaded with {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} (but not everybody uploaders know how to because uploadwizard avoid this case fortunately)
  • no → Files should be freely licenced (including PD-text logos)

Regards, Otourly (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway we should keep in mind that Commons is not a temporaly file hoster. Otourly (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok after some more discussions with lawyers it is apparently ok to upload the proposals under a free license. I'll let the people who didn't add a license know. Please don't delete them for now. Thanks! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice - consequently, I have readdded the revised header version. All files are freely licensed now - except those two have problems: File:20120409 wikidata10.svg, File:Wikidata - logo proposal.svg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you please clarify what is wrong with the second one? It seems to have licensing information now. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Right - in the meantime it got a license which was added by the author. --Saibo (Δ) 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I contacted the creator of the remaining one again now. Hope he can fix this soon. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok he added a note here: (reposting here because it might not be too obvious). Is this ok then? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)