On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 03:47:21PM -0500, Joshua Griffith wrote:
Hello Peter,
I never put much thought into it and simply wanted to give the logo to the community.
Perhaps it's a good idea to make that explicit. Let me know what license would be most convenient and I'll release it under that license.
I'd say one of the CC licenses would probably be the most
straightforward, but I'd of course also like to know what others in
the community think.
Wikipedia is very restrictive in the types of licenses they allow:
They don't accept works that don't allow commercial use or that forbid
derivative works, so one of: CC0, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA would be fine.
Using the Free Art license is also allowed. Putting it in the public
domain is also sort-of allowed. They don't allow GFDL-only licensed
stuff anymore.
Of course, if Wikipedia requires specific permission from me to upload the logo, you have it.
Thank you. They're mostly concerned with redistribution and
modification ("remixing") by third parties though.
The full story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Copyright_and_licensingTheir docs are confusing, contradictory and just generally hairy.
Sorry to drag you into this bullshit :(
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth