On Sat, December 6, 2008 21:35, Thomas Dalton wrote:
You could, but would it really be appropriate? You
have the license to
use the trademark, but not permission to speak on behalf of WMF. Since
it is WMF's page being blocked it should really be WMF making a
statement - there isn't much WMUK can say other than that it appears
to be happening and they don't support it and then go on to spend
twice as much space making it very clear what the relationship is
between WMF and WMUK because you just know it will be being reported
in the tabloids as an official WMF statement within hours.
The way that I negotiated the trademark agreement does, I believe, permit
me (on behalf of both organisations) to speak publicly on this matter
should I wish to do so.
The bigger issue at this exact moment *is* this exact moment. It is late
on a Saturday night and realistically the next news cycle that we could
get in to is not until Monday. As such it may be premature to announce
anything further at this present moment whilst further investigation is
carried out. eg. why this particular album cover but not Houses of the
Holy? What other pages are blocked? Indeed, why is not just the image
blocked but the whole page as it would be as easy to block the image only?
etc.
Incidentally, you say "not much longer", how
much longer does WER have
to live? As I understand it, you are currently in the 3 month waiting
period to make sure no-one objects to your being dissolved, but I
can't find any details on when that period started. How much is there
left to run? (It doesn't make a great deal of difference, there is no
real need for WER to cease to exist before Wiki UK can get recognised,
but it would still be good to know.)
I'd have to check back as to the publication date (when it was 'gazetted'
to use the precise term). For practical purposes though WER will hold the
licence until WUK is ready to take it on (losing limited liability status
for an organisation doesn't stop that organisation being able to exist in
other forms, as it were)
Alison