csherlock(a)ljh.com.au wrote:
Personally, I think we should remove the image. We
don't *need* it so we
can just remove it. The article might not have a nice graphic, but so
what? The license is too constrictive. I might even list it on Images
This is nuts. Here's the license, for anyone just tuning in:
---begin license---
IPU Logo License
Version 1.0, November 18, 2003
Copyright (c) 2003, Tim Ahrentløv (ta(a)invisiblepinkunicorn.com)
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use, with or without modification, for commercial and
non-commercial purposes alike, are permitted provided that the IPU logo
is used to represent atheism.
THE IPU LOGO IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE IPU
LOGO, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
--- end license ---
1) While you're trying to delete the image because of its
extraordinarily liberal license that poses NO practical problems for
either Wikipedia OR anyone copying Wikipedia's content, ANOTHER IPU logo
sits at [[Image:Ipu.gif]] and is linked in the article with no license
at all under "fair use".
2) This license is, very similar to -- and if anything MORE liberal than
-- any restrictions on trademarks, and we happily used trademarked
images ALL THE TIME.
3) We use many, many copyrighted images under "fair use" that fall into
the category of "questionable but probably fine". In this case, it's not
questionable at all. This image is avalible to us under a perfectly
reasonable license.
If we're going to start rejecting images avalible to us under liberal
and trouble-free but non-GFDL-compatible licenses while accepting images
that our rights to are questionable, people are going to think we're
idiots, and they're gonna be right.