Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Editing Talk:FAQ
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
re: What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? | re: What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? | ||
To my mind, the "main" or "proper" use of a trademark is to enable to "customer" to know who he is dealing with. | |||
Allowing a free for all use of trademarks and logos would negate these benefits to the "customers" (I will try and word this better later. | |||
To my mind, the "main" or "proper" use of a trademark is to enable to "customer" to know who he is dealing with. Allowing a free for all use of trademarks and logos would negate these benefits to the customers" (I will try and word this better later. | I have pondered recently the possibility of dual trademarks, one freely usable and one protected. Text versus graphic or logo based. So if you forked project foo, you could still call yours foo, but you would need to develop a new logo or graphical trademark. | ||
Does anyone see any merit to this idea at all? | |||
I have pondered recently the possibility of dual trademarks, one freely usable and one protected. Text versus graphic or logo based. So if you forked project foo, you could still call yours foo, but you would need to develop a new logo or graphical trademark. | |||
Does anyone see any merit to this idea at all? | |||
--[[User:Zotz|Zotz]] 01:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST) | --[[User:Zotz|Zotz]] 01:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST) | ||
I have added a few paragraphs in the FAQ itself. I hope nobody minds. Also, I apologize for the likely English mistakes in those additions! | I have added a few paragraphs in the FAQ itself. I hope nobody minds. Also, I apologize for the likely English mistakes in those additions! | ||
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 04:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST) | --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 04:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST) | ||
== How Will People Make Money? == | == How Will People Make Money? == | ||
Line 25: | Line 21: | ||
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:55, 14 June 2006 (CEST) | --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:55, 14 June 2006 (CEST) | ||
== What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? == | == What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? == | ||
Line 35: | Line 29: | ||
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:04, 14 June 2006 (CEST) | --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:04, 14 June 2006 (CEST) | ||
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. == | == What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. == | ||
See the [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition]. But spectrum is different from grains (seed rights, which could do with a license) and genetics (which is basically data) as it is a limited resource. | See the [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition]. But spectrum is different from grains (seed rights, which could do with a license) and genetics (which is basically data) as it is a limited resource. | ||