Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:GNU head

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:GNU head

[edit]

According to http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html the GNU head is not free. To quote: "If you want to use the GNU head to link to a website run by the Free Software Foundation or the GNU project, feel free, or if you're using it in contexts talking about GNU in a supportive and accurate way, you can also do this without permission. For any other requests, please ask licensing@fsf.org for permission first." This is also reinforced at http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html where at the bottom it states "The GNU logo can be used verbatim in contexts talking about GNU in a supportive and accurate way. For permission, ask licensing@gnu.org". This is not compatible with Commons.

Isn’t this one different enough? --AVRS (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I am the author of the GNU Head ascii art. I released it under CC BY-SA and talked with John Sullivan about that when doing so. It's even mentioned in the bottom of the Free Software Supporter, by the FSF, that it is released under CC BY-SA 3.0 US http://www.fsf.org/free-software-supporter/2011/december --Christopher Webber (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unlisting it as unrelated. Platonides (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

russavia (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see my comments above ...Genium (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion
Hello. It seems clear to me that this point is not about copyright, it is about Trademarks! The following page is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License, including the logo. : http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html + http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html
This means that the logo is valid to use here, since the logo is part of the page. IMO, we just have to add the Trademarked" flag
The official website is full of samples : you can read on this page that this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later version) — Why this license?.... the logo is part of the page again...
we can't examine each image in detail, because your claim says that all those pics have to be deleted because one file is not free. This clain seems not correct to me since the logo is part of a page that is under a valid Creative Commons lisense; the notice is clear, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license, what you are saying is about trademarks, which is not the same problem... Best regards. Genium (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


MOST if not ALL the GNU head symbols are used in connection with the GPL/LGPL/FDL licenses. Which is allowed without any permission: "If you want to use the GNU head to link to a website run by the Free Software Foundation or the GNU project, feel free, or if you're using it in contexts talking about GNU in a supportive and accurate way, you can also do this without permission." Just don't forget to add License icon-gpl.svg, License icon-fdl.svg, License icon-gpl-3.svg, License icon-gpl-4.svg and their derived works as well.
More seriously, the copyright owners are the authors of the various logos. The copyright laws do not grant the owner of the original logo (in this case, the Free Software Foundation) copyright on every instance of its logo. The logo is indeed a trademark of the FSF, so it can be marked as {{Trademarked}}. C.f. Logos of companies associated with computing.
My suggestion: deny the deletion request, but mark the relevant files with the {{Trademarked}} template. – Fuzzy – 08:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion :) If I understand you correctly, we have to delete all the GPL/GFDL/CC templates on each page at the same time ? Genium (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just mark the files with the {{Trademarked}} template, as done with other commercial logos. This deletion request is invalid. – Fuzzy – 08:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Genium (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The old page [1] explicitely said the Heckert GNU head it was available under the Free Art License. Platonides (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sent a ticket asking for clarification. Platonides (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake derived works and inspired works. The original GNU head is trademarked and copyrighted by the FSF. Other GNU's are new works, inspired by the original work. They are not derived works, nor copyright violation of the FSF. However, they do violate FSF's trademark, hence my suggestion for the {{Trademarked}} template. – Fuzzy – 22:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
As an admin on Commons, I can tell you that I do not mistake derived works and inspired works. There are a couple, like below, which are not derivatives, which I will keep, but the rest need deletion. russavia (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a "common" user, I agree I'm not an authority. However, you should consult others, as you are clearly mistaken (consider the idea-expression dichotomy concerning the issue at hand). – Fuzzy – 07:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You are completely wrong. The file is FAS/GPL licensed by the author. – Fuzzy – 10:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the problem here is to know who has the rights of the image; according to the Heckert’s mail, he accepts the free use of the image but he says that he has donated it to FSF (he has renounced to image’s rights). Image is licensed under Free Art License that claims: “2. Scope: This work is subject to copyright law. Through this license its author specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute, and modify it.” And 2.3 “The author(s) of the original work may give you the right to modify it under the same conditions as the copies.” FSF claims “The GNU logo can be used verbatim in contexts talking about GNU in a supportive and accurate way” and this is because I said above that image is not compatible with Commons policy. If the image is licensed under GPL is necessary to demonstrate it. Heckert’s mail does not clarify if he released the image under GPL license before he donated it to FSF, if not, now we must utilize the image under FSF conditions. A mail to Free Software Foundation may help us at this issue.--SirWalter (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It matters not if Heckert has licenced his image under a free licence, for it is a derivative of Etienne Suvasa's work, for which there is no evidence of ever being released under a free licence. A derivative of a copyrighted work can not be released under a free licence if the original work was never released under that licence, for it is a copyvio. russavia (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Then, problem is solved, it is assumed [4] [5] that work of Etienne Suvasa is released under GPL. I think so.--SirWalter (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, we on Commons have COM:PRP, and let me put this in context of this DR. The licence at this link is only valid for the image by Gerwinski, not the image by Suvasa (who is supposedly the original author of the gnu head). There is still no evidence that Suvasa ever released their original under a free licence. russavia (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: WTF? O_o
To avoid redundancy from the users that said above (licenses and stuff), I should also mention that GNU logo and its variations are widely used in whole Wikimedia, and it seems absurd to request mass deletion, and the consequences this would entail. Amitie 10g (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment the FSF just replied with ticket:2012061010004907. The Gnu head is in fact FAL, and the Heckert version is not considered a derivative work. so, um, yeah. Time to close this. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Unfortunately, this doesn't resolve the matter, as the ticket in itself is hugely problematic. Particularly the stance that the FSF is taking with Etienne's work not being assigned to the FSF, but rather being licenced to them to use (not necessarily under a free licence), but at the same time the FSF taking the stance that they are free to sub-licence that work. For all we know Etienne has granted FSF a restricted licence to use his GNU head, and because the rights were not transferred to the FSF, the FSF is unable to simply turn around licence that work as if it was their own. Also, the Heckert work is clearly a derivative of the original Etienne Suvasa work, so talking of any licence by Heckert is pointless, if we can't ascertain that the original Suvasa work was under a free licence, and from that ticket, it appears the original work was not made available under a free licence. russavia (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment First, show the ticket that are you referring to everybody could be a good idea. Second, if is not clear what kind of license has the work of Suvasa, the verdict should be deletion, according to policies pointed by russavia. Third, considering the global usage of the files (remember that all files under GPL license shows the gnu head as GPL reference) is neccesary delete them when an inmediate replacement has been available.--SirWalter (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2012061010004907 is still open. Please advise if any further action of the support team is required in this case, i.e. if anything more can be discussed with the FSF. Otherwise I'd like to go ahead and close the ticket. Thank you. --Krd 16:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether there is anything more to do by OTRS, not whether the received information is sufficient to keep the files. --Krd 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Nard, the ticket doesn't confirm the licence, as it does not cover the original Etienne creation, which all others are a derivative of. Krd, there is nothing more to do with this OTRS ticket; unless someone can get a clear release from Etienne, which hasn't happened in two months now. russavia (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without divulging private information in the ticket, having an work licenced (and not necessarily under a free licence, and as opposed to having copyrights transferred) does not give the licensee the right to sub-licence that original work under any licence that they chose. Any sub-licencing of the original work, and its derivative works, can not infringe on the rights of the licensor. OTRS from FSF isn't required; it's required from Etienne Suvasa, who is the ultimate copyright holder. russavia (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I want FSF to provide more info (say, a copy of the original license agreement) on how exactly Etienne licensed it to FSF, and whether he actually gave the FSF sublicensing rights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Info There is an update in the ticket from 16 Aug 2012. OTRS members please have a look and advise. Thank you. --Krd 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FSF have clearly stated that Etienne has given the FSF a broad license which includes sublicensing rights. I will take their word for it, as FSF is not your normal OTRS client who might make stuff up.  Keep King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket received an update that the FSF updated the licensing information on the pages for both of those artworks to include the following "It is available for use under either the GFDL 1.3, the Free Art License, or under CC-BY-SA 2.0. It is, however, also a trademark for the GNU Project". Please verify. --Krd 06:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No consensus to delete, and it appears that this is being handled by OTRS. FASTILY (TALK) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:GNU_head&oldid=77928717"