Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gnomelogo.svg

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.

This file was initially tagged by Matr4x-404 as Copyvio (Logo) and the most recent rationale was: "If you are a third party and want to use the GNOME logo, you must first must obtain written permission from the GNOME Foundation." - {{URL|https://foundation.gnome.org/logo-and-trademarks/%7CGNOME Doesn't meet SD criteria. Yann (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment We have a ton of these in Category:GNOME logo. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete For the afforementioned reason. We also need to delete all the other logos of GNOME. Furthermore, Gnomelogo.png was deleted for the same reason, so think should be deleted as well.
  •  Keep The wording in question is in relation to the trademark usage (usually in relation to other project usage), not the copyright license. In the past, it has been clarified, by Karen Sandler (former GNOME Foundation Executive Director and general counsel for the Software Freedom Center) that the GNOME logo is licensed under a "free copyright license". The GNOME Project also currently has this logo as published under the GPLv2 in at least one project. It's not possible to mix non-free copyrighted material with a GPL-licensed project, and so its usage around the various GNOME projects would necessarily make GNOME non-free software. In short, in order to comply with a non-free logo, GNOME would have to either A) Remove its own logo on its projects or B) Re-license its software to be non-free. So, you can see how it makes little sense for them to have a non-permissible copyright. Brianreading (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per Brianreading. --Yann (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]