File talk:Firefox.png

GFDL image?

Based on the link given the image is release under GFDL v2.1 or later, does that affect it's use on a GFDL v1.2 wiki? --Kakarot 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No since it says "or any older version you prefer". Dominator Matrix 02:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Where? All I see is "or (at your option) any later version" --Kakarot 02:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's that I just rephrased it. Dominator Matrix 04:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LGPL is a copyleft license, if I recall copyleft licenses are compatiable with the GFDL. I just read up on the LGPL and I do believe that it is complatiable with the GFDL. [1] [2] [3] So the licensing should be fine. --Shadowphoenix 06:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just out of curiousity why is this derivative image able to be used on a GFDL wiki whereas another derivative image isn't? What I mean is that this image is based on the Firefox logo (which has not been released under GFDL) in the same way that the other image is an image based on a character owned by Nintendo (also not released under GFDL) so therefore both images are merely derivitives of non-GFDL released copyrighted images. Also both images were created by third party members one by hand and one by computer so why treat them differently? I know it's been a while since I had to deal with copyrighted images but it's just confusing how we can have two images which are in more or less identical situations (being non-GFDL released content uploaded to a GFDL wiki) and one is allowed and the other isn't. Lastly I am in no way saying that that Piplup image should be allowed it is just merely an example.
Also I meant to reply earlier Dom but how is changing "or (at your option) any later version" to "or any older version you prefer" merely rephrasing it since one says it is released 2.1 or later and the other says 2.1 or earlier? Not really important with Shadows reply although it might affect replies to this comment. --Kakarot 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a design difference between this and the firefox logo, which doesn't happend in the case piplup v/s the world (i mean, the other is just a carbon copy of the original image). In any case, you would need to ask a lawyer where "inspired in" ends and where "copied from" begins for cases like this.

(added)By the way, why not using the w:Image:Deer Park Globe.png image which mozilla uses also for Firefox?--Fighterdoken 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I realized the fact that the Piplup image is a copy whereas the Firefox logo is different that the original but it is still too similar that it could cause problems. Argh this is why copyright can be so annoying, the easiest way to solve this would be to just remove both images but a far better solution and something that should of been done already would be for Mozilla to simply release the original logo under GFDL. This is also why I didn't just tag it copyvio. --Kakarot 03:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to totally disagree Kakarot, this image is completely different than the FireFox logo, the image is reversed, the colors are different and the overall porportions are different. No company whether they are non-profit or not are going to release their logo design to GDFL, nor should they be expected to imo. The piplup drawing is a reproduction of the copyrighted image. If this image were a reproduction of the Firefox logo then it would also be an issue. -- Wynthyst 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is a copyright violation in that case is a matter of the laws where you live in. Where i live, the logo would be in infrigment if it where used for a product on the same line as the original (ie. it couldn't be used for software, but it could for clothing or as a way of "reference"). In any case, like i pointed above, there is also that "other" image that Mozilla allows to use when the product is not brand named (image which appears to be released under GPL or something simmilar), so maybe we should switch to that one just to be safe.--Fighterdoken 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Wyn, the overall design is different that the actual FireFox logo. USing different colors, and a different over all design. It is original work made by a Commons user I believe (may be Wikipedia), since tbh the only thing similar is the Fox's tail made of fire it's face is not even the same as the FF fox's (and in that you cannot see). If this image was a copyvio, the Commons would not have allowed the author to license it under the LGPL; they would have made the author change it to Fair Use. --Shadowphoenix 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is Fighterdoken, we are not using it to promote a similar product, we are using it to promote the ACTUAL product, none of this would be happening if Anet would allow us to use 'Fair Use' in copyright. The globe you speak of is ugly, and bears not even the remotest resemblance to the firefox logo, so if that becomes the norm here, my FireFox notice box will go without an image period. Quite simply, this image was released under GDFL on Wikipedia so it IS no questions asked acceptable.-- Wynthyst 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the simple fact is that the wiki is not in my country, so the "a simmilar product" more than likely doesn't apply. Leaving that aside, not that the globe image i speak of was released by mozilla itself to identify non-branded navigators based on its source code.--Fighterdoken 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)