Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Apple sues greengrocer over apple-shaped logo->

Submitted by
David Gerard
David Gerard writes "Apple is fiercely protective of its trademark — some would say over-protective. In their latest winning move, they've sued Woolworths in Australia over its new logo (which looks like a green pumpkin). Woolworths is, of course, a supermarket ... it sells apples. No word on whether Apple will sue apples for existing."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Image uploads are restricted (Score 1) 572

by morven2 (#28766363) Attached to: Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

I believe you can upload to Wikimedia Commons ( without article edits. Pictures placed there can be used by any Wikimedia project (including all the different language editions). You might want to try there -- or as David Gerard said above, put them on Flickr tagged CC-By-SA and put a comment on the talk page saying "I have these photos; could someone upload them?"

Heck, do so and email me; I'll put 'em up. (

Comment: Re:Mr. Avenaim doesn't get it... (Score 1) 572

by morven2 (#28766341) Attached to: Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Every contribution to Wikipedia is copyright by its contributor. Wikipedia owns the copyright to almost nothing on its site - only those portions created by employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

What they do demand is it must be released under a license that allows fairly liberal re-use. No 'non-commercial'. No 'internet only'. No 'wikipedia only'. You can demand that your work be attributed and you can demand that derived works be licensed under the same terms as the original. Few other restrictions are acceptable.

Comment: Re:Freedom versus high quality pictures (Score 1) 572

by morven2 (#28766319) Attached to: Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

If anyone told you this, they were badly misinformed, or you're not describing the situation accurately.

Wikipedia does not require you to give up your copyright or ownership; what they do require is that you license your images under an acceptable free license (the exact details of what's acceptable are on the site somewhere). You can definitely retain the right to be attributed as the creator of the image. You can also insist that any re-user must release their derived work under the same license.

In general, the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (CC-By-SA) is the simplest and most common of these licenses; you can read its terms at if interested.

Did you, perhaps, wish to have some other constraint on the images, for example restricting re-use (permission only for Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial use)?


+ - Wikipedia's 2008 donation campaign kicks off-> 1

Submitted by
David Gerard
David Gerard writes "It's that time of year again: Wikipedia needs your money. The Wikimedia sites don't have ads — it all runs on donations. This year, the Wikimedia Foundation is hitting the theme that Wikipedia, the most popular Wikimedia site, is useful to you every day so deserves your support. The goal this time is six million dollars, which is approximately nothing to run a top 10 site (#8 on Alexa, #4 on ComScore). They're at almost $2 million so far. There's blog buttons and radio/podcast PSAs too. The site had its greatest traffic ever on election night, falling over for a short time under the strain."
Link to Original Source

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.