We’ve got that covered. As for the arguments, there’s no reason to meet them because they’re the same talking points the FSF has used for years. They’ve always been ignored by everyone, so I decided to go for something else.

Oh god, truer words have rarely been spoken on this blog. Both sides are annoying the crap out of me, which is why I rarely post either on this blog or on certain other pro-Windows sites. All I wish is to follow up on updates on the industry and sane viewpoints, not pure flamebait about Apple when preaching to the choir (!), stuff like that. This is just a continuation on that path — to skip the arguments and instead go on about the FSF not including a footnote about the Windows logo being a registered trademark of Microsoft. It’s obvious to everyone why the FSF article was picked on this site, but couldn’t the arguments have been met instead of sidestepping the issue in this childish way? I’m not even sure AeroXperience have attributed all the various logo, image, and product name trademarks properly when used on this very blog.

I’m fully aware that the Creative Commons is a completely separate entity from the Free Software Foundation, and it’s not like we always do pro-Microsoft pieces either. Granted, most of what I’ve written is biased in favor of Microsoft, but I’ve still posted some articles which were designed solely to point out (what I believed to be) flaws in Microsoft’s products.

having said that, Jason is also right in noting my request for a lawyer to comment (even if there’s a “I am a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer, and you can’t consider what I write as legal advice” disclaimer).

I didn’t know FOX News asked for corrections from people more knowledgable, stitch Bryant is asking for a lawyer to step in and clarify, and you didn’t say you were, so what makes your view any different from his?

Second, the FSF is not violating their own license. It’s not even THEIR license, Creative Commons is an entity independent of the FSF. There is no intellictual property theft taking place here, the microsoft logo recreation was consulted to a 3rd party. There are significant differences, that, one could easily determine it is unaffiliated with Microsoft. If you still don’t understand it, think back to writing college papers, and plagarism rules, this is “original work” and does not voliate CC licenses.

Now whether or not it voliates a trademark, that is an iffy subject. Technically it does, unless they put a footnote. Now Microsoft has pretty much made that flag into a symbol of popular culture really. Ask anybody on the street and 9/10 of people you ask will likely know that flag means Windows. What they are doing is really the same as calling a tissue a kleenex, calling a bandage strip a band-aid, calling geliton jello, and calling ibuprofen advil. It also goes along with Target stores, they have the bulls-eye trademarked, and, lately they seem to have been doing business with strictly that bulls-eye, dropping the target. Does that mean if I re-create a bulls eye somewhere Target has a right to sue? No.

Bryant, all that said, you should apply to write for Fox News, as you do a good job at writing biased crap. While I NEVER 100% agree with the FSF and that I wish people would stop drinking the *nix kool-aid, I also wish people would stop drinking the MSFT kool-aid and accepting every piece of software they put out as a “good” thing, it’s not and most of you people are too stupid to understand why it’s not.

The logo is so close to the current Windows 7 logo (hardly any transformation committed at all) that it’s not covered by fair use, so my argument about the logo still stands. They can use the logo in a criticism, parody, or satire, but if there’s not enough of a transformation done to the logo itself, it endangers fair use.

Rhys, this blog post is completely relevant as someone has to counter the lies spread by the FSF. C|Net did it, DownloadSquad did it, and Softpedia did it as well because it was completely justified.

Everything I wrote was based on my understanding, and Amos hasn’t changed a thing in my mind because he isn’t actually a lawyer.