Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. Strong arguments in both support and opposition of this proposal have been presented.    FDMS  4    22:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Please also read Appropriately Licensed FAQ before commenting

Commons licensing policy currently asks uploaders to not pick impractical and unsuitable licences, such as the GFDL, GPL and LGPL, as the only licence choice for images. This proposal takes this further to disallow new uploads where the licence choices are impractical for reuse because they are inappropriate for the media type. Such licence choices, once a necessity, are now only being made by those who wish to restrict reuse of their work. This does not help Commons build a repository of free content. Our aim is to ensure all content is usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. This proposal is an application of the requirement for all Free Cultural Works that users can "legally and practically exercise" their rights, without the need to contact the owner or consult a lawyer.

We propose to add a new "Appropriately licensed" section to Commons licensing policy, and to add appropriately licensed as part of the definition of what is an "acceptable licence" on Commons. The key text is highlighted in colour.

• New subsection: Appropriately licensed

That a licence is considered a Free Culture Licence per se is insufficient: it must also be appropriate for the type of media it is licensing. Specifically:

1. The licence must be worded such that anyone can see it is clearly applicable to the media type, without bending the everyday meaning of terms used by the licence.
2. The licence does not impose burdens beyond those permitted that make it impractical for the media type in typical publication formats.

Some licences are clearly worded only for specific types of works. Historically, licences have been used for inappropriate media types because there was nothing better. This situation creates uncertainty and doubt for the re-user, who depends on the applicability of the licence in order to not foul copyright law. Examples:

• The GFDL was designed for software documentation. It clearly and explicitly applies to "textual works". It does not clearly apply to single images, or to sounds or video.
• The GPL was designed for software programs and libraries. It clearly and explicitly applies to a "program" having "source code", "executable code" and being able to be "run" or "executed". It does not clearly apply to plain text, images, sounds or video that is not a software component.

Some licences are written with requirements that are not a burden for the media format they are intended for, but become intolerable when the licence is used outside of this domain. Example:

• The GFDL and GPL both require that the entire text of the licence be reproduced along with the work being reused. For large printed works, or text files on disc, this is not a significant burden. For hypertext works on the web, a hyperlink meets the requirement. However, short printed texts, printed images or images included as part of a slide-presentation or included in a documentary, are examples of media formats where the GFDL/GPL licence reproduction requirement is an impractical burden. The licence text is 3,700 words, 6.5 pages of small text or 50 PowerPoint slides.

• Addition to the definition of Acceptable licenses

New works uploaded from dd mmm yyyy must have an appropriate licence for the media type (as defined above) in order to be acceptably licensed. Existing works on Commons are unaffected (grandfathered) even if inappropriately licensed for the media. The owners of such works are encouraged to add an appropriate licence. As exceptions, certain derivative works are permitted for upload:

• Works that are derivative of existing inappropriately licensed works on Commons may be uploaded provided the new work is no more restricted, in terms of licensing, than the source work. For example, a crop of an existing image.
• Works that are derivative of other works that are themselves appropriately licensed may be uploaded if the copy-left/share-alike terms of that work do not allow the use of a licence appropriate for the derivative work. For example, screenshots of GPL software must be GPL.

LATE NOTE: (20 June 18:50) The above clause doesn't handle GPL software logos and icons that are uploaded in their original form (i.e. not derivative works). Nor does it handle images published off-Commons with GFDL/GPL licences that we may wish to import. These issues, and the exact wording used here, can be resolved later without deviating from the principle of appropriate licences. This is a wiki, after all. Colin (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The section "Note: The GFDL is not practical ... are not really suitable for anything but software" can now be removed, as this supersedes it.
• The GPL, LGPL, GFDL and "Open Data Commons" are removed from the list of preferred licences. Generally these are inappropriate sole licence choices for material on Commons.
• The CC0 option be added to the list of preferred licence choices.
• As currently, once an appropriately licence has been chosen for the media type, the owner may add whatever additional licences they wish. For example, the common practice of CC BY-SA + GFDL is fine.

Discussion

It is time to move on from the inappropriate legacy licences that were the only choice when Wikipedia and Commons began. Commons users have had appropriate licences for their images, videos and sounds for quite some time. Commons policy and guidance strongly discourages the use of inappropriate sole licences, stating that their flaws make them "counter to Wikimedia's mission". I believe there is a place for commercial photography, where copyright is enforced and image use restricted in order to make a living. But Commons is different and is a place for people to donate their images to the community with no strings attached. We should no longer accept uploads where the licence choice is made in order to discourage reuse, to vet reusers and to discourage commercial use. Please read the FAQ before commenting on this proposal. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Strong oppose GFDL was and is a free License. And in some Points GFDL is more free than cc-by-sa (Attribution). There are some Homepages in the World, who are under GFDL, there need this License. --Ralf Roleček 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You ask, on your talk page "What's better? a Photo with GFDL in full Resolution or in CC with 800x600?" This is the question many pro/semi-pro photographers ask. They have an image they feel has commercial value to them that they'd like to exploit, yet also want to donate it to Wikipedia/Commons. A CC-NC licence, such as is popular on Flickr, can't be used on Commons. It is obvious here that the "GFDL in full Resolution" option is being considered because it exploits the fact that the GFDL is not a free licence for images and hard to use commercially: it is a poor substitute for -NC. The answer of course is "CC with 800x600". As any microstock site will tell you, 800x600 is plenty resolution for web use and can be printed 3"x2" and it is a useful size for Wikipedia, being larger than any thumbnail and detailed enough to show the subject. Naturally, we'd want the photographer to be more generous but it is still a good donation. The GFDL "donation" is an illusion and inappropriate for a free content site like Wikipedia or a free content repository like Commons. Colin (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal in principle. There are better alternatives to GFDL for the vast majority of works uploaded at Commons, and I don't think GFDL should be considered sufficient licensing for future uploads. -Pete F (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In some cases, output or screenshots from the running of a GPL or LGPL licensed program (such as a game) can themselves be under a GPL or LGPL license -- or at least some people think that. This would have to be explained and addressed before the policy change could be made... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The point you make is addressed by the proposal and the suggested wording changes to our licence policy. I agree screenshots of GPL programs need to be GPL (unless the program author's release them under another licence too). Colin (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, twice yes, a thousand times yes. Inappropriate licenses are a burden to reusers, they are a whim of some photographers who go against the spirit of Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons is a flagship of the free culture movement, the embodiment of freely reusable media for anyone, a bottomless well from which to endlessly draw what one needs for any purpose. It is time we enforce what has always been the unspoken rule here − free media as in free, not as in not-really-free. Thanks Colin for making it happen. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Of course. Full support. People will repeat it until they are blue in their faces, "GFDL is a free license"... but not one for images. It is a wrong choice. And some "homepages" with poor licensing choices should not hold us back from finally getting rid if the GFDL image cruft. --Dschwen (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Probably needs more discussion on the details, but I definitely support in principle. Kaldari (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Full support. I don’t want to repeat everything that I said in earlier discussions (1, 2); but would like to quote what FSF says about suitable free licenses for different types of works:

• "The GNU Free Documentation License: The GNU Free Documentation License is a form of copyleft intended for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifications, either commercially or non-commercially. The latest version is 1.3."
• "Licenses for Other Types of Works: We don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must be free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License."

I think they said it plain and clear that GFDL is not recommended even by the creators of that license for artistic/creative works. So we’ve to either use a CC, FAL, or any other suitable license if available. JKadavoor Jee 03:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So this time my  Support is per Richard Stallman. JKadavoor Jee 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Unconditional support. This is a well thought out and mature proposal, which address all flaws/oversimplifications in previous moves/attempts to go in this direction, such as this.
  1. The proposal is not singling out a single license, but rather addresses the issue that a license, although free, should also be practical for the chosen media type.
  2. The proposal is aligned with FSFs recommendations regarding "suitable free licenses for different kinds of works".
  3. The proposal does not require any changes to be done to previous uploads (done in good faith) having licenses, which are not appropriate for the media type.
  4. The proposal allows for deviating from the principle in the special cases, where this is practical/relevant.
     • Derivatives works of inappropriately licensed material is allowed to have the same license
     • Screen shots, etc of GPL-licensed SW.
  5. It fixes the problem, and not the symptoms. (I.e., the rule to disallow GFDL only in COM:FPC is trying to provide medicine for treating a symptom, disallowing licenses which are not appropriate for the media type fixes the problem.)
• In summary, great proposal, Colin! --Slaunger (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Full support. Our project will survive only if we remain, all faithful to our philosophical values​​: the free sharing of knowledge. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Full support. Per Colin, Dschwen and others. --Cayambe (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Free licensing has moved on a long way since Commons started, and the old print licences have long been an anachronism. This is an excellent and well thought out proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, yes! Also, it should probably be mentioned somewhere that double licencing a file under an -NC licence and GFDL would make it unacceptable (yes, this does happen sometimes). odder (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Aggree that combination wouldn't be allowed because neither would be regarded as "acceptable" licences, and you need at least one of those. You can, of course, add as many unacceptable licences as you like (such as the common CC + GFDL dual licence). I think the policy explains this at present and this proposal would fit in to that. So I don't think we need to add more on this, but perhaps the current policy wording could be improved. Colin (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support This is what should have been done in the first place. Fix policy, not back door it through FPC with guidelines. While I have become disillusioned with the notion of "free cultural works" I at least respect that it is an ideal Wikimedia wishes to uphold. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support to this proposal. Licenses must be practical for reuse. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong support It's about time to close this loophole. If you're choosing GFDL-1.2 for the specific purpose of being able to restrict usage, then that is running entirely against our free content mission.-- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I support the proposed amendments. While we should grandfather previous uploads as proposed, we should require free licenses that allow practical reuse. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support It's been clear for quite a while that GFDL and GPL were not suitable for media, and that the limitations of these free-but-inappropriate licenses are being abused by uploaders who are trying to limit re-use to non-commercial purposes. I'm pleased to see such a well-written, fully-thought-out proposal, with appropriate exceptions for derivatives of works so licensed, and so I enthusiastically support this proposal as written. cmadler (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support We are supposed to be free content. This move will make sure that this is indeed the case. James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support ack NorbertNagel --A.Savin 16:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Isderion (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose it is still better to have "GFDL-1.2 only" images for our Wikipedia-projects, than nothing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alchemist-hp. Spencer (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't allow NC only or fair use either. Also see FAQ. --Dschwen (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I like this argument for its honesty, with no attempt to fool anyone into thinking that GFDL is being used for any other purpose than to (possibly) protect the (potential) commercial interests of a few photographers. It's the secret back-door -NC licence for those in the know. But it is an argument for the emotion rather than logic. If the logic held, we'd allow CC NC licences and open the door for a torrent of high-quality images for Wikipedia, taken by actual professionals. If the logic held, we'd be contemplating a dire drop in high-quality uploads to the project. In actuality, the handful of users who cling onto this licence have contributed a couple of hundred images in the last 12 months. A drop in the ocean. Both Commons and Wikipedia are free content projects (not "free to read" or "free to view", but "free to do what you like with"), knowingly accepting non-free content because we like some of it, or because we're wikifriends with the uploaders, is collectively hypocritical. Colin (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • On the issue of non-free works I would actually agree. But there are two issues here: 1) GPL, GFDL, LGPL are free licences. 2) We currently host nonfree files. So maybe a better way to fight against non-free media would be to insist that copyrighted works get moved to Meta? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per Colin. Kyro (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose GFDL is a free license. --Ralf Roleček 13:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Striking off the second vote to avoid redundancy. JKadavoor Jee 02:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

...for software manuals. It makes no sense for images. -- Colin (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And very good usuable in printed books. --Ralf Roleček 13:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

But you said there: "Oft werden scheinbar die Lizenzbedingungen nicht eingehalten, dies ist jedoch dann auch mit mir so abgesprochen. Was jedoch leider noch sehr häufig geschieht, ist dreister Bilderklau ohne jede Angabe von Lizenz oder Fotograf." JKadavoor Jee 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment; Colin says the GFDL "makes no sense for images". While he may have meant that the GFDL was simply a poor choice for images(??), one problem *I* have with it is that IIRC too many aspects of the GFDL *literally* don't entirely make sense when applied to images!

I remember- some years ago now- reading the GFDL and trying to figure out what it meant and what permissions were being granted and requirements made when the licensed work was an image in its own right, as opposed to the written documentation it was obviously designed for. I came to the conclusion that- regardless of ideology and its suitability for documentation- too many aspects of the GFDL literally didn't make sense, or were too dependent on interpretation, when applied to images and the like. (This is just an observation and not intended as a vote either way). Ubcule (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note that FSF had switched to a CC license for their web pages from the comparable GNU license: "This is the license used throughout the FSF web site. This license provides much the same permissions as our verbatim copying license, but it's much more detailed." So I can’t see much sense in Ralf’s argument that “"Wikipedia is available under GFDL and should be forever”. We should adapt a change when better alternative available; that we did here. JKadavoor Jee 15:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is still available under the GFDL. And also under CC. GFDL websites and books can contain CC (or FAL) images without problem. If the creators of GFDL (FSF) use CC for their images, that really says it all: there is no longer any need to use GFDL for images for any purpose. Colin (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Of course. For the sake of effectiveness and transparency. If there is a recognizable hole in our rules it should be fixed. Arguing that the hole is useful for the interest of some users is not acceptable in the light of Commons goals. Going on repeating that GFDL is a free license, when it is not for images, is irrational. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for your initiative Colin. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose In einer freien Enzyklopädie sollte man auch das Gefühl haben, als Mitarbeiter freie Entscheidungen treffen zu können, etwa, unter welcher Lizenz man seine Werke veröffentlicht. Ich persönlich verwende GFDL etc. nicht mehr, aber das war die erste Lizenz der Wikipedia und damals galt sie als frei. Wenn sie heute nicht mehr als frei gilt, dann hat sich offenbar etwas an der Einstellung einzelner Beteiligter geändert oder es sind neue Beteiligte hinzu gekommen, die die hergebrachten Grundsätze der Wikipedia nicht mehr mittragen wollen. Die Einstellung einzelner zum zwingenden Maßstab für alle zu ernennen, ist kaum mit meinen Vorstellungen von Demokratie und Freiheit vereinbar. Mir ist zudem jedes Bild wichtig. Wenn ein solches Bild unter einer "bösen" freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wird, ist das immer noch besser, als das Verbot und die Löschung oder die öffentliche Hinrichtung von Werken mit "bösen" Lizenzen. Vielleicht könnte man die Nutzer von GFDL etc. überzeugen? Wenn man gute Argumente hat, sollte das doch kein Problem sein. Oder muss das immer mit Zwang geschehen? Wollen wir hier freie Inhalte mit einem freien Geist erschaffen oder wollen wir uns mit Glaubenssätzen gegenseitig behindern und einschränken und alle die dagegen verstoßen werden gesteinigt? Schöne freie Wikipedia. --ST ○ 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose per Steschke. --CherryX (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why don’t we can allow to upload all files including licensed with “all rights reserved’’; making the end-user responsible to check the license prior to their use? Now people believe everything available here are either "public domain or freely-licensed educational media content". But those with a GFDL is practically not so free. JKadavoor Jee 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sind denn die Nachnutzer nicht verantwortlich für das, was sie tun? Wikipedia ist keine Versicherung gegen Dummheit, Ignoranz oder Dreistigkeit. Freiheit bedingt selbstständiges Denken und verantwortliches Handeln. Wer Nachnutzern die Fähigkeit zu selbstständigem Denken und verantwortlichem Handeln abspricht, sollte mal über sein Menschenbild nachdenken. --ST ○ 06:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Sorry if I misunderstand: using Google Translate] Well no, a "free content encyclopaedia" doesn't mean users have freedom to choose whatever licence they want. I think you are confusing personal freedom with the free-content mission of this site. Hence no -NC or all-rights-reserved. Our thinking on licences can evolve, to argue against such evolution is an argument without merit. We are pragmatic, not dogmatic. Hence, when GFDL was all there was, we used it but quickly realised it was inappropriate so developed CC and other licences suitable for images. We aren't proposing to delete any content, please don't spread misinformation. Nobody is "forced" to upload here and plenty reasonable people don't think this is a suitable place for their images due to our licence restrictions. That's fine. This isn't an absolute democracy: you can't vote to accept -NC or copyright-restricted or copyright-stolen images like some parts of the Internet want. Anything we do must align with the Definition of Free Cultural Works. This is imposed on us by WMF who own the site. And that definition requires images to be practically free. This proposal and discussion is for us to determine whether licences that make no sense for images and licences that impose onerous burdens on reuse and licences that are being abused to restrict reuse meet that definition. It is fairly clear that they don't, and there's no pragmatic reason to accept them any more. Colin (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Heute verbieten wir die GFDL. Was kommt Morgen, verbieten wir Bildbeschreibungen in nichtenglischer Sprache? Warum müssen immer einige Menschen über andere Menschen bestimmen wollen, mehr Macht ausüben wollen? Und natürlich ist die Wikipedia/sind Commons Projekte, die Ausdruck des Begriffs Freiheit sind. Nicht nur freie Inhalte, sondern freiwillige Autoren, Fotografen, Administratoren,... Dieses Projekt ist ein Beispiel dafür, was in Freiheit und durch Freiheit erstauliches entstehen kann, indem Menschen aus allen Ländern ihre Zeit, ihr Wissen und ihre Leidenschaft spenden. Ich fürchte nur, dass die hier erkennbar werdende Diktatur der Bürokratie diese Hoffnung auf eine bessere Welt erdrosseln wird. Heute löschen wir Bilder, morgen brennen Bücher? --ST ○ 12:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood. In fact, this proposal demands more freedom. JKadavoor Jee 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others." -- Isaiah Berlin. Commons prioritises the freedom for reusers of our content, not the freedom of photographers to use any licence they like (though they are of course, free to exercise that freedom elsewhere). Confused? Anyway, your reference to book burning has violated Godwin's law so I think it is time to move on... Colin (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Heinrich Heine lebte von 1797 bis 1856. Du hast offenbar keine Ahnung, wovon du schreibst. --ST ○ 13:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I  support removal of GFDL from the proposed-licenses-list at upload, but I  oppose to alltogether disallow it for new uploads. While Colin's rationale for this proposal is correct and comprehensible, IMO it's seen from a Commons-only perspective, which might be detrimental to the projects for whose benefit Commons was originally created, i.e. Wikipedia etc. (only few of them allow fair-use). For example, we (and they) would probably never had a photo of Theo van Gogh relatively shortly after being murdered, if I couldn't have offered GFDL to the licensor as a possible license. (Disclaimer: I don't use GFDL for my own works). --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it already isn't a choice on the Upload Wizard, but the folk who use GFDL aren't newbies and if we allow it then they'll use it. The perspective isn't Commons-only. Many people are under the impression that Wikipedia is a "free to read" website. It isn't. It is a "free content" website just like Commons. There is no cultural difference between the two. We need all content on WP, text and images, to be free for reuse by anyone for any purpose.

I don't buy your Theo-pic argument for accepting GFDL. You're admitting the GFDL is a restrictive licence and was attractive to the owner because of this. It inhibits commercial reuse of the image. That's just against what Commons is about and no argument for Commons. We aren't a news agency. There's a fair-use argument for such a tiny 269×326px pic but as you say, fair-use isn't universally accepted on WP and not on Commons. We're denied all sorts of newsworthy pictures because of our licence conditions and we live with the consequences of that. Folk can read The Guardian or BBC if they want news with pictures. Commons and WP aren't "free to read" websites like The Guardian or BBC, and don't have any budget to buy agency pictures for our articles. We're "free content" websites and this pic isn't "free content". Don't you agree? If it was "free content" your chap might not have donated it (we won't know). Yes it would be great if all WP articles had high-quality pictures, and we could do that if we were like The Guardian or BBC and paid for them and accepted copyright terms. But we aren't. Our case for persuading pros to donate (thumbnail like this) images under CC is much stronger if we have no back-door-wink-wink option. Colin (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, the Theo van Gogh pic has a CC licence due to licence migration. The argument still stands that the licence was intended to be restrictive. Colin (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

..because of our licence conditions ... we live with the consequences of that — 1) "our licence conditions" are not something God-given and this rfc intends to make them even more rigid, and 2) it's less we who have to live with the consequences, it's the other projects.

What I find in all such proposals so disproportionate is the fact that they put even more strain on and request more from the contributors, whereas most re-users of our works care a shit about even the most elementary attribution. If you like, take a look at the red-crossed entries in File talk:Blick aufs Mittelmeer von Juan-Les-Pins.jpg, a CC-BY-SA-licensed image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the licence conditions are God-given, or at least WMF-given and they own this site, not us. See Resolution:Licensing_policy. There is absolutely nothing anyone of us can do to change that. All Commons images must use licences that meet Definition of Free Cultural Works. All Wikipedias must follow this too apart from minimal changes in their "Exemption Doctrine Policy" which "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". That's effectively the Fair-use allowance that en:wp has. This proposal doesn't put "more strain" or "request more" of the contributor. It simplifies things. Really, those contributors who don't want their work to be freely reused by anyone for any purpose shouldn't be uploading here at all. The argument that some reusers don't obey licence conditions on attribution is not really relevant to the change here. The GFDL is no better at enforcing attribution. Colin (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

License abuse is a concern for most contributors; but I don’t know how that topic is relevant here. GFDL or any other license has no more preventive measures than a CC license in this regard. It seems the license abusers in your example are some bloggers and B class websites. But don’t neglect, or make the world difficult for our real end-users like Lacewing Digital Library or IGNOU who rely on our library for purely educational purposes. Consider this example. He compiled the book with pictures from many colleagues including a few from my gallery. Think; how it is possible, if they are licensed with GFDL? Please don’t neglect the mission of WMF for the sake of a few abusers. There are a lot of people begging for knowledge than food in many parts of the world. Institutions like Indira Gandhi National Open University makes all the efforts to provide higher education opportunities particularly to these disadvantaged segments of society. Our free contributions will at least reduce the cost of the study materials, they supplied. JKadavoor Jee 10:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I find the above suggestion disturbing: that pro photographs can be appeased by offering a secret restrictive licence but the great unwashed have to make do with free licences. We don't have two classes of contributor. Everyone has to accept the free-content conditions or find somewhere else for their pictures. There's plenty other places to show off one's pics, and they make a much better job of it too. The "benefits Wikipedia" argument for doing this only superficially attractive but only so if you have the wrong idea of what Wikipedia actually is: "Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation"[1] -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin, what do you want? Do you want to expel the photographers from Commons? --Ralf Roleček 10:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, no emotional comments. JKadavoor Jee 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect Jee when Colin continually uses emotive language when describing content creators who would wish to be able to have their cake and share it too? It is the unfettered commercial re-use of the creator's content that is at the root of the conflict. Much of that commercial use is not for educational purposes despite the shining examples you provided. If the commercial re-use was restricted to educational projects I doubt we would be here. It is easy to say suck it up this is WM policy... a policy that was set by a handful of people 6 years ago and one that continues to hold back the quality of submitted content. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Saffron; I meant it to both parties. I too wish if an educational use only license exists. In fact, it is only my area of interests. The existing CC-BY-NC is no way suitable for institutions who usually charge a small amount to meet the printing and paper costs. JKadavoor Jee 11:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well there's no getting away from this being an emotive subject. Your "their cake and share it too" phrase is a good description. Yes some people would like (and think WP would be better) if it had a "non-commercial educational-use" licence policy and had a budget to sue the pants off anyone misusing our content to make posters or bath towels or advertise iPads. I'm sure we'd have loads of pro photographers contributing content then. But we don't and that is not going to change. I don't see what moaning about misuse of images has to do with this proposal. GFDL is no more effective at preventing misuse. So please take that argument somewhere else as it isn't at the root of anything that concerns this proposal. Those who aren't willing to have their pictures exploited for commercial non-educational purposes are not obliged to contribute here. Perhaps there's room on the web for something between Encyclopaedia Britannica for £50 a year and Wikipedia's free-culture project. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don’t want to repeat the entire earlier discussions; but educational doesn’t mean non-commercial. In fact, most educational uses are at least a bit commercial. Further, I don’t think fancy posters in your bathroom or iPad covers are zero educational. At least, they make them more environment friendly. :) JKadavoor Jee 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to commercial use so long as its end goal is educational, but that is just me clinging to my guns and religion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - but I have reservations. There are many free software projects which, out of ignorance rather than an attempt to control their works, release both their code and assets like images under a uniform license like the GPL or other licenses intended for source code. Screenshots, which are commonly used in Wikipedia articles, often inherit these licenses. This change in policy would require us to seek a new license statement from such projects, which should generally be possible but would add effort, and may be difficult if the project is no longer under development. Likewise, there is old content on the web released under these licenses which predates CC and which we may wish to upload here - I would appreciate it if language were added to the proposal that permits uploads of "third-party works originally published on the web under a free license before June 2009 that have not been modified since that time." The date June 2009 is chosen somewhat arbitrarily based on when Wikipedia transitioned to CC-BY-SA. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of GPL programs need a GPL licence (unless released under another licence by the owners) and this is already covered as an exception. It is proposed to grandfather existing Commons content so I think it reasonable to extend this to existing off-Commons content too if published before a certain date and attempts to ask for a better licence fail. The details of how this exception could be permitted/implemented can wait. I'm reluctant to fiddle with the wording when people have already commented as there's nothing worse than a proposal in flux. I don't think this is a widespread issue for photographs: GFDL and GPL licences for photos is fairly peculiar to Wikimedia. Colin (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose  Support in general, although I think linking "uncertainty and doubt" to an article describing a propaganda technique (FUD) seems to impute evil motives to people using GFDL. That link should be removed. The expression "to foul copyright law" also reads oddly to me; I would expect something like "to fall afoul of" instead, or just replace "foul" with "violate" or similar. I disagree with some of the FAQ responses dismissing strong copyleft too. But overall this is a good proposal. --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of "fear, uncertainty and doubt" comes from the License Migration Task Force document. I added the wikilink and, following a review comment, dropped the "fear" bit. You are right, the FUD is not intentional evil motive but a consequence of a poor choice available. Those using it I'm sure would rather pick -NC or full copyright licensed to WMF in order to be plain speaking and direct about their wishes. Colin (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I oppose the proposal, having thought more about the drawbacks of CC licenses. Both GFDL and CC licenses have significant flaws, and I wish we had better options (e.g. explicit and robust strong copyleft). But GFDL may have some advantages over CC-BY/CC-BY-SA, and is not so much worse for most re-users that we should ban only its use (as a single license). --Avenue (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Many media file formats allow a text field that is large enough to hold the entire GPL license, making this element of compliance not a burden. For media which allow arbitrarily-sized unobtrusive additional data, complying with the GPL is not hard - just add the license as a comment. For example, JPEG allows multiple 64K comment blocks. What would this mean for images if this proposal passes? It would mean that the GPL would be considered practical for already-largish images in formats like JPEG that allowed "non-visible" text data large enough to hold a URL, but not practical for formats that do not and not practical for smallish image files. For audio, it would mean the GPL would be practical for formats that allowed for tens of kilobytes of text data but impractical for formats that did not and impractical for smallish audio files. Now, a separate question is whether the GPL is recommended for such formats. The answer is, as discussed above and elsewhere, almost always "no." Davidwr (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Though it may be possible to fit the license into the image, those licenses are still not appropriate for the media. Though I have not checked the license text myself in some time, from what I understand many provisions of licenses such as the GPL and GFDL make very little or no sense when applied to images. Zellfaze (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Túrelio (i.e. removal of GFDL from the proposed-licenses-list at upload would be OK). --Leyo 23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC) PS. What happens to GFDL on Wikipedia? If they could not be moved to Commons anymore in future, then I even vote  strong oppose.
  • Existing Wikipedia GFDL images could be uploaded to Commons per the Grandfathering exception for derivatives of existing Commons images. And images multi-licenced with GFDL (e.g. the popular CC BY-SA + GFDL pair) are absolutely fine for Wikipedia and Commons. Colin (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• I  Support to remove them in license list shown in upload form, but  Oppose DELETION or disallowance of new uploads. – Kwj2772 (msg) 00:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Commons needs more inclusiveness. Commons serves as a content provider of media file and we need more contents that is under free licenses. Disallowing new uploads that is not "appropriately licensed" even if those are under free license would make the contents pool narrower. – Kwj2772 (msg) 16:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose If I understood correctly this will disallow to upload images which are part of source code or documentation and are licensed under GPL or GFDL respectively. This is not acceptable in my opinion. It's totally sufficient to hide such inappropriate licenses from the default dropdowns so new editors won't pick them accidentally, but disallowing them completely is not the way to go. --Patrick87 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin asked me if I'd change my opinion if the proposed policy change was adapted to those cases above. But even then I still have to oppose. We'll introduce some very complicated policy (that will make it not at all easier for new and inexperienced user to pick an appropriate license), that would have to include many exceptions, but doesn't really improve upon the current situation (GPL and GFDL are rarely used anyway). Our best option here is to improve the upload wizards, so new users will never pick "inappropriate" licenses accidentally and are automatically advised which appropriate licenses are best used. All experienced users will never purposely put an "innapropriate" license tag if not absolutely necessary and they should have this possibility in future, too. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See my comment below. This is already not an issue. Colin (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is far from being not an issue. I assume you were referring to the part that GFDL was already removed from the wizard? It is, but still the dropwdown is a mess. Even I (quite familiar with licenses by now) would have a hard time to pick the license I want. A user totally unfamiliar with licenses will probably just pick a "random" one. Anyway this is not really the reason for my opposition as you might have noticed but only the way I would take instead of installing some restrictive and complicated policy. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If the perceived mess in the license selection dropdown is not the reason for opposition, then what is? It is explicitly stated in the proposal that

Works that are derivative of other works that are themselves appropriately licensed may be uploaded if the copy-left/share-alike terms of that work do not allow the use of a licence appropriate for the derivative work. For example, screenshots of GPL software must be GPL.

So, this proposal allows new uploads of source code or documentation licecsed under GPL and GFDL acoording to my understanding. Am I missing something? --Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not. Read the note Colin added to the proposed policy change today which should fix exactly these concerns I initially had. The reason to keep my opposition (even if the wording is changed accordingly) is part of my second comment above. First introducing an overly restrictive policy, and then adding many exceptions to it is just pointless. The current policy is fine. The two licenses in question are already used rarely so I do not see any urgent reason to prohibit them. Every file that might not get uploaded to Commons because of such a policy change is an unacceptable and irreplaceable loss however, which I'm not willing to risk. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support We really, really, REALLY need to simplify the license choices on upload, and each one you take off the default list is a good idea. Jane023 (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support While GFDL-1.2 is a free licence, it has been created for documentation and books and is not practical for images. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disallowing new images completely just because an unfamiliar uploader chooes a slightly wrong license is "not the way to go" as Patrick87 says. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support It's time to say goodbye to GFDL for new uploads. Files under this license are really hard to reuse. Wikimedia Commons is a media repository for the whole world, not only for Wikipedia & sister projects. Raymond 07:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  But Wikipedia is one of the most important projects! Gostbusters next round??? Goodbye Commons ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  Sure it is. But I do not understand your comment about Ghostbusters Raymond 08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  Ich antworte mal auf Deutsch: Ghostbusters, weil es immer und immer wieder passiert, dass gegen die freie Lizenz "GFDL 1.2 only" argumentiert wird. Diese Lizenz ist eine "freie Lizenz", Punkt. Wieso sollen ferner die Nachnutzer mehr Rechte zugebilligt bekommen als der Photograph selbst? Ich warte nur noch auf die CC0. Spätestens dann wird es hier Abschiede hageln. Wie geschrieben Commons ist auch für andere Nutzer da, GFDL 1.2 only Bilder dürfen auch genutzt werden. Commons ist eine Bilderbibliothek für alle mögliche Nutzungsarten. GFDL 1.2 only ist eine mögliche Lizenz. Es gibt viele Einschränkungen in sehr vielen Ländern. Man nehme z.B. Island etc., hier gibt es z.B. keine Panoramafreiheit. Das ist auch eine Einschränkung ... daher halte ich die Argumentationen gegen die GFDl 1.2 only für eine Geisterjagd oder "Die unendliche Geschichte". Grüße, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support This seems a really sensible and practical proposal. I never did see why some of the license types were permitted for images and other media. A strong, well thought out change that will strengthen, simplify and clarify the Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Alchemist-hp --Alupus (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose totally disallowing GFDL and GPL except for screenshots. Every reuser has different requirements for what licenses are acceptable; for some not even attribution may be practical, and e.g. giving the URL to the license as required by CC-BY and CC-BY-SA is probably also an unreasonable burden for newspapers with limited space. Some reusers might be ok with an attribution requirement, some with a license notice requirement, some even with republishing a long legal document like the GFDL. I am totally against disallowing licenses that are free (if they weren't, they wouldn't be allowed even if previously uploaded) just because some reusers might find the requirements impractical. In addition, the GFDL, in its definition of "Transparent Copy", explicitly says that it is usable and applicable for "images composed of pixels" and "drawings". What would be good is a possibility to filter categories by license or an extension to print the license on category pages so that reusers can easily find images with requirements reasonable to them. I do  Support re-thinking which licenses should be recommended in the upload form; in fact I would absolutely love to have {{Attribution}} in there, which I use for most of my work. darkweasel94 09:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • PS:  Question What do you think about {{BSD}}? Or about {{MIT}}? {{Apache}} is probably so long that it would also fall under this rule, but {{Beerware}} is pretty short so it probably wouldn't. What is the threshold? Are we going to set a maximum length of, say, 300 characters for notices that need to be preserved upon reuse? darkweasel94 09:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I think this is meant to be more of a common sense judgement. I don't see anyone putting a hard number on it. Personally I think the new BSD license is plenty short enough to fit the usability requirement, but likely would not fit the appropriateness requirement. Zellfaze (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's difficult to see what is a free licence and what isn't, so why forbid licences which are free? A lot of medias of commons are un-usable for a lot of application but they are free medias. --Paralacre (talk)

•  Comment People keep mentioning the upload form and the problem for inexperienced users. Look at both the upload wizard and the old form. The GFDL as a sole licence is not a choice available (unless one picks the "It is a free software screenshot" option, which is appropriate). So for people supporting the removal of GPL/GFDL from the upload form: this has already been done. For people concerned that new/inexperienced users will be confused about choosing an appropriate licence: this is not possible. They simply can't "choose" an inappropriate licence. The only people who can pick an inappropriate licence are those typing the template name of "GFDL 1.2 only" into the box by hand. These are experienced users who know they are restricting they reuse of their images. Inexperienced users do not read policy pages (we kid ourselves if we think they do). They will use the upload form and increasingly will use some mobile phone app. And these already prompt people to do the right thing. I don't think this proposal will cause significant admin work because the wrong choice can't be made accidentally, and the tiny handful of people who use the inappropriate licences would stop using them. Colin (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it would be a good idea to note this at the top of the page. I don't know that everyone will actually read this far down and I think it is something important to point out. Zellfaze (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose What about content first freely licensed outside Commons? One of my interests with Commons has been to make it "a repository of free content" (even though, per Wiki Signpost, apparently that's the wrong thing to do). I want to see broad thematic coverage by topics, and covering such topics from where I can find the media, not just "the collected works of Mattbuck" or other Commons-native contributors. This includes acquiring content from other places, most obviously projects such as Geograph. If those other projects are using GPL though, where does that leave us? Would their content (under an ostensibly "free" licence) now be excluded from addition to Commons? Discourage GPL by all means, when there's a free choice to be made, but we shouldn't exclude content merely for that reason.

Secondly, I don't like "derivatives [...] may be [...] no more restricted,"

If I draw a work from scratch, I'm entitled to CC-by-sa it and to have my own name glorified for all eternity. We accept this, it's a free licence. If I make a derivative work from PD resources, I should still be entitled to CC-by-sa it. No-one wants trivial crops to start becoming over-restricted, but this blanket ban is too blunt. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a factual correction: no, you cannot have your own name glorified "for all eternity", because copyright will expire even on free works. darkweasel94 10:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Geograph use CC BY-SA for images. In fact, virtually nobody used GFDL for images other than Wikimedia projects, and I'd be surprised if you can find anyone who still does other than us. If in some undiscovered dark corner of the internet, we find a load of old GFDL photographs then we can grandfather them in. This proposal doesn't remove common sense and a bit of pragmatism.

As for your attribution. You can do exactly as you describe. The PD work you are deriving from has an appropriate licence for Commons so you are free to impose a more restrictive (appropriate) licence on your derivative work. What that clause prevents is someone deriving from a work with "GFDL + CC BY-NC-SA" (which exist) and dropping the CC bit to leave only "GFDL". If the wording needs tweaking to help make it plain, then we can work on that. Colin (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of GPL (inc GFDL) content out there, still being newly created. Maybe not so popular for "photographs", but it is if you look at the CAD / 3D print world. Commons is about "media" in a broad sense and we shouldn't exclude creative design work of one form just because the main community for it has a view of typical licensing practice that's perhaps closer to the "software industry" viewpoint (where GPL is widespread as CC works poorly).

I would think that for CAD and 3D printed designs that something like the GFDL or GPL may be more appropriate? I've not read the texts of either in a while, but the proposal isn't a blanket ban on GFDL and GPL only a ban on them where they are not appropriate to the media. Zellfaze (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As to derivatives, then I think that "derivative works" have to meet a single set of admission rules, whether they're derived from Commons-hosted work, off-Commons-hosted work or (as is already common) work that's held in both places. This is just for clarity.

In this derivatives case, this new "no more restricted" constraint needs to be careful (see my concern above). Is it only to be applied to "pre-existing grandfathered works already on Commons" ? Is this applied to GPL work, or to GPL+CC-by-sa as well? Why would we consider a multi-licence like GPL+CC-by-sa to be "inappropriate" anyway? (if it includes at least one appropriate licence). I'm happy to have a constraint that says "new work onto Commons must meet the standards for new work onto Commons" (and for this to be relaxed somewhat in the grandfathered-source case). I'm not happy for this to be expressed as "no more restricted than" (i.e. I can't derive a CC-by-sa from a PD) because that's neither the problem we're out to address, nor an additional restriction that we ought to invent. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support unreservedly. Also, this is a very well-constructed proposal. Good work. — Scott • talk 11:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Question yesterday I couldn't get my head around the whole conversation, but today I'm cool with it.

So, tell me am I correct if I see it this way, there old licenses are generally being used to GAME the 'no NC' requirements. People can still do exactly this with large and sprawling BY-SA restrictions/templates/advertising, but they'd have a harder time of it because they have to be more open and high-profile about it. Basically, we're just getting people out of the closet about what they are up to, by taking away the single button 50 page requirement. Yes ? Penyulap ☏ 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of "People can still do exactly this" with a CC BY-SA licensed image? My understanding of the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence (section 4.c) is that attribution requirements are designed to be as reasonable as possible, and without the -NC clause, commercial reuse is very much encouraged. There's nothing stopping someone making strong requests of reusers, but they can't require anything other than what the Definition of Free Cultural Works says is a permissible restriction. Colin (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the non legal version. tell me, isn't it possible to ask for say, banners describing the author, and for those banners or images or whatever, to be the same size as the 50page thingy. I don't see it ruled out in permissible restrictions. Penyulap ☏ 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose I support if the policy would be applied only when the uploader is the copyright holder. --/á^(!) 12:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your oppose. Can you give an example you think will become a problem if this proposal is accepted. Thanks, Colin (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Like what Andy Dingley had outlined in his above comment. --Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume alos the GPL source code package we discussed above would be a perfect fit (but also every other image you find on the net with some free – but considered "inappropriate" – license. Right now you just go on and upload it with the original license (since you can't change the license as long as you're not the copyright holder; if you are the copyright holder you should use a better suited license for sure). If this policy would be accepted for each and every possibility of such a case an exception would have to be found which leads the whole thing ad absurdum. --Patrick87 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no there aren't many exceptions. The derivatives of GPL/GFDL works clause needs a bit of refining to allow original GPL/GFDL content directly taken from software/software-manuals/books that were quite rightly using that licence. But there's no intention to disallow sensible appropriate licence choices. Really, it isn't helpful to oppose over minor wording issues. It doesn't need to be perfect yet. This is a wiki. As for the hypothetical stash of GFDL/GPL photographs that aren't already on Commons, well I challenge you to find it and can be dealt with with the grandfathering concept. Really, it is frustrating to see opposes over hypothetical situations. Nobody uses GFDL/GPL/MIT/Apache for photographs outside of Wikimedia. As someone said elsewhere, "those are f***ing stupid licences for photographs". -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be hypothetical for you, it is every days experience for others (including me). It's already cumbersome to figure out if images have a free license at all. I don't want to additionally check if this free license is "appropriate for Commons". And please stop moaning. This is an RFC and comments is what you get. If you don't want to hear the honest opinion of editors you shouldn't do an RFC in the first place. Not everybody is of your opinion and some might have different priorities than you do. This is what RFCs are for (not to convince everybody how great ones's idea is, although those always sound great to oneself ). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please show us this valuable collection of off-wiki GFDL photographs that aren't hypothetical that you deal with every day. It is fairly simple really in practice. If it ends in *.jpg then it shouldn't be GFDL/GPL. If it ends in *.png or *.gif and is a screenshot, then it probably should be GPL. That's about 99.9% covered. And the upload forms/wizards prevent you uploading inappropriately-licensed material anyway. Colin (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are just a few for your curiosity: File:Texstudio Logo.png, File:Texmaker Logo.png, File:WinSCP Logo.png, File:Sumatra PDF logo.png, File:JabRef Icon.svg, File:Unison Icon.svg, File:Unison Logo.png. Your imagination of how file extension, content and licenses should correlate is much too simple and just doesn't work in real life. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Em, none of them are photographs. All of them are software components. See further up where someone raised the issue of uploading software components (logos) and I agreed this would involve a tweak to the wording. Really, all of those are "appropriately licensed". That's the principle we're discussing here. So I repeat my request, plus I have added a note to the proposal. Colin (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you assume were talking about photographs here? The policy you're about to change basically applies to all media that can be uploaded to Commons. That it restricts itself mainly to images is already an error that should be solved. The second part: I said it often enough now: Your proposed policy is overly restrictive in my opinion. Adding more and more exceptions and changing wording again and again does not solve this fundamental problem but is only some futile way to try to make everybody happy. It doesn't make the proposed policy itself any better but only shows up the flaws it contains. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at Animalandia - this policy would prevent further uploads of photographs, explicitly licensed GPL and really many of them are not available at commons. Lymantria (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For photographs? Perhaps not, I don't know, it's a bit hard to tell or prove if nobody uses some license for some kind of work. Software licenses are often used e.g. for icons, and it seems like not even that would be allowed anymore - nor files like File:Example texinfo.png (which is dual-licensed only because of our license migration). It may well be that e.g. {{BSD}} is a stupid choice for a photograph, but what is the problem if somebody does want to use it? It is a free license. Again, what is the threshold proposed for how long required notices are allowed to be? It seems that 47 bytes (URL to cc-by-sa) is OK for those who support this, but 18093 bytes (text of GPL version 2) isn't. All integers between these two are possible lengths for strings that may be required to be reproduced upon reuse. Where do you want to draw the line? There cannot even be a reasonable proposal until this question is answered. Let us please also remember that this is a discussion that concerns all Wikimedia projects, not just the limited subset of those who frequent Commons. darkweasel94 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

" what is the problem if somebody does want to use it? It is a free license." The entire point of this proposal is that, for photographs, there is a problem, and it is not a free licence in practice. Colin (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so the 3-clause BSD license isn't a free license in practice either. Seems like we've limited the threshold to somewhere between 47 and ~1400 bytes (varying for name of copyright holder). I know what the point of this proposal is - it's why I oppose it. CC-BY-SA can be too inconvenient for some reusers as well, and I have actually, when producing works for outside of Commons using Commons material, often avoided anything more restrictive than {{Attribution}} or even {{Cc0}}. CC-BY-SA can be a license that's "not free in practice" too, when you define "free in practice" to mean "coming only with restrictions reasonable for some particular use". Apart from that, I generally don't think we as a project serving the entire Wikimedia movement should impose a lot of restrictions that are more severe than those imposed by the WMF. And especially I don't think we should take into consideration what some uploaders of GFDL-only-licensed material happen to be motivated by. That is of absolutely no importance. I am sure that some people also choose cc-by-sa because it's the most restrictive CC license we allow. Reusers must simply check for themselves if the license fits their particular use case - that applies to GFDL as well as to CC-BY-SA. If we want to allow only material that everybody can conveniently (for their particular use case) reuse, then let us please ban everything but {{Cc0}}. darkweasel94 15:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The starting point for any Commons licence discussion is The Definition of Free Cultural Works which isn't negotiable. That lists Permitted Restrictions which include attribution that CC BY requires. You can argue that CC0 is free-er but CC BY is free enough. The Definition requires we allow commercial reuse and non-educational reuse and such reuse be practical. See the FAQ for Erik Möller's comment: they've asked us to determine this point. I don't know why so are so concerned about bytes: the BSD is a software licence too, so using it for photographs is similarly perverse and confusing to reusers. Colin (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And, clearly, having to reproduce a string that tells users about the license is also a permissible restriction (otherwise why are CC licenses - even CC-BY has this requirement - allowed?). The only difference between the GFDL and the CC licenses is the length of that string, which I am measuring in bytes. And yes, some licenses weren't intended for some types of media, but that does not mean that they cannot be used for them (the GFDL, at least, can, and says so itself in the license text) or that it is in any significant (more significant than CC licenses) way unclear how they work with them. darkweasel94 15:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Really, it is frustrating to see opposes over hypothetical situations."

Then you just shouldn't be drafting future policies.

I'm (by and large) a software developer, with a substantial past involvement in licensing (both media and software). I've also worked on bodies like W3C WGs. So my IM-H-E ain't quite so H. Only by careful consideration of these hypotheticals before implementing policy do you achieve a policy that doesn't blow up in your face afterwards. Hypothetical situations are crucial, because they're how we use our highly developed hominid brains to plan ahead in the abstract, rather than being entirely reactive. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've drafted three Wikipedia/Commons guidelines so I'm no newbie either. You make a fundamental mistake. This is a wiki. Which means we don't need to derail a policy proposal over some hypothetical. Now Commons policy/guideline pages are a bit less active than Wikipedia, but the idea that we must get it 100% right is totally alien to the wiki concept. We agree on some principles and some wording that looks ok. We go live. We tweak. Rinse and repeat. Also, the community has a tradition set in the Wikipedia policy of "Ignore all Rules". So supposing in three years time someone finds some cache of valuable photographs in GFDL and the photographer is dead and they want to upload them to Commons. Well I think we can accommodate that. And if we really want to we can tweak the policy then. So I appreciate the current wording doesn't handle GPL logos and icons well and should be tweaked to do so. But that is not a reason to oppose, just to add a caveat to one's support, should one feel inclined. Colin (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I have added a note to the proposal. Colin (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"I support if the policy would be applied only when the uploader is the copyright holder." – Good point; and we discussed it earlier. Chances that people may misuse it; but can be incorporated, if some people prefer it. What about these wordings: "Except for works of non-Wikimedians previously published elsewhere with a GFDL only license." JKadavoor Jee 15:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And how would you know if some web page author also happens to have an account on some Wikimedia project? I think nobody here knows my real full name, so if I uploaded some photos taken by me, with the EXIF data removed, to some webhosting service and wrote underneath them that they are licensed under the GFDL, how would you find out that this web page author is really me? Are you going to start some private investigations on Wikimedians' possible real world identities - just do be able to delete some photos? darkweasel94 15:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a workable suggestion. Really this issue is in danger of filibustering the proposal. Nearly nobody used GFDL for photographs. Absolutely nobody still does. This is a Wikimedia aberration. Anybody using GFDL for photographs in 2013 except under duress (we have no -NC option) needs their head examined. Let's move on. Colin (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why the GFDL makes it harder for commercial reusers than for non-commercial ones. They are all equally required to print the license text, so it does not seem even remotely similar to a non-commercial clause. darkweasel94 18:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

With CC-licensed works it is enough to "communicate the license terms"; i.e. a link to the legal code of the license is considered to be sufficient. --Túrelio (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that. That does not answer my question: why does that inherently concern commercial reusers more than non-commercial reusers? darkweasel94 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, consider you want to use an image on a physical item, for example a bottle, you can hardly put the whole GFDL code on that bottle. --Túrelio (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is true. But by the same token we could prohibit all CC licenses - while on a bottle there is no problem, if you want to use such an image in a newspaper, the small space beside the photo where attribution is normally put into (at least in my country) might well not be big enough for the license URL. If you want to create a logo from a freely-licensed image, then not even {{Attribution}} is reasonable. Every license except for PD/cc0 can potentially be unreasonable for some use cases. So if we want to use only licenses that are necessarily reasonable for all use cases, then we need to ban everything but PD/cc0. darkweasel94 19:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Darkweasel94, you are right, there is no principal difference other than that creators, which use the GFDL as a sort of educational use only license, often accept if the image is used without strictly adhering to the license for, e.g., educational purpose such as school work, but not for some use they "do not like", like some perceived big bad company. But this is counter to the WMF policy of allowing commercial reuse and the FSF recommendation that the license should be appropriate for the media type. --Slaunger (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

With every license a copyright holder might decide not to exercise his copyright. The GFDL allows commercial reuse just as much as the cc-by-sa license, only the requirements are different. And I don't see why we should be concerned with what the FSF recommends (recommends!!!). They recommend a lot of things we don't do or enforce. darkweasel94 19:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make it harder for commercial vs non-commercial: it hurts everyone. It is effectively the "Wikipedia-only" licence option. Nobody else would touch a GFDL photograph because you are on legally shaky ground (ask a lawyer and she'll advise to you pay $10 for a microstock image instead and not to bother her with such ridiculous things). Considering this a "good thing" for Wikipedia reflects a mindset that Wikipedia is "free to read" whereas it is actually "free content" just like Commons. Colin (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me tell you that I am totally in favor of the free content movement. I license most of my own images as {{Attribution}}. I am absolutely not one of the people who come here just to give images to Wikipedia (which I don't even participate in a lot), not to help the free content movement. But in my opinion the free content movement must not make restrictions on how long the strings that may be required to reproduce are for a license to be considered acceptable. Especially it must also not make freedom of a license depend on the uploading date. Doing these things is IMHO simply absurd. Either we consider a requirement of a license notice acceptable - then the GFDL must stay allowed, because that's basically the requirement that's "hard to comply with" that we're talking about here. Or we don't, then we'll need to delete all CC-licensed images too. And I do not consider it a good thing that people use licenses that are hard to comply with in some use cases. That does not mean I want to keep them from doing so on Commons. darkweasel94 19:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, as for what you say about lawyers finding this ridiculous - why would you say this is a bigger problem with the GFDL than with the CC-BY-SA? Just read the CC-BY-SA: It has similar length to the GFDL, and whether its terms are significantly less vague I don't know. darkweasel94 05:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not a computer program. Stop counting bytes. That version is the one for lawyers. The version re-users read is this one. The FSF don't recommend GFDL for images and don't use it. The CC is designed for Commons media. Colin (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That version is the only one that is legally binding. A reuser, especially a commercial reuser, is acting in a very negligent way if they do not read the actual license but just the deed. When we compare licenses, we need to compare the actual licenses, not just some human-readable summary. I could create a human-readable summary of the GFDL as well, would that mean anything? No. darkweasel94 08:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Strong oppose Ich verwende die GFDL bei meinen Bildern nicht aber wir begeben uns für die Wikimedia-Projekte ansonsten der Bilder all' derer, die ihre Werke nur unter der GFDL lizensieren möchten. Diese Bilder werden uns in zahlreichen Sprachversionen fehlen. Insofern führt ein Verzicht auf die GFDL nicht zu mehr Freiheit für die Nachnutzer (weil nämlich bestimmte Bilder dann eben nicht unter CC-BY-SA hochgeladen werden sondern überhaupt nicht) sondern zu weniger Freiheit für die Bebilderung von Wikimedia-Projekten (weil dann nämlich Bilder bestimmter Photographen nicht mehr hochgeladen werden). --Mogelzahn (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Suppose somebody published a license (I don't know if such a license already exists) that meets the definition of a Free Cultural Work. That license is explicitly intended for all kinds of creative works, including photographs and drawings. That license has a requirement saying that a copy of the entire license must be given to all its recipients when it is distributed; a URL does not suffice. If I read the proposal correctly, that would not be allowed. And then we are back at what I said before: what is the threshold for how long the strings that need to be published are allowed to be? Why is the string "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ok, but the string "Redistribution of this creative work is irrevocably permitted worldwide for any purpose without restriction provided that the above copyright notice, this license notice and the following disclaimer be distributed with it to all recipients.\n\nThis work is provided by the copyright holder without any warranty of correctness, fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk in using this work lies with you." might not be, depending on the threshold we're going to set? Or if this is still ok: the text of the GFDL is just a string that's longer. So again my question - what is the threshold you want to set? darkweasel94 18:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Really, nobody is interested in creating Free Cultural Work licences with onerous conditions. The GFDL wasn't intended to be onerous but it wasn't intended for images either. This is a problem that is not now ever going to happen. The drafting of CC v4 is going to make conditions even less onerous. The Free Culture folk are bending over backwards to make reuse as easy as possible, while respecting basic good manners like attribution. Please consider my comments about about hypotheticals problems and drafting a policy on wiki. We solve the problems we have. Tomorrows problems can be solved tomorrow. It is as easy as pressing the [edit] button. Colin (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you want to make a policy against licenses where compliance is too hard, then you have to define "too hard". Is that really so unreasonable? darkweasel94 19:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support This is a great idea, and will ensure Commons is useful to people who want to reuse and adapt images. – Quadell (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

have you read the terms of CC-by-SA the site Fredome defined specifically states the Copyleft/Sharealike licensing copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other...Copyleft licenses are sometimes even considered to be non-free because of the restrictions for redistribution of the works. and Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms if you think at removal of GPL/GNU/GFDL what about removing SA/Copyleft licensing to ensure people can reuse works. Gnangarra 12:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support let's make Commons more modern. Let's get rid of GFDL, GNU1.2, GPL, LGPL licenses in the upload form --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification: Those licenses can't be selected on their own in the current upload form! They are only part of some multi licensing templates offered. This proposed policy change is not about removing them from the upload form. It's about prohibiting them completely (despite the given exceptions). The upload form itself will not be changed at all (at least not in the first place). Multi licensing with one license being one of those you have given will still be possible. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not about getting rid of them completely - they can be selected as multi-licence if an appropriate licence is also chosen. On the upload form, expert users can currently type in the templates for GFDL if they want to (though it isn't an option in the drop down). Such expert users wouldn't do that once policy prevented it. Colin (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose This proposal is complete bullshit. -_- GFDL IS a free license. It fullfills all our requirements to a free license. Thus it would be an absurd self limition to permit the usage of the GFDL. Chaddy (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support It's time to end the practice of restrictive reuse terms. The long-term benefits outweigh a few disgruntled people. —Mono 21:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Support Make sure free content is free not just in theory only, but free in all practical aspects as well. --UV (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Reading through the above, by Colin's admission it is just a "tiny handful" of people who are manually applying the GFDL template. It is hard to see how this small fraction of contributors is going to harm the project significantly if they are allowed to continue. While GFDL may not be a great license for images, it is still a free license and some might prefer it if they think it better protects their rights and interests. I say, let them do what they want; it is better that we have the images than not at all. This proposal seems to be more about punishing people for insufficiently pure motives. Fletcher6 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not about punishment at all. It is about realising why we are here: to build a repository of content for anyone to use for any purpose at any time. See "An analogy" below". And those using the GFDL know and admit it is not a free licence for images (why those who don't use it keep repeating this "free licence" mantra I don't know because it fools nobody): its only remaining purpose on Commons is to restrict reuse. -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You conflate the reasons people actually use Commons with the goals of the Foundation. There may be overlap but they are not the same. People are basically self-interested and contribute to Commons for the value it gives them. Imagine, hypothetically, a "black box" project in which there was no browsing for contributors, no searching, no galleries, no way to add your images to other projects, no community to interact with -- you upload images into a black box which are then made available for re-use by unknown entities, including commercial users. It seems to me no one would use such a project because it would be no fun and give no value to the users, despite having the same mission of the Foundation. So while the goals of the Foundation should self-evidently be respected on Foundation projects, that doesn't mean those goals are the only, or even primary, reason people are actually contributing here. And some people are less comfortable with easy commercial re-use than others. Not everyone has to be the New Wikimedian Man you seem to imagine. The GFDL isn't the best choice but it's still a free license preferred by some.Fletcher6 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The goal of this policy change as I perceive it is to persuade users who would otherwise select an encumbered license like the GFDL to select a practical free license. While it is true that some users who now use the GFDL will simply walk away if we forbid it, others will cave in and use a CC-BY-SA or similar license, greatly expanding the scope of practical reuse of their materials. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose We may lose valuable images in the future --Mydreamsparrow (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See FAQ wrt -NC licences. Our prime purpose is not to collect images at all cost. But only free ones. Colin (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment An analogy Commons is like a hospital, and the photographers and illustrators that contribute here are the doctors and nurses. They are absolutely essential, and their needs and wishes are important but they are not the reason the hospital exists. The hospital exists to treat sick patients. If the needs of the doctors are elevated then the hospital would only open 9-5 and only treat nice clean sober people. While the doctors are vital, none of them is individually irreplaceable. The problem this proposal faces is that everyone voting here is a doctor. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free multimedia files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. If you want a repository designed for the wishes of photographers, try Flickr, 500px, SmugMug, etc, etc. This one's primary purpose is to meet needs of the reusers of our content. Colin (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you propose to create a hospital in which doctors and nurses would not be paid your hospital would need to have features to accommodate and draw the interests of people to work for it, and not to shun capable surgeons for being insufficiently committed to your ideals, while still serving the goals of the hospital. There is a balance to be made, then, not a rigid insistence on ideology. Fletcher6 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes true. Some reusers may have a problem with the GFDL because they find it too inconvenient. Some may just as rationally have a problem with the CC-BY-SA. Some may have a problem with the CC-BY, some with {{Attribution}} ... where does it stop? If we apply this logic consistently, let us please remove everything but PD or CC0 files. Rather than limiting which licenses can be used here, we should develop an extension that allows filtering categories by license. That way, every reuser can choose which licenses are ok with them and which ones aren't. What we could do is discourage the GFDL without prohibiting it: we could create a template "This file is released under a license that's inconvenient to reuse. You can help Commons by making and uploading a replacement under a more liberal license." darkweasel94 08:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fletcher6, while we have to find the balance, my point is the priories being expressed here that continue permitting GFDL are misplaced and forget our purpose. darkweasel94, I'm convinced you want a different Commons from what we have. We limit the licences we have here. That's the defining attribute of this site. The solution is not to have a search option "How free would you like your free image to be?" but to encourage folk to upload properly free images in the first place. Colin (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are convinced that this is what I want, then your conviction is false. It's you who wants to change something ("have a different Commons"), not me. What I want is that Commons is, as it is now, a repository of as many free educational media files as we can get. Where "free" means conforming to the definition of Free Cultural Works; not more and not less. All licenses have some requirements, and those of the GFDL are not more onerous than those of the CC-BY-SA unless we set a threshold for the length of the license notice. Of course it would maybe be good for everybody to upload only PD images - these are the only ones that really everybody can use no matter what their needs are, but that would be yet another different Commons. And a filter like the one I proposed would be convenient regardless of whether this proposal succeeds. CC-BY-SA can also be inconvenient for some reusers, so they may want to filter it out ... darkweasel94 12:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support per MichaelMaggs--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose As has been pointed out by several other users already GFDL is a free licence, the only restrictions that it applies are there to make sure that it remains free (i.e. copyleft). Recently I have learnt that CC licences require a reuser to publish the original title of the work. The problem, for example, is that I can publish the work as "Jews did WTC.jpeg", the reuser will then be required to make the reference to this title if they want to reuse the image. This is a problem for some people, but this does not mean that the work is not free. GFDL is the same, it is still a free licence, but it has some requirements (such as the requirement to let people know what freedoms they have). Sinnamon Girl (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A much better approach would be to push for the ability to quickly search by the licence. Let's say I need a picture of a goat that is public domain or under CC0, right now I can quickly find goat photos, but then I am forced to go through them one by one and look for the correct terms. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Your description of the extent of GFDL's restrictions is not true. Please read the FAQ. How about the approach where you knew every image returned by a search on Commons was free to use by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. As for title thing, CC appreciates these demands must be "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". An offensively titled image shouldn't exist on Commons. Colin (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I have read the FAQ, it is rubbish. Basically it's out of context comments of people and then the conclusion "All who use GFDL do so to be assholes", I can find a person who uses CC-PD in EU because it is incorrectly written and only applies to the USA, this does not mean that we should ban these contributions. There is nothing in FAQ about GPL that I could see, and yet this proposal also attacks this licence. And have you yourself read the FAQ, I can quote from it: "The WMF licensing policy specifies that licensing must be compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works, but whether specific licenses are or aren't consistent with the Definition for specific purposes is IMO a matter of such ambiguity that it requires ongoing community discussion." So the discussion here should not be whether or not the full text of the licence is larger than some files on Commons, we are suppose to be discussing if GFDL fits the Definition of Free Cultural Works. And GFDL fits perfectly. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose based on wording, if the intended purpose is to not allow GFDL type license for photographs then just say that, cut the mumbo jumbo bullstuff of "appropriate" which can mean anything someone decides it to be... Gnangarra 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree! The funny thing is, we're not even talking about photographs exclusively. Commons:Licensing should apply to all media that can be uploaded to Commons (including Video, Audio, PDFs which could include almost everything). Colin seems to be assuming photographs or at least images for reasons unknown to me, which makes the whole discussion around this proposal even more complicated. He also limits himself to GPL and GFDL while there are many more licenses around which might be "inappropriate". But as you say: Who decides which license is appropriate and which is not? This would be material for countless RFCs and months of discussion and probably we'll not be able to reach consent in any of them. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed at your comment Gnangarra. Perhaps Eric Moller's Definition of Free Cultural Works shouldn't have bothered with all that "mumbo jumbo bullstuff" and just had a short bullet-point list? No it isn't just targeted at GFDL type licences. There are several inappropriate licences for images/sounds/videos (the proposal doesn't say photographs) because they are designed and written for something else (like software or databases). Is a concept like "appropriate" really too hard for people to come to some agreement on? We have excellent licences designed specifically for the media Commons hosts and specifically for free culture. It really isn't hard to know which apply unless one actively wants to be awkward. For those who'd rather pick holes, and mock, and write about how funny that Colin chap is, well, I'm glad I've provided some entertainment for you. Cheers, Colin (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, even if you're disappointed, he's right. The proposal adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for essentially saying that GFDL and GPL should not be used in most cases. An yes, it is that hard to determine which license might be appropriate. None of them has written "not suited for photographs" or "contains inappropriate attribution terms" written in them. It probably seems crystal clear for you which licenses are appropriate – but that's only your personal point of view. Others might have totally different understanding of what might be appropriate. You have to understand that there is no black an white in this point. It is a continuous fade through the grays and if you draw a line somewhere in between your choice of position will always exhibit some arbitrariness. Something totally detrimental for good policies. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin I understand you are disappointed in my choice of words, I understand what is trying to be achieved I have previously agreed at FP that GDFL/GPL type license arent good choices for photographs and should be discouraged but I've also been around here long enough to know what is intended must be very clear and unable to manipulated by others to suit their own means the use of "appropriate" is too easy to be played with by the wikilwayer brigade. Yes Commons:License would be better with bullet points specifying both preferred and acceptable licensing for photographs when some new format comes along then that can be added to the list after discussion, or if one is no longer accepted it can be removed from the list added to a grandfathered list with the last upload date. That way we keep both a recorded os available licensing but also a record easily found of discountinued licenses. Ultimately whatever is decided it should be very clear and unambigious otherwise we'll be revisiting this and the community will spend more time addressing drama rather contributing. Gnangarra 04:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The sort of bullet-point list or table you describe is a good idea and could be added to the policy in addition to this proposal. I don't think you disagree with the concept of appropriate licence choice or that GFDL aren't such for images. Why didn't you make a constructive suggestion rather than !vote with insulting and infantile language? You are better than that. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My !vote is a long way down the list which appears to have progressed beyond discussion to decision making, I chose language that clearly, noticably gets my point across. Especially as it was already clear that too many people didnt understand what they were supporting. As you said on my talk page my !vote has probably caused people to reconsider and delayed the process, I'm happy to delay a process than have a change nobody understood you shouldnt be all that afraid of people having concerns with policy changes its makes for clearer policy in the long run. As this isnt an urgent must do something now change accepting that we'll then need to revisit to fix the unintended consequences. Gnangarra 09:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not clear enough, which licenses are allowed and which are not. That is unnecessary confusion and decision leeway for further actions. And a date will provide much requests, that belongs to files uploaded before (because some users doesn't look carefully enough to such addendums). --Quedel (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alchemist-hp and Steschke. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 14:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Finally a way to get rid of the assholes that use some old GFDL licenses to license their photos (or photo thumbnails) as unfree as possible while still receiving the free PR that the Commons infrastrcture and web visibility offer them. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As "unfree as possible" is still free. Even if those guys you're talking about are such assholes as you say (actually I don't like your wording) they still contribute free content to Commons. If it is really as promotional as you suggest, I'm sure it could be deleted, but in most cases I assume those works are not detrimental for the goal of Commons, some might even be useful after all. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There will always be a way to license it "as unfree as possible" (whatever you take that to mean). With this proposal, that would be FAL or CC-BY-SA, so maybe those will be the next "inappropriate" licenses? Out of our free licenses there is by necessity always one that is "least free", except of course if we allow only PD/cc0. The wording "assholes" for volunteers uploading useful free material is, uhm, pretty inappropriate IMHO. darkweasel94 17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not call people who contribute free educational content "assholes". Thank you. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Primary mission of Commons is to host free media for all Wikimedia projects, GFDL and some other licenses with somewhat uncomfortable licensing terms are more than sufficient for these projects. Hosting free media for non-Wiki projects is a secondary mission which I consider less important than the primary mission so commercial reusers that are not mirrors of Wiki content either have to comply with the given licensing terms or find an alternative image with conditions more suitable for them. Commons has a lot of alternatives as well as Flickr, Picasa and others. --Denniss (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC) As far as I´m able to understand the issue, even the opponents seem to concede that GFDL is not targeted at images. The main question seems to be if the use of GFDL for unsuited media types is a fair and honest workaround-solution for contributors who want to retain a higher degree of control or if the GFDL-option is used as an exploit to circumvent Commons´ principles, in some cases perhaps in the hope for commercial gain. Assuming that altruistic motives and giving up control over educational content - whatever application it may find - is the very idea behind Commons I think the proposal is a reasonable one. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You put the cart before the horse in your explanation. Actually GFDL might be used to limit freedom (Since Colin did not give any examples that this is already exploited in bad faith, and per Commons:Assume good faith, I assume this might not be the case at all). This proposal is about prohibiting GFDL to completely prevent this possibility. But it might also restrict cases were the license actually is necessary. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Patrick87, look at the FAQ. Those using the GFDL for their own work are quite open and explicit that they are fundamentally opposed to free content and only wish to contribute to Wikipedia (ignoring that Wikipedia is a free content project also). They use this licence not because it helps our users, but because it eliminates them. You can look at the images, but can't use them. This is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take with ones images and doesn't make the person bad, or an "asshole", or their contribution "bad faith". Full copyright and -NC licences make up the bulk of Flickr, for example; this is by far the majority attitude wrt one's creations. But it isn't aligned with the purpose of this site and doesn't contribute to a repository of free images that anyone can use for any purpose at any time. What it contributes to is a repository of images we didn't pay for and can display on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's your definition of "free"? Colin (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

GFDL images cannot be used for any purpose at any time? Please name a purpose or time in which they cannot be used. Also, I think the intent of photographers using this license is pretty irrelevant and I am sure that there are also people who license their contributions under CC-BY-SA, or really under anything but {{Cc0}}, for the exact same reason. darkweasel94 18:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The main question is: what is better: to have "GFDL 1.2 only" images or nothing in the future? I'm simply thinking: it is better to have GFDL 1.2 only images!!! If not, then please delete all the current images too! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note, however, that "GFDL 1.2 only" is not different from "GFDL 1.2 or any later version" or "GFDL 1.3" or "GFDL 1.3 or any later version". Works usable under the GFDL 1.3 were only relicensable until 2009-08-01, so new works tagged as such cannot be used under CC-BY-SA. We don't know what will be in GFDL 2.0 however. darkweasel94 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose I didn't want to participate in another discussion where I'd be the asshole being bashed but I was asked here. If the purpose is to create a repository of "entirely free" images and GFDL fails to meet that, then the grandfather rule would be useless as these images would tarnish the image that is being implemented. As many have mentioned, very few people still use this license; seems like a very big hassle to do all this to kick out the nasty a-holes --Muhammad (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support (as an individual; this is not an organizational comment). This is a well thought-out proposal and the grandfathering clause allows for a reasonable implementation without causing too much disruption. GFDL is a silly license to use for a media file, and I say that (again as an individual) as one of the authors of the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Inappropriate licenses like GFDL are sometimes intentionally used to impose unreasonable requirements on re-users and it would be good to finally put an end to that. With that said, if this proposal fails, I would recommend focusing on taking more specific steps to restrict the use of e.g. GFDL, without trying to establish a broader concept of appropriate licenses which some people here seem to be taking umbrage at.--Eloquence (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well; a thoughtful suggestion. I too can see many opposes here are merely technical; and can be resolved with positive discussions. I have no answer to other meaningless rants like "GFDL is a free license". JKadavoor Jee 02:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that there is no answer to the claim that GFDL is a free licence. That is because it was one of the original free licences, and all the CC stuff actually came after it and attempted to do things somewhat differently, but they were just copycats. In fact I would support helping people to move away from CC because politically CC are not for free licences they have NC, ND, and other variants... that will never be created by FSF. And this in turn creates the confusion. People see CC-BY and CC-SA-BY, they see that the latter is more copyleft than the former and assume that CC-NC-SA-BY is even better. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is "no answer" to "GFDL is a free license" because in saying it the person has chosen to not understand the problem. Head in the sand. There is no point discussing with someone who does that. Colin (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no answer to "Earth rotates around the Sun" because in saying it the person has chosen to not understand the problems (how come we don't fly off, how come winds don't reach millions kilometers a second, etc). Head in the sand. There is no point discussing with someone who does that. Oh, and there was no Moon landing either. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 :) GFDL is definitely a free license, that's entirely clear and obvious. A possibly somewhat more inconvenient one yes, but nonfree definitely not; if it were, we would have to delete even all preexisting GFDL files. darkweasel94 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose It is true that some very small number of folks use the GFDL because it makes re-use of certain kinds more difficult, which is to say, use in printed publications. Is this all that terrible, given that it is 2013? I don't think it is. I don't make that choice for myself, but I am totally OK with this, and if it means that those people will be contributing under the GFDL rather than not contributing anything at all I'm all for it. What's more, I don't see that we even have a widespread problem with this. What proportion of our new material is GFDL-only? How much of that could be solved by a friendly suggestion to the uploader to use a different license rather than with policy proliferation? (Social interaction: it works, bitches.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that license is used by our senior members; so a friendly suggestion has no effect. In fact they are giving a wrong advice to the newcomers. :( JKadavoor Jee 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- Sozi (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Full support I use (and contribute to) Commons material professionally on a regular basis; the requirements of GFDL1.2-only regarding printed material (e.g. lecture notes) are completely unrealistic. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that because you find this licence inconvenient our project must deny files released under this licence to the entire world? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sinnamon, you really aren't helping here. You just seem to want to pick a fight and argue. Rather than perhaps shape this proposal to something the community accepts. We're here to build a repository of images that anyone can use for any purpose at any time. There are -NC and full-copyright images that we could host and someone, somewhere would find useful. Heck, we could start a microstock site and charge a fee. We'd have an infinity of images then. But we don't. And that denies files from being here. They are still available to the world. They an be hosted elsewhere. The internet has room. The entire purpose of this site is images that meet Erik Möller's Definition. You might want to read what he said earlier today (Eloquence). -- Colin (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok, I will bite. My proposal, that I think community can accept is: 1) Keep all free licences 2) Keep GFDL, GPL, Apache, MIT, etc off of the default list at the dropdown menu, with the help link next to the dropdown titled "What if I want a different free licence?" describing the way to apply tags manually and mentioning that some Commoners have an opinion that this is not a suitable licence 3) Add to the rules for DR a point that if the similar file exists, but is licenced under some incompatible licence, then we should not delete due to "other similar files exist" rationale. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I am saying that because anyone using printed media will find this license inconvenient our project should not host these files. The addition of two pages of text to each lecture note handout/slide print-out/journal article/paper magazine is a completely unreasonable and unrealistic expectation. In my view, it goes against our mission. I am not "denying" files to the world, anyone can host their own. For example, we do not host traditionally-copyrighted files (some of which are magnificent and available at no cost) for that very reason. Ariadacapo (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose GFDL was the original and long-time license of Wikipedia as well as all later Wikimedia projects, and is obviously a free license, and Commons was created to serve the Wikipedia projects which remains its primary purpose. While it is an impratical license and its use as the single license should be discouraged and it could be removed from the list of recommended licenses, it should not be forbidden. This could in time lead to older GFDL-only files being treated as pariah or even deleted by users without detailed knowledge of the license history. It's in no way certain that all future users will understand that some images (depending on the original date of upload here or on a different Wikimedia project) are allowed to have that license, while other files are not. I also doubt new GFDL-only files are a major problem today. Msbmt (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We ensure future users don't delete the GFDL-only files buy making sure the Commons licence policy says we keep them. Which is what this proposal does. As for files being "treated as pariah", they don't have feelings. If they did, they'd already know how unloved and unused they are. Colin (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • They may be unloved by the small number of users focused on Commons affairs, but the vast majority of users are Wikipedia authors who primarily consider Commons to be a file repository for Wikipedia, and it doesn't make much difference to them which license a file has as long as it's available on Commons to be used in Wikipedia articles, and has a license that per definition is free. All licenses except for files that are in the public domain are impractical to a certain degree and impose restrictions on usage. If a tiny number of users prefer to make files available as GFDL-only, it's still better than not having the files at all. Msbmt (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose GFDL is a free license.--Wdwd (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose - GFDL is a free license. We can of course encourage double licensing, e.g. GFDL + CC-BY, so that a re-user has more options. Also I do not really understand what kind of problem we would solve by restricting the usage of one of our licenses. - Jcb (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. GFDL is a free license. Yes, we can discourage to use it, but I think that it is better to have a GFDL file than nothing. For example, in Ukraine the biggest website available under a free license is Maidan, created in 2000 and using GFDL since then. So far Commons uses over 180 images from this website, for some people these are the only available images, like File:Georgi gongadse.jpg (missing since 2000), File:Vasyl Kuk.jpg (died 2007), File:Vera Rich.jpg (died 2009), or even for living people like File:Leonardo Sandri.jpg or File:Adrian Severin.jpg. If we call them non-free, what can we offer instead? If we have "a free image that is difficult to reuse" and "no free image", I would definitely choose the first one. I think there are many GFDL images on Commons that either illustrate unique historic events, or picture already deceased people, so if we delete them, we will have little to no chances to find any free images. Of course, we can discourage such uploads, but I can see no reason in banning them if no alternative is available — NickK (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Full support. GFDL Files are really hard to reuse, this license is outdated for images, sound and video. No need to keep this license for future uploads. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have moved your support to the main section, because from your text it is clear that you have supported the proposal, and not my counter to it below. I do however, disagree with you, and think that having a policy saying that licences should be "easy" destroys the point of the free culture. It is not about ease of use, but rather about playing by the rules. I have used CC-BY images in the past, and found it annoying. I have some webpage laid out just right, and then I must put the attribution somewhere, this causes me to redo the layout for other images as well. But I am not ingenious enough to propose that we should ban the attribution requirement. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Comment: Most of the opposes note that there is good free media in the world that is already under an incompatible license, and it should be possible to use those in Commons (and, by extension, on the other Wikimedia projects). I agree with this. I also agree that GFDL is not a good license to use for images (for instance). I suggest reframing the proposal: Fix the upload form so that it only suggests "appropriate" licenses that are both free and make the reuse of that particular file-format easy. But allow all free licenses in the Commons repository, for all media. That adds a small barrier for newbies uploading awkwardly-free-licensed media; it keeps people from casually choosing an awkward license; and it still welcomes all free-licensed media from contributors who have no alternative. --SJ+ 03:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Moved this comment as well. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with you Samuel – and that's exactly what we are doing currently. The Upload form is already restricted to not offer GFDL or GPL as the only license. Therefore there's no need to change anything. --Patrick87 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh for crying out loud Sj. Have you looked at the upload form? -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I am all for educating well-meaning but ignorant uploaders about the conditions of the GFDL (that is, warning them that the license can make it impractical to use the work in certain media, and that this may undermine the uploader's intention to widely disseminate the work). But the GFDL is very clearly a free licence, and should remain an option for those who truly intend to use it. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support When I became an admin, I spend a lot of time in Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately I don't have that time nowadays but I see the same stuff over and over again: Pictures with a GFDL or GFDL-1.2 only licence with bold or <big> text which says this image is protected by copyright [...] and/or [...] it's not public domain. Some of them are even kindly dual-licenced with CC-BY-NC(-ND) - for easy reuse I guess. Some other say that the licence restrictions could be eased for a "small fee". Did the authors really upload these images to make them easy and freely usable for any purpose? When GFDL 1.3 was released back in 2008 I thought that GFDL support could now be dropped since it's nearly impossible to use it for images (eg. in newspapers or something like that). Some users said that they will now leave Commons and switched their images from GFDL 1.2+ back to 1.2-only. And just because GFDL was once accepted does not mean that we need keep it - think about all the thing which were once accepted some time ago. Yes, GFDL a free licence when you want to rebild, share or use the work. The licence is as free as you when you are dropped in the middle of an ocean. You can go anywhere and you can do whatever you want - as long as you carry a huge, heavy iron ball with you with which you got kicked off the boat. If an author wants to upload his/her images under All rights reserved or an NC and/or ND restrictions for CC, well then there are other places to go other than Wikimedia Commons. I guess we can't stop authors if they really want to leave the project, but I highly doubt that the Wikimedia earth wouldn't spin without them. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support as Norbert Nagel. --Passerose (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Some licenses are freer than others, some are handier than others. We require free licenses, not necessarily handy ones. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Support There is a group of German users who want to blackmail the print media when using their photos commercially. Printing the full GFDL is totally obsolete. The time of software distributers in the pre-internet-time with blue floppy discs containing 720 kByte of shareware is prehistoric. People who try to sell photos to the press should be dropped out of our project. -- 94.221.221.237 11:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Oh, so by now those volunteers who donate their files to us under a certain free license are no longer just "assholes", they are "blackmailing the print media". I wonder what will be next. darkweasel94 12:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • IP voting stricken, please log in and sign with your username for voting. --Denniss (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Per me questa questione non è ben chiara, tuttavia la prima impressione ha il suo valore: il problema esiste, ma la soluzione proposta non è soddisfacente. Quindi, è meglio lavorare di più fino a trovare una soluzione adatta che accettare in fretta una soluzione ancora "rozza". (In English: This matter is not fully clear to me, but the first feeling has some value: the issue does exist, but the proposed solution does not satisfy. So, it is better to work longer until a fit solution is found, than take hastily a way still "rough".) --Rdelre (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment As there have been claims that (a) nobody outside of Wikimedia or at least (b) the FSF does not use the GFDL or GPL for media files, please take a look at these links: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] (some of them are multi-licensed with FAL, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, others are not). These claims are simply factually false. darkweasel94 16:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • These are all logos connected with GNU software. They are all appropriately licensed. Please darkweasel can you stop playing games. I'm not here to play games and have no interest in arguing with you any longer. Goodbye. Colin (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Most of them are "logos" only in an extremely broad sense of that word; I'd categorize them as "fan art". What is the essential difference between works that have something to do with software and other works? Why exempt files just because they have something to do with software? How to define something like that in a policy? Oh, and at least the last link is neither a logo connected with GNU software, nor any other kind of image; that page has links to audio and video files of which some are licensed under the GFDL or GPL. But if you have no interest in arguing with me, ok - you're totally within your rights. darkweasel94 20:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose. This is a tough one. It may have to be thought out more towards free. I agree with users Patrick87 and Sinnamon Girl. --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hier wird so auf Nachnutzern herumgeritten, was ist eigentlich mit dem vielzitierten "project scope"? Wenn alles hier für jeden frei nachnutzbar sein soll, dann darf es kein project scope geben. Entweder wir hosten auf Commons freie Medien für Jedermann - dann darf es kein Scope geben - oder aber wir hosten für Wikipedias und Schwesterprojekte. Dann gibt es project scope und dann definieren wir, was frei ist. da ja offenbar zahlreiche Nutzer GFDL nicht mehr als frei ansehen, müssen wir also einen anderen Ort für diese freien Inhalte suchen, um sie Nachnutzern zur Verfügung zu stellen. Fotografen wie Fir001 aus Australien (nicht Deutschland) wurden schon erfolgreich vertrieben, jetzt sollen die verschwinden, die GFDL verwenden? Und morgen sollen alle weg, die cc-by-sa nehmen, zum Schluß wird nur noch Freibier CC-0 geduldet? Wen interessiert schon die Meinung der Fotografen? Die bringen ja nur die Inhalte hier, die sollen aber bitte die Klappe halten und sich der Meinung Anderer beugen. Ich habe nichts gegn CC, ich lade die meisten meiner Fotos so hoch. Aber diese Aktion hier ist einfach nur abartig. Wenn ihr in Zukunft 800x600 mit 20% Qualität haben wollt, dann bitte. GFDL gibts dann eben mit voller Auflösung woanders. Commons will ja nur Briefmarken. --Ralf Roleček 19:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ich verstehe nicht, was das mit dem Project Scope zu tun hat - der besagt ja nicht, dass Dateien tatsächlich auf Wikimedia-Projekten verwendet werden müssen, sondern nur, dass sie irgendeinen Informationswert haben müssen. Ich hätte übrigens theoretisch nichts gegen ein Projekt, wo nur CC0 akzeptiert wird - aber zwischen CC-BY-SA und GFDL (ohne unveränderliche Abschnitte und Umschlagstexte) fehlt mir einfach der essenzielle Unterschied, die sind beide unter Umständen unpraktisch, aber jedenfalls frei. darkweasel94 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Das mit der reduzierten Auflösung ist ein wahres Wort! Die Personen, die GFDL vorsätzlich verwenden (allein darum geht es Colin schlussendlich, wenn ich seine bisherigen Kommentare richtig deute), werden nach einer solchen Änderung entweder a) gar nicht mehr hochladen (=unwiederbringlicher Verlust für Commons) oder aber b) wie du schreibst die Bilder so manipulieren, dass sie von vornherein nicht sinnvoll wiederzuverwenden sind (=auch kein Gewinn für Commons, im Gegenteil, schlechtere Bildqualität). Wie es also auch läuft Gewinnen wir nichts dazu. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@Patrick87. Da hast Du vollkommen recht. Ich lizensiere alle meine Bilder unter CC-BY-SA, aber ich möchte für die Bebilderung von WP-Artikeln nicht auf die teilweise deutlich besseren Bilder von Fotografen verzichten, die auf der GFDL bestehen. --Mogelzahn (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ralf, I can only see poor resolution images from Fir0002 (I think you mean him by Fir001) even with GFDL 1.2 only. JKadavoor Jee 02:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Still they are sufficient for every Wikipedia article you might imagine and of much better quality than many other contributions. Do you think Fir0002 will continue uploading those images when your proposal was accepted? Do you think this is acceptable? --Patrick87 (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I think you have to check your facts. Many of his uploads are by no means "low resolution". An image with 1600 pixels width is (at least in my opinion) totally sufficient. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

They are low resolution. That's just a fact. They are 1.6MP images from a 22MP camera. Your opinion on whether that is sufficient is just an opinion, and a reasonable one. Don't phrase the issue of licensing as though one or two photographers have a golden vote and can demand whatever terms. Applying that logic, you might as well look at all the millions of -NC photographs on Flickr taken by actual professionals and say "Look at all the great photos we are missing out on". We could use -NC photographs to illustrate the Wikipedia website if WMF wanted to accept them. But we don't because Wikipedia is also a free content project. Fir0002 doesn't believe in free content (he doesn't want commercial use of his photos). That is a perfectly reasonable attitude but not one we base Commons licensing decisions on. Colin (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Patrick, the resolution is low compared to the similar contributions available; with a better license. Further, it is a misconception that the sole purpose of images in a Wikipedia article to describe the text there. All contents there including the texts, photos, illustrations are meant for potential re-use. Many institutions use them in their textbooks. Many students use them in their project works and presentations. JKadavoor Jee 11:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And because in some cases the images may be hard to reuse (students may use them under CC-by-sa!) we ban them completely so they are impossible to use. Yay! That's perfectly resonable. Thank you for this valuable insight. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Many students had used my works in their powerpoint slides and I never feel guilty if my name blink in their screens. :) JKadavoor Jee 11:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose--Falkmart (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose --Olei (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 Support via Raymond and others -- Achim Raschka (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support GFDL limits reuse and is therefore not free enough in practice. --Quartl (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per Raymond et al -jkb- (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support GFDL just does not make sense for images. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 Strong oppose GFDL was and is a free License. --Wmeinhart (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose --Belladonna2 (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose GFDL is a free license. Forbidding it would force(!) contributers here, who want to use it for any reason they like, to either use some CC-license or quit contributing. I consider this highly disrespectful to these conbtributors and quite the opposite of the idea of voluntary and goodwilled collaboration that lies at the base of this project. PS: Personally I can't get rid of the feeling, that the destination of developments like this is to make the contents here completely "free" of any restrictions and as easily commercially reusable as possible. --Tsui (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  “[…] either use some CC-license or quit contributing.”: This is incorrect − People are free to use licenses like the {{FAL}}. Please do not imply that this proposal is some CC political promotion.

  “to make the contents here […] as easily commercially reusable as possible”: This is correct − this is quite part of the mission of the Wikimedia projects. Please see the /FAQ

  Jean-Fred (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, to be more precise I could have written either use some CC-license, some other license that is as convenient for reusers as possible - ultimately that would be public domain - or quit contributing. In my view the emphasis here lies at making media available under a free license, not to make commercial reuse as easy as possible; that would be giving the files away as public domain. Is that the long-term objective? --Tsui (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We forbid -NC licences, which stops people contributing or "forces" them to use free licences that allow commercial use. There's nothing "disrespectful" about it. Merely that this site has a mission that requires freedoms for our re-users are more important than freedoms for our uploaders. If people do not what their images to be used commercially as easily as possible, they should not upload their images here. It is as simple as that. Colin (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No -NC licenses was a basic rule here from the beginning of Wikipedia. I didn't like that from the start, but I accepted it, using GFDL back then. Then came the forced change to CC, which I still think was quite disrespectful in the way it was conducted, but I accepted it, because Wikipedia is still a great and revolutionary project. That media should be made available here to be used commercially as easily as possible is not a basic rule for Wikimedia/Commons in my view. To make them available under a free license: yes. To service commercial reusers by limiting the rights of the contributers - who are the core of all this - more and more, even kick them out if they refuse to accept a change of the basic principle from contributing to a free repository of media and knowledge to being a service provider for commercial interests: no. --Tsui (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See my analogy of the hospital above. Much as we like to think we (content producers) are important, we are not the purpose of the site. Please don't use language like "kick them out". Everyone is free to give their work away or not. The internet is big enough for us all to have different views and this is not the only repository of images. Colin (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha, try to use other repositories in our Wikipedia projects ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Analogies are seldom really useful, ususally they only distract from the topic at hand. If you equal the doctors and nurses with the contributors of media contents here, the situation is that they do it for free, even accepting that others make money with their work. They only request these reusers do it under the conditions the providers chose (=the license they chose) when making their work available. Now there's a request they should first of all serve the commercial interests of resellers - or just go - not that of the 'patients', which to me are the readers of Wikipedia, the viewers here and those reusers who appreciate the contents rather than focusing on the possibilty to make commercial use of it.

The purpose of this site ist to provide media files under a free license, not, sorry that I repeate myself, to be a service provider for commercial interests.

Forgive me if 'kick them out' sounded harsh to you. English is not my mother tongue and I only try to be as clear as I can in a foreign language. --Tsui (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Love it or hate it, GFDL is a free license. Next it will be an RfC to drop the -SA (ShareAlike) creative commons licenses as it is restrictive! Hell, so is the -by (attribution) creative commons licenses. Sure, GFDL may not be the best license for images but the same goes for CC-BY-SA. Bidgee (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Slippery slope. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Appart from the arguments already made I feel like I have to counterbalance the votes a certain German clique that makes all the other German contributors here look bad. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps ... the german users can read und understand the license specification better!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  +1 Cwbm. Looking forward to see more German users supporting the proposal. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, but what the hell has this to do with nationality? It seems you're somehow missing the point here. Should we start adding quotas in the end, so only 50% of each population group can oppose and the other 50% have to support a request? Don't wonder if this totally fair-minded suggestion will jump back into your face, though . --Patrick87 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, this is getting ridiculous. Does anyone honestly think anybody is going to judge "all Germans" because of what some of those Germans who expressed an opinion here said? Nationality is totally irrelevant here. darkweasel94 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Let's just say that "ze Germans" already have acquired a reputation in the greater Wikimedia community. We Germans are usually way more frank than people from e.g. the US or GB, that's just in our nature. But even then, the arguments by many German users often seem to be particularly negative, aggressive and stubborn, even to me as a fellow German. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Seems sensible. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Necessity (such as in the case of some derivative works), is a valid reason for using a GFDL-only license, and so must be permitted. "Because I want to" would also be a valid reason if it did not tend to defeat the first stated aim of Commons - but it seems it does. One might reasonably disagree with the stated aims, but in that case, the proper course is to get the aims amended, or to not contribute media. --Catslash (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 Strong oppose The GFDL is free. We should be open to all free licenses. Jonathunder (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Die GFDL war immer ein hässlicher Notbehelf. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose. We're having a double standard here: on one hand, many free images get deleted as "out of scope", because people sysops don't think they can be used in Wikipedia (even if they might be usable for other purposes), on the other hand, we want to limit the uploads to licenses that make the images easy to reuse. The final result is less images in Commons, which sucks.--Strainu (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Full support. The free sharing of knowledge. --EstudiantesFotografias (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose GFDL was and is a free license. At most we can discourage the use of these licenses in favor of the CC, but do not disallow it. --β₁₆ (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Klares Kontra GFDL was and is a free License. --Huhu Uet (talk) 9:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support wie Kurt Jansson --Stanzilla (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose per several others; on principal grounds I see little difference in the GFDL requirements of the license versus the attribution-part of Creative Commons, though the any reasonable manner in the attribution part do go a bit of the way. For me: Just not enough, considering that GFDL is also a free license. --heb [T C E] 13:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Zeit, alte Zöpfe abzuschneiden. Wer GFDL und dergleichen für erforderlich hält, sollte sie aber als Zweitoption bei Duallizenzierung anbieten können. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per arguments used above. G-13114 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support GFDL is obsolete and should not be used any more. 92.72.168.242 01:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  IP voting invalid. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose This proposal is complete bullshit. -_- GFDL IS a free license. It fullfills all our requirements to a free license. Thus it would be an absurd self limition to permit the usage of the GFDL. JenTen 8:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  IP voting invalid. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose If it's not broken don't fix it. Ravenseft (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support GFDL is not state of the art any more. Simplicius (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support These licenses are clearly unappropriate for visual media. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Were would this lead us to? CC0 by force? --Martina talk 14:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  Slippery slope. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, Jean-Frédéric but this is the second time you post an inappropriate comment like this. Every editor is allowed to have his own opinion and you're not the one who is supposed to rate these comments. Please keep the discussions content based. I'd expect an administrator to put a little more consideration into his comments. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, Patrick, it is you who are wrong and Jean-Fred's comment appropriate. This is a discussion, not a vote (which makes many of the comments above as worthless as if someone had written "I like green"). Martina's comment isn't an "opinion" but is empty rhetoric and so clichéd there's a Wikipedia article dedicated to its flaws. If Martina genuinely believes this is the first step towards "CC0 by force" then she should consider that such belief is based on some rather basic logical errors and assumptions and to reconsider. Your own oppose reasons (given many moons ago) are factually incorrect. This was pointed out to you but you haven't amended them. If you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion then please don't. Colin (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is your opinion . --Patrick87 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A wise man one said "when a discussion starts picking apart someone else's argument rather than adding to the discussion, then it is failing. Using latin is a red flag here. If one's "opponent" uses logical fallacies, careless language, or is rude, just rise above it and engage in the discussion how you think it should be done." Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it’s the third time ;-þ. More seriously, not much to add to what Colin said. And I do believe I keep it « content-based » by pointing out a logical fallacy in comments, regardless of the commentator. This is a discussion, if one or the other commentator actually has thought of a reasonable chain of events leading to dropping other licenses, I’d be happy to hear about it, and possibly revise my own opinion (as I do not want these events either) ; conversely I hope commentators will take into account the fact that, in the way they expose it, their opinion does not appear to be based on anything else than a logical fallacy, thus making it rather unconvincing. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we are of different opinion then. I think this was by no means a logical fallacy and the reasoning was mentioned several times by now (but I'll repeat it for your convenience): If we want to forbid GFDL because it is overly restrictive with it's licensing terms (adding the license text) not practical for some usages — how do we justify recommending e.g. CC-by-sa (that needs attribution itself) which might not be practical for some usages either and could therefore be considered overly restrictive, too? This necessarily leads to a CC0 license (or better PD-only license) as the only logically allowable license with "licensing terms" that should be practical for all usages.

This basically shows the logical fallacy behind this whole proposal, but I don't think we need to discuss this further here.

What I wanted to point is out that you Jean-Frédéric as an administrator should try to be as diplomatic as possible instead of heating a discussion with Slippery slope links and the like. As you see this kind of "content arguments" leads to pointless discussions afterwards (what we are just doing ) which won't advance the content discussion at all. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Full support: long overdue. If we really want to be a "database of 17,530,949 freely usable media files", as it is stated at the front-page, we have to keep the (re)users in mind! --trm (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support GFDL was a good choice in the early days, but side by side with CC-by-sa it has become a major hindrance to the re-use of Commons media. We need a license tht is easy to use for everyone. Also, admonishing re-users should not be a business model for Wikipedians. Most of these cases are bad for our public reputation and go back to the intricacies of these complicated old licenses. So, make it much easier, please, to use media from Commons. Doing away with GFDL would be a first step in the right direction.--Aschmidt (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, yes!, no own uploads ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the first step to lose more and more active useres, who contribute their own photos --2.202.3.104 17:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we should first be looking to make it easy to reuse the images for those people who are interested in promoting the free culture, and such people will already be very interested in giving the text of the licence as well as the description of what it means to everybody downstream. Other people, who are not interested in promoting copyleft, can of course also use media from this project, but we should not damage the project in order to help them. It is a very basic idea of cooperation, if somebody wishes to help us (by spreading the information about free licences) then we should help them, but those who don't wish to respect the limitations of free licences can get scraps. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha, this is an opinion from a "photographer". Now I understand ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about the opinion of the people who contribute the content here? --Ralf Roleček 19:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This hyperbole not not particularly helpful, and it creates the wrong impression of a content-creators versus non-content-creators situation. This could not be farther from the truth. --Dschwen (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC). P.S.: Discrediting contributors by linking to empty Special:ListFiles pages is a classic en:WP:DICK move. Look at their Special:Contributions pages. File count is not everything. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain that isn't the case. Content creators are in no uncertain terms told to stop whining about educational use and free culture. We are told that having creators give up control of their content for the greater good of society trumps their misguided sense of ownership and that they should be ashamed of not giving away so others may sell. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not certain? Well, maybe you start from the top and look at some of the supporters contribution records. We have quite a few top content producers here. --Dschwen (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we be surprised that the "top" content creators on Commons are on side with current dogma? How many of them are there? A few dozen, a few hundred? Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to be a structured effort to make people's opinions count less for ad hominem reasons. darkweasel94 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt pointing out that those most likely to contribute to a cause are those that believe in it is an ad hominem attack. Suggesting accommodation for content creators in a free culture environment is like showing up at an NRA convention with proposal for new gun control policy and expecting support.Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that if we were just counting the votes, then mine (and other non-uploaders) should count as less valid. However, I feel that the common sense, that I attempt to bring to this discussion, cannot be simply ignored just because I have yet contributed no files. P.S. When I first signed up, I saw this community being rampaged by people who come from ENWP, and I wanted to help by categorising what is already here and by backing up on my local machine the files which are quite good (I continue doing that). As time went, I found that there are some good contributors here (and I have been digging through the archives of past discussions and have come across many good ones who quit). Therefore, maybe I will begin to contribute, but I have no interest in being just another notch for some deletionist out there. So I will contribute when I will be sure enough that my upload will remain for generations to come. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - CC-by-sa is state of the art. --ChNPP (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support We should encourage the use of licenses that are really free for practical purposes. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that you would agree that we should encourage the children to eat their vegetables, but you probably won't agree that we should ban everything that is sweet (including apples) just to make a point. Of course, that is a shaky argument, since CC-BY-SA is not much better for the free culture movement than GFDL. In fact since CC is in the business of publishing NC and ND licences as well (unlike FSF) why do you insist on supporting them? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support end the madness, simplify. however, if the consensus is keep GDFL, then i will change the licenses on all my uploads to it; the FUD terms are a variation of the terms of service, ant-bridgeman, MPAA strategy to restrict re-use. works for me. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose As a latecomer I don't propose to read through the entirety of the long and highly fragmented discussion - but suffice to say that the ultimate outcome of this proposal is a loss of content to the end-users of Wikimedia projects. How this can be contorted to a win for the project is beyond me... --Fir0002 www 00:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that we don't allow NC already invalidates your the ends justify the means argument. Moreso the ends are not getting as much content at any cost, but getting free and easily reusable content. --Dschwen (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Strongly -- Users of GFDL-1.2 ONLY license have on many occasions EXPLICITLY stated they use that license to restrict commercial use, which is entirely against the principles of Wikimedia's licensing.. To mask it as anything else is disingenuous. To call these licenses for use with images as anything other then commercially restrictive is incorrect. The tiny percent of users who use this license is an acceptable loss to the project. Sometimes you must prune the bad branches for the sake of the tree. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Als zusätzliche Lizenz ok, aber als alleinige wirkt die GFDL für Bilder mittlerweile wie aus der Zeit gefallen. Von den Befürwortern lese ich immer nur (mehr oder weniger verblümt), dass man mit der GFDL durch deren Fallstricke die Nachnutzung besser erschweren kann. Dies ist jedoch nicht der Sinn dieses Projekts. --Don-kun (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Falsch. Das wird uns nur immer vorgeworfen. --Ralf Roleček 10:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Strongly-squared - per this good faith effort, this reasoning here in the below, and two months wasted instead of readying to be writing here, leaving only as a last resort this massive effort, all in aid of educating and easing the way for someone else... and failing miserably because of this sites narrow and overly unrealistic idealistic POV. The only recourse is to take the project into the editorial control of the software's originators, which is 'not a place' where I can be detached and discuss shortcomings and stupidities like this RFC! // FrankB 20:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose because 1) it is up to the author to choose the license(s), 2) GFDL is a free license and 3) GFDL is certainly suitable for images (quote the License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, ...). Personally I release my images under CC though.Nillerdk (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The GFDL might be a free license by some definitions, but IMO it's not free enough for Commons (anymore) and it's time we finally curtail its usage. We used it heavily in the beginning, because there wasn't much else to choose from and frankly, because we didn't know better. But nowadays we aren't dependent on GFDL media files anymore, and use of the GFDL for images and other media outside of Wikimedia projects almost doesn't exist. So it's mainly a problem of some users wanting to use the GFDL in favor of other licenses that make re-use of the files easier. Even on Commons, the hardcore GFDL users make up only a tiny fraction of uploaders. So will changing it mean we will lose some users and potential future uploads? Probably, yes. Just as almost any change will inevitably piss of some users. But will the negative impact on Commons and other Wikimedia projects really be noticable? I don't think so. But for potential re-users of our content, the change will be quite positive. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support For what I've seen, most people who oppose it seem to be concerned simply with the fact that GFDL is a free license, not whether it is the most appropriate one for most files hosted on Commons or not. I strongly support the new simplification. --Xocoyotzin (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong support. Conny (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC).
•  Strong support, and we should have done this long before Fitoschido (talk)
•  Comment I notice that a few people are suggesting a "compromise" in which GFDL-only uploads are still allowed but GFDL is removed from the license list in the upload form. However, GFDL-only is not an option among them; anything that includes GFDL also includes a CC license. For that reason I strongly oppose removing GFDL from the license list; the proposal to remove GFDL-only is not meant to be inherently anti-GFDL but rather anti-restrictive licensing. Dual-licensing (as long as both are nonexclusive) is always at least as permissive as just taking one of the two. (Note that I supported the proposal above.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I dont support delete or stop of upload files with GFDL license, because that's not freedom and this is the free encyclopedia not because there is good licenses. For most people it's free because everybody can edit and upload files. If there is information about the license in the page of the file it's the responsability of the "reader" and the "downloader" use the image or not do it. We should not to start to put restrictions to licenses because this make more difficult the progress of the proyect.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose. We should not be totally disallowing GFDL and GPL except for screenshots. The argument for this proposal is, in essence, I don't understand the GFDL, so you can't use it. That's a shitty argument, IMO, and I don't find any others compelling either. The upload process already shows the heavy hand of control freaks who don't seem to care how much their processes discourage valuable contributions from legitimate contributors. Encouraging good content and discouraging bad content are both valuable. --Elvey (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Many of my images were reused, usually illegaly (e.g. "source Wikipedia" or none attribution). I think many photographers were in the same position. The only way to change this, is keeping licensing as simple as possible. Do you think reusers care about GFDL? They just ignore it! Or do you count on that, and demand some fee for reusing your image illegally? Good luck with that!--M.Rejha (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support We don't allow -NC in our CC licenses, and if GFDL has that effect then we shouldn't allow it for them either. Additionally, outside of Wikipedia, my own biggest use of commons is in putting together slides for scientific presentations (in many cases I can claim fair use for non-free images but I'd rather support the free ones), and as the nomination statement makes clear, allowing GFDL becomes an intolerable burden for that use case. We should be about making it easier for people to re-use free images, not harder. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Some people have already stop contributing due to the (forced) migration. More will if this pass. ...Aurora... (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - ALH (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support {{GFDL}}, {{GPL}}, {{LGPL}}, {{GFDL-1.2}} and GFDL/CC-NC mixes like {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-3.0}}, {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa/2.5}}, {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}}, {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}}, {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}, {{Cc-by-nc-2.0-dual}}, etc. should not be used for new uploads, except for screenshots created by a software with such license, or if paired up with other allowed licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose GFDL is a free license, per others --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per Slaunger, MichaelMaggs, King of Hearts, and others. Thanks Colin for this proposal. --Rotkraut (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment This proposal, when enacted, will lead to GFDLed images being uploaded to local projects rather than to Commons. Except of course to those poor projects that don't permit local uploads. How is that an improvement?! One goal of Commons is to provide a central repository for everything that can certainly be used on all Wikimedia projects because it passes the WMF licensing policy. Such as, well, GFDL images. But I guess redundantly storing files on each project, in a way that nobody will be able to find them easily, gives more freedom to our reusers. darkweasel94 08:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is already a choice for many contributors, due to far better reasons. JKadavoor Jee 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is, of course, unenforcible, because CC0 or any other free license applies even to sites that somebody considers "ethically broken". darkweasel94 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Whatever written by the original author under Licensing is part of the licensing terms; so here it is CC0 except for Commons. BTW, I'm not much bothered about the image thieves; including Commons. I already noticed some attempts to grab the content here. JKadavoor Jee 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • (multiple edit conflicts, editing this page while travelling in the city sucks) If your licensing terms are CC0 except for Commons, they do not qualify as free licenses and cannot be hosted on any Wikimedia project except under fair use. darkweasel94 13:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• darkweasel94, your comment assumes that the potential loss of a future GFDLed image is actually a loss to the project (Commons or Wikipedia). But we don't consider this true for -NC images which are on Flickr in their millions. Wikipedia could host -NC images if it wanted to but it is a free-content-project, not a free-to-read-website so it doesn't. Heck it could host full-copyright-protected material if it allowed uploaders to grant a "Wikipedia only" licence. We'd have bazillions of images then. But we draw the line somewhere else. Wherever we draw the line, some images are in and some are out. To moan about loss of those that are out is just wrongheaded and should not influence our decision as to what licences are "free" for reuse. No licence is perfect. CC licences aren't perfect. But GFDL is the worst by far of the so-called "free licences" one could choose for photographs and there is no justification for choosing it other than to restrict reuse. Indeed this is demonstrated by the fact that only those who wish to restrict reuse choose it. Time to move on from permitting such restriction on Commons. Colin (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• All WMF projects are bound by the same Licensing policy. If the community at Commons decides the proposal is a fair interpretation of the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" then the Wikipedias would fall into line. Despite what some people claim, both Wikipedia and Commons have identical missions wrt content: it must be free for re-use, not just free to look at on the website. Colin (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, all Wikipedias are first GFDL and in the secons step CC. All where bound with GFDL, thats right. But you want to bann this license, who was here in time of founding Wikipedia (before founding Commons). Thats Nonsense. --Ralf Roleček 12:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• • The problem is that if one Wikipedia decides something that goes beyond the global licensing policy (which this proposal does, that is the essential difference to NC licenses), that affects only them. If we as the shared media repository decide that, that affects everyone. Everyone will have fewer useful images for illustrating articles than they could have. darkweasel94 13:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No this proposal does not go beyond global licensing policy. It is an interpretation of that policy (which requires practical licences) and is supported by Eric Moller who wrote the policy. The WMF have said it is up to the Community to interpret the policy. Which we are doing. Wikipedias are unable to be less restrictive than global policy. If a huge community discussion chooses this interpretation of that policy then it will be practically impossible for a Wikipedia to justify deviating from it (in other words, they want to be less free). Will you stop repeating irrelevance like "Everyone will have fewer useful images for illustrating articles than they could have." Yes there will be a handful of potential images not uploaded but they are not "useful". We illustrate our articles with content that is free for reuse. Other images are not "useful" because they don't serve that "use". Now you might draw the line somewhere else than me, but please stop arguing that this proposal loses useful images. We don't have access to 10 billion images so adding a few dozen more to that is irrelevant, and especially irrelevant considering the thousands of images being constantly uploaded with useful licences. Colin (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly does go beyond global licensing policy. If it did not - if it were decided to be a mere consequence of global licensing policy - we couldn't have a grandfather clause because then all GFDL media would need to be nonfree. "Practical" in the free cultural works definition IMHO means "not merely theoretical", it doesn't mean "convenient". The GFDL may not be convenient but it does give all necessary freedoms, even in practice, when used without cover texts and invariant sections. darkweasel94 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Once more every clause of every sentence you write is wrong. Colin (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose This is becoming an artificial proposal. If really a license like GFDL or GPL should be labelled inappropriate for images, it should be really inappropriate and all of the inappropriately licensed images should be removed. But in this proposal it is not taken that hard. Old uploads are unaffected and even uploads of images published earlier under GFDL and/or GPL (as mentioned, there is a nice GPL collection here) are kept out of the picture. That is inconsistent. And rightfully so, because the licenses are not really unfree. They are unpractical and perhaps far fetched in some cases. So treat them as such, and ask users to not upload solely as GFDL and/or GPL and do not forbid it. If indeed inappropriate start a mass deletion. Lymantria (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Kyah117 ^{[Let's talk about it!]} 11:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Leave the freedom of choice with the content providers. It is not for us to decide which uses of Commons are acceptable and which not. --Prüm (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Up to here I count 68 supports and 66 opposes (of any kind), plus two people who'd vote for removing GFDL from the license selector, but oppose retiring it entirely for new uploads. --Dschwen (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support via Raymond. --Kolossos (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose See below. [28][29] Removing from the list of recommended licenses is ok, a complete ban for new uploads is not ok. -- Smial (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose See below. -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is supposed to be a discussion. Merely writing "See below" isn't helpful. You might as well have written "I like cheese". Colin (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really helpful Colin, you should know better than heading down the path of insulting people. Bidgee (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • What I said was completely true and factual and not insulting. This is not a vote. The closing admin will completely ignore Ra Boe's comment "see below" as it adds nothing to the discussion. My comment is helpful if it leads Ra Boe to actually explain why he/she is opposed to the proposal. Because if they don't they have wasted their time. Colin (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The closing admin and we all will completely ignore you in the future. --Ralf Roleček 13:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per Slaunger --Alan ^(talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Free licenses are free licenses, some can have condition that are difficult (but not impossible) to follow in certain specific re-uses, but that don’t make them non-free. Also the obligations of the creative commons, in some cases, may be difficult or uneasy to use, according to the same type of reasoning the next step what will be? prohibiting these too? Among other things, prohibit the GNU licenses, will make it impossible to use pictures or drawings first freely licensed only with GFDL outside Wikimedia web site, that now we can import here and make it automatically available to all wikipedia/wikinews/wiki-etc. (projects that are likely to continue anyway to upload and import materials under the GNU license locally, if they need them). Maybe we can put an alert if a user chooses only the GFDL in the upload wizard, in which these problems are (briefly) explained and it’s ask if that user wants to use a multi license instead (Category:Multi-license license tags), but prohibit entirely their upload to me seems completely wrong (here in Italy we say: "buttare il bambino con l’acqua sporca"/"throwing the baby out with the bathwater").--Yoggysot (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support This is commons we're talking about here,not wikipedia (where fair use can still be an option, and AIUI GFDL as well), so licensing should be appropriate to free media and not add confusion. The licensing choices are overly complex even for a non-expert with a more than passing interest in the subject (me). Personally I've found that CC-BY-SA and CC0 cover all my needs, I recognise other use cases but don't think the current plethora of licence options is helpful or necessary. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per what's said near the bottom of this page. PD got disallowed some time back and is treated now as inappropriate, even sometimes on images that were uploaded with it when it was accepted. What will happen to GFDL images if we adopt this proposal? GFDL fits the definition of the licensing restrictions that WMF permits us; we should be as open as possible, and as someone up above said, better to have GFDL-only (even GFDL-1.2-only) images than nothing at all. I don't care if we remove it from the list of suggested licenses, but we definitely shouldn't attempt to hinder its use by those familiar with it. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Being as open as possible is a medal with two sides. Allowing GFDL-only may be more open towards the uploaders (but so would be allowing CC-ND, all rights reserved, etc.). The other side are the re-users, which are burdened with a more restrictive license. It has been argued that this makes commons less open. --Dschwen (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is "burdened". Cause nobody is forced to use free material from Wikimedia Commons that doesn't meet his individual desires. If our material, though conforming with the definitions of freedomdefined.org and opendefinition.org, truely is not free enough for somebody: He is free to use other sources and materials. If we have the choice between loosing contributors or loosing re-users I clearly prefer keeping contributors. --Martina talk 07:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The "burdened" argument is picking over how Dschwen phrased it. The GFDL has burdens (full copy of licence text) that are intolerable for some reusers. So saying they aren't "burdened" by it because they simply can't use it at all isn't a fair argument. You are right that licences vary in how free they are and how easily re-usable they make our media. Some here believe the GFDL does not conform to the freedomdefined.org when used for images. The argument for favouring contributor freedom of licence choice over re-user freedom of use has already been rejected: there are lots of licences we don't allow but which would result in a huge increase in contributors. The person who can't use our badly-licensed content is not "free to use other sources". That's an abomination of language. He is forced to use other sources (to meet is requirements). Free content projects exist to give reusers free choice of our content; not to tell them to bugger off and find some elsewhere.

We choose to draw the line somewhere that balances contributors and reusers wishes provided both wishes are in the spirit of free content. Only those users who's wishes are manifestly and openly against the spirit of free content continue to use the GFDL as their sole licence. This is the elephant in the room. We are complicit in the deliberate restriction of reuse, not because it grants the photographer better attribution or better protection against abuse, but simply because the photographer does not want his work being (widely and freely) used outside of Wikipedia. Colin (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The only question is, who is the elephant in our room. --Ralf Roleček 14:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Leave it Ralf; the elephant (this discussion) is already dead, waiting for a closure. We can discuss/quarrel if we get a new chance. :) JKadavoor Jee 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support It would be better to discuss if Commons an the Wikipedia should accept also CC-NC pictures in the future. I think GFDL is simply dishonest. It looks like a free licence but it is not. --Micha (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CC-NC ist the exact opposite of this proposal. The intention here is to remove hindrances to, especially commercial, reusers. It's not about contributers, it's about making reuse as effortless as possible. --Tsui (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Support The GFDL is not really a free license, no matter how often this is claimed, since it makes reuse for many use-cases impossible. --Sebari (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Complete support After having read through most of the arguments here I've not found anything compelling enough to change my mind on the matter. I support per the arguments made by Jkadavoor and Slaunger. Zellfaze (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose The proposal would complicate policy for, according to this discussion, very little benefit. The proposal does not suggest deleting existing GFDL only images (e.g. from the time Wikipedia used this licensing), so reusers would still have to check whether any image to be used is "appropriately" licensed (which they have to regardless, e.g. because of national PD legislation). New images using "inappropriate" licensing are too few to make any difference. Those who want to use Commons as a marketing channel while using any loophole to make the images as little free as possible will still find their ways - and I do not want RFD's discussing grey areas of appropriateness (which will boil down to which use cases are deemed important). --LPfi (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • There is absolutely zero complication. No more GFDL uploads, the end. And there is the clear benefit of reducing the fraction of difficult to reuse media. --Dschwen (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • The proposal must be worded so that it is not about GFDL only (otherwise you make a cosmetic change to GFDL and the new licence will be allowable). Thus there will be a lot of careful language (or "commonly" understood concepts), which must be understood with anybody wanting to conform or take part in deletion discussions. --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support I support this proposal. The GFDL license has been used on Commons to restrict the usage of free works. That's not how I understand our mission of giving people free access to knowledge. The grandfathering clause balances the interests of those who have uploaded media under a GFDL license in the past and at the same time, the proposal ensures that our audience benefits from what this project is about: allowing people to re-use the content on Wikimedia Commons. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support per the myriad of reasons already-elucidated by more articulate contributors above... Azx2 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support There are several ways to restrict user freedom. The requirement to accompany a work with another work taking up multiple times the relevant storage ressource (here: print paper) is an utterly inacceptable one. Add to that the fact that a number of people explicitly and openly use the GFDL for their pictures to impede republication and the conclusion is, that this license is deliberately used to infringe user freedom. This is the opposite of Wikipedias goals and ideals and remarkably also the opposite of the goals of the license. -- Ben-Oni (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose GFDL is a good License. Arguments against it do not convice me, because you can break any license. What if I make a Image with CC-BY and determine the user has to print the whole Bible if he uses it? --Engeltr (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You obviously don't know the CC-BY license. It contains a reasonable attribution clause to exactly prevent this case. Please reconsider your argument. --Dschwen (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose We can perhaps take GFDL out of the list of licences that can be chosen from on upload, but at the end of the day it is still a free licence and there is no sound reason to restrict it from use on this project. russavia (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too restrictive licenses may be taken out from the lists but after CC #1 released version 4.0 (where the copyright holder hasn’t to be mentioned at the page their work is shown on) and #2 now claims that releasing smaller resolutions under a CC license also makes the full resolution freely available, I am myself no longer inclined licensing my work under CC. Copyleft and Attribution are essential parts of a license for me. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Rillke, but I wonder whether it make any difference even if you use any other license. I think it is applicable to all licenses. WE are not attributing any pages or galleries even if the license is GFDL. Anyone can use a higher resolution file of a GFDL licensed work, if it is possible for CC. These are basic features of any public licenses; choosing CC or GFDL make any difference here. Jee

I agree with Jkadavoor here on both but particularly the resolution aspect. I assume you are referring to [30] [31]. While there's a very slight possibility the CC having said that could influence how courts will rule, I think the chances are slim. (And in fact for those slim chances they may influence all cases including GFDL ones and the affect may depend on whether a person is aware of this.)

Far more likely, what the CC has said there will have no bearing on how the courts will rule. (And there's very little chance there will be any difference between GFDL and CC on how they will rule.)

So you have to consider the more important thing. What's wrong with the CC giving their good faith intepretation of the possible copyright implication of trying to limit high resolution images while release low resolution ones? Would it really be better for the CC to hide this information? Or is it far better for the CC to mention it so potential licensors can make an educated decision on how they wish to proceed?

It seems to me it's the later. It's much fairer if people know what they're trying to do may not actually work since the law doesn't allow it so they can make an informed decision. Considering what I said earlier about it being very unlikely that what they said will actually affect a court case, holding back the info is only likely to trick people in to doing stuff which doesn't actually work.

And while this isn't something I thought about before, reading what they've said, I think they have a very good point. Remember, whatever we personally may think of it, the case they're basing it on i.e. en:Wikipedia:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a significant case for US copyright law and much cited in various circumstances. And one which leads to one of the few exceptions (based partially on what the WMF has said) to our requirement that our work be freely licenced in the country of origin.

As for the attribution thing, remember we already reject any requirement that a person be directly attributed on the page or in the image and require people accept a hyperlink here.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose I don't pick weird licenses such as GPLv2 or CPL for pictures, I just upload the logo or whatever with the license chosen by its creator. Be..anyone (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support: GFDL is outdated and silly. If we care about reuse, we should take all masures possible against GFDL. Max Semenik (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Really unfree licences

I would like to stress that I am in no way supporting this proposal, but rather wish to point out that it is completely missing the unfree media that is passing itself as free. Let's go through the four freedoms: 0) Freedom to use, 1) Freedom to distribute, 2) Freedom to alter, 3) Freedom to distribute altered copies; and now look at the media in Category:Created with Dia as an example. We can see that all this media only technically passes Freedom to alter. Yes, you can change the final work, but it would be so increadibly difficult to rearrange the final SVG file after all the Dia information has been lost, that most of the people would probably just recreate the damn diagram from scratch. It would be akin to releasing a new operating system and saying "Machine code is my source code, and you can edit it if you want", nobody in their right mind will consider that to be Free Software, and nobody in their right mind would consider a diagram with 100 entities to be free without the source being provided. So far I see that the most difficult to edit would be something like File:Socio-Technical Solution.ru.svg, which would be quite trivial to reproduce, but we are discussing fictitious "assholes" who contribute content under licences that we don't like. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, as I may be misunderstanding your point, but are you suggesting we not accept works made with certain programs, such as Dia, due to...what...complexity of code? I've never used Dia, but are the files it generates incompatible with other SVG editing programs? Is there a licensing issue?...I spot checked several in that category, and all seemed to have a Free Art License available to republish under, which seems more than free enough. Perhaps there's an issue I'm not seeing that should be expanded on. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Dia does not work with SVG, it only exports into that file format. After that export process you no longer can edit the file. You only edit the original .dia. As such it is a process similar to the compiling the programme code. You compile the source and then if you want to edit, you need that source code, the compiled machine code is not useful for your purposes. Dia is not unique, anything created with GIMP, AutoCad, etc, etc, etc. is pretty much not editable after some level of complexity, and only the original creator, who has the source files can continue creating derivative works (even if the licence says otherwise). If, however, we would require GPL or some similar licence for such files, we could demand for the source files to be released as well. But that would mean basically that we have to nuke a lot of the files in our collection. So I would currently oppose such proposal. However, it shows that not only is GPL "bad", but for some uses it's "better" than CC-BY or similar (which are good maybe for photos of your family). Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So you mean this proposal is OK if it is limited only to photographs? JKadavoor Jee 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sinnamon, that makes a lot of sense. Jkadavoor, you know, creating licensing rules based on the type of media might not be such a bad idea. Limit GPL to only code-based works, GFDL to text based works, etc etc. Of course, that's grossly simplified, but non-restrictive reuseability should be the primary focus of Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems a good idea. JKadavoor Jee 06:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no no no! I will shoot myself in the face now. This is completely not what I was trying to say. How would we enforce this rule? Let's say I want to release the photograph that I have edited with GIMP, I then release it under GPL because there is a GIMP source file associated with it. Another person comes along and edits the file, but they don't edit it with the GIMP file, but with the Windows 3.1 Paintbrush software. Now we have GPL file with the image itself being the source. Now look at the different perspective, one person creates a drawing on paper, and scans it. That individual releases the work under CC-SA-BY. I then come along and create a Dia diagram, but I use that image as one of the entities. Because it's a derivative work I cannot release the file as GPL (even though it would make sense), but only as CC-SA-BY. In order for me to release the Dia diagram as GPL I would need for your image to be licenced under GPL. If we disallow GPL for regular images we make it impossible. Therefore it is essential to allow people to licence their work under any free licence that they see fit, this would allow the potential reuser to select the needed work. So to once again make it clear, I say that it is impossible to say in advance what licence a particular file needs to be to allow for the easiest form of reuse (unless we go CC0/CC-PD/public_domain only option). Therefore this whole proposal is destructive to the project and should be abandoned. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So in your opinion, photos licensed only in this way can be useful for all sort of re-uses? Not bad (for me). JKadavoor Jee 08:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The license tags you put there are tautological, since CC0 already permits use also according to all the other licenses. ;) darkweasel94 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it so? But I doubt people like you think GFDL is everything. JKadavoor Jee 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion we should not restrict the contributor. Then we will have a wide range of different images, and the reuser will have a choice. We also should take into account the licence when deciding on the DR in cases where the reason for deletion is "other similar media already exists" when there is the differences in licencing. Forcing to release a work under a different free licence can only cause trouble in the end, because no matter what rules we create this will damage the project, but when there is variety to chose from (provided that there is good way to search) the project can only become better. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the GPL, with its definition of "source code", may really pose some problems. According to the GPL, the source code is the preferred form for making modifications to a work, which is pretty clear with computer programs but much less so with media files. For example, when a PNG is exported from Inkscape, is the corresponding SVG its source code? When I export to plain SVG in Inkscape, do I need to also redistribute the Inkscape SVG because that is its source code? Is a RAW file the source code for a JPEG? What about XCF or ODG? On the other hand, one could also argue that the GPL only requires distribution of some form that's convenient for modification. Because of this unclarity, I could actually live with disallowing the GPL - but not the GFDL, which has a clearer definition of "Transparent Copy" - for some kinds of media files. But in that case, without a grandfathering clause. I think I'm going to email the FSF and ask what they think about this problem. darkweasel94 09:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sinnamon Girl, you are creating imaginary problems. Why did you release your photograph under GPL? On what planet would anyone choose to release a photograph under GPL? How can a photograph have a "GIMP source file associated with"? Are you photographing computer listings? Please enough of this nonsense. There is an issue with different "share-alike" licences not mixing well together, and that is something the wider free-culture movement should address. Commons has always been pragmatic. In the past, it accepted GFDL because it was all we had. There is no longer a case for using it except in bloody obvious cases (it really isn't hard). As for your DIA problem or the issue of editing images. Well that really isn't a copyright licence issue at all. Perhaps we should ask folk to upload their camera RAW files or 16-bit TIFF files, or Photoshop files so that reusers have full creative freedom to alter the image? Some folk actually voluntarily do that. But that's quite a separate issue from licences. darkweasel94 is getting himself in knots over tying to make sense of GPL for images that might have "source code". Don't try. GPL makes no sense whatsoever for images that aren't part of computer programs or derived from such.

Sinnamon Girl says "In my opinion we should not restrict the contributor." (in terms of license). This is the problem where you wish for a different Commons than we have. Would you allow -NC or -ND? What about "educational only"? Or "no creationists" (I'm not joking). We have a pragmatic commons that is designed to host freely reusable images. No licence is perfect, but some are just "silly". Colin (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No no no! Stop lying! I never said that we need to allow NC or ND. I never said that, I never will. In fact it is the case of the kettle calling the silverware black. People who oppose clearly understand that the point is about free licences, it is not about how easy something is, or how long the licence text is, or anything else. The only point is whether the licence is free or not. GFDL is free. You on the other hand bring up all sorts of arguments about it being inconvenient for the people who do not want to play by the rules. If GFDL were not free, there would be no weasel arguments like "we can grandfather them", because we do not grandfather NC or ND works, they are simply disallowed. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We have long established a threshold between freedom and having as many files as possible: that threshold is the definition of free cultural works. Anything beyond that is simply totally arbitrary especially if worded as vaguely as in this proposal. darkweasel94 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sinnamon Girl, I think we need to develop a practical approach to guide what license are suitable for different types of works (as in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses). In fact, FSF recommends their GNU FDL only "for textbooks and teaching materials for all topics. (“Documentation” simply means textbooks and other teaching materials for using equipment or software.) We also recommend the GNU FDL for dictionaries, encyclopedias, and any other works that provide information for practical use." But we are forced to use it for Wikipedia, since it was the only license available at that time. But now we have different licenses. Later FSF itself switched to other licenses for their other needs. But we still stick into it. So I support Huntster's suggestion of "creating licensing rules based on the type of media might not be such a bad idea." I prefer all photographs should at least a valid CC license (CC0/CC-BY/CC-BY-SA). Similarly you can say an SVG should have a GPL or so. Otherwise people will misuse (only our senior, most expertise people who have other personal interests and no interests in the growth of Wikimedia) it by adding a non-matching license to their works and pretend that they made valuable contributions here. It is personally not a problem to me; since Wikimedia is not my business. JKadavoor Jee 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the loss of the source file is a problem with MediaWiki and the WMF which refuses to archive source materials (largely due to security concerns). This is not limited to Dia diagrams, but also Illustrator diagrams, photos created from raws, 3D renderings - the list goes on and on. This is why I created Commons Archive, which is an unofficial archive for source materials. In the long run, though, what I want is for Commons to directly host these source materials. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be that blunt but your objection is bonkers. The files you linked are ordinary svg-files. You can open them in gimp and edit them to your liking without any problem. Granted the text is in paths rather than in real text. But do you know why? Because the freaking wikimedia software could not render text properly. In tens of thousands of images the text had to be converted to path. So please stop trying to distract from the real issue. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-wording of Commons:Licensing

I've been critical of the use of "appropriate for the type of media it is licensing" as I find the language to open to unintended interpretations. What I suggest is:

In the section Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses has a line added under the list; the license must meet the following conditions a license type compatible to the media type, ie GFDL/GPL for software or screen shots there of In the next paragraph that starts The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: (which in itself could be reworded to ...not apply to the media file) add a line technical licensing requirments that impede re-use through the use of a "free license" on media for which it isnt designed ie GFDL/GPL for photographs

finally in the section Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses;

change do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software to only use GFDL/GPL(LGPL) for software or screenshots there of

These changes address the intended reason for the changes, are definitive and dont open the door for wikilawyering to unintended consequences. The only other thing then needed is to create a table that shows which licenses are recommened for what a where a license has been grandfathered... Gnangarra 08:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Acceptable in my opinion. I didn’t understand why people still argue GFDL is good enough or better than other licenses. It is already written that” “Note: The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example. Also, do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software.” The current proposal only suggest to change words like “preferable” and “please” to “must” and “should” per our Wikipedia:Be bold policy.

• Further, I’m against suggestions like removal of GFDL from the proposed-licenses-list at upload form only. Currently only CC-BY-SA (recommended), CC-BY and CC0 are listed in the Special:UploadWizard for own works. Special:Upload was hidden and so not accessible to a newbie. That also not giving an option like GFDL only; only a GFDL+CC-BY-SA is there. But it gives an option to add a predefined license tag at the “permission” field and leave the license field blank. A cleverly planned backdoor for our privileged users to abuse our system; while cleverly cheating all our newcomers and innocent users. Good, fair and cunning idea from our WMF seniors. JKadavoor Jee 17:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Policy and implementation detail

I am not very familiar with "RFC"s like this, but one thing that strikes me after reading through many of the comments - which has been turned into polarized votes - is the different expectation levels different users have regarding how detailed such an RFC should be. Some argue and oppose due to the fact that they think the proposed change in policy is far too complicated with far too many license-specific rules, which are hard to manage, such as the grandfathering of certain licenses for media uploaded prior to a certain date, or content created elsewhere prior to a certain date.

Another group of editors argue, that it is not detailed enough in handling all the special cases all license types, and this has influenced many "votes".

When I think of what a "policy" is, it is not very specific, but outlines a certain goal or objective. If there is a consensus for the objective, a second process then can be started asking the question: "How can we implement the policy?" A policy leaves some room for interpretation and there is often a pragmatic gap of bridging with prior history or policies to make the new policy practically realizable. Much like when politicians make new laws. They are created or changed to fulfill some objective, but to be carried out there are a lot of "guidelines" to be prepared by professionals, who knows all the caveats and the domain. Some borderline cases are tested out in a court system to establish where the practical boundaries are between right and wrong given the policy.

Here the policy (the "what") and the implementation/realization (the "how") is mixed together and in hindsight it should perhaps have been done in a two-step process.

First it should be discussed, whether the current balance between ease of re-use for reusers for different purposes and the freedom of creators to pick wahetever free license they want for whatever media type is right given current WMF policy, which is in itself open for some level of interpretation? If there is a consesus that the balance should be shifted either way (the "what"), then discusss how such a change in the balance could be implemented. It is only in the latter step, one would be begin to look at all the practical complications such as which rules should apply for which free licenses for which media types, how about previous work, grandfathering, derivative works.

I do not think these two things can be separated in any way in the current RFC - it is too late, but does anyone else share my thought about this "mixup" we have ended in here, or does anyone have any proposals how one could have such a discussion in a more constructive manner, where the objective is to find some kind of community consensus instead of having a hard vote?

I must admit, that I was one of the first users in this RFC to prepend my comment to the RFC with a vote template. I actually regret that now, as the vote templates does not stimulate a consesus-driven discussion, but polarize users in to either one or the other "camp".

--Slaunger (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I concur with you and – I'm sorry to say that – in my opinion the proposed policy is just bad. A good policy is both: Short and easy to understand while still covering nearly every case. As soon as a policy needs exceptions, grandfathering terms, etc. it's condemned to perish. Actually I think a bad policy introduces by far more problems than it is able to solve.

I'd support the idea to first check whether anybody is using any of those "inappropriate" licenses to restrict their re-usability. If we find out that this is really an issue (I still do not believe it) we can think about how we can best solve the problem (the current proposal probably isn't judging from the many oppositions). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Patrick, please check File:Wedge tail eagle flight Jan13.jpg and File:Hycleus lugens, Meloidae.jpg. JKadavoor Jee 15:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that File:Wedge tail eagle flight Jan13.jpg is actually more lax than GFDL can be. GFDL requires distribution of the full text of the licence, but the uploader has actually took a step forward and allowed only a link to its text. In fact this could have been CC-SA-BY and the uploader could have said the exact same thing. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What's a bit bad with the user-specific template in File:Wedge tail eagle flight Jan13.jpg is that it nowhere provides the GFDL-URL. --Túrelio (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine including the "full hyperlinked URL" in print media, or other media without hyperlinks, to be a bit hard. darkweasel94 17:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this equivalent to print just "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.en.html"? --Túrelio (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole problem is made up. It can be summarised as "I bet I can force people to jump when I say 'jump'". Sinnamon Girl (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"I bet you can't force people to jump when you say hyperjump". JKadavoor Jee 10:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not if the wording is "hyperlinked", IMHO. darkweasel94 19:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I too hadn't really thought about that. That is a good point. Perhaps this RFC should be split into two parts, one for supporting or not the idea itself and then another for working out how to make it actually work if the idea is supported by the community. My support above was given to the idea, not necessarily this exact wording of it. Zellfaze (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong footed, Indeed

I concur with this writer's (Slaunger's) key theses--this discussion got off on a wrong foot and needs relaunched with a clearer definition of purpose. I'm also really alarmed that so many seem to think a man's time is worthless and as a detonator should give up all rights based on some idealism that is totally impracticable in all of world history. People will act for their own best interests in the main, or donate to benefit some cause they believe in. Trashing the donation's worthiness or the motivations of the donator because there is some capitalistic tie in is ultimately silly —and totally unrealistic. This is an academic goofy-thought, or something one might expect from some drone in a government job that has no worries about his income stream or the pragmatics of the real world. At best, it is sophomoric and childlike.

We all have ties to our income streams, and IMHO, their is a severe need for hosting informative and especially EDUCATIONAL images about software, and this site is totally useless for such discussions in the main. EDUCATIONAL needs for example for Trainz Railroad Simulator, which is the most complex piece of personal software an individual is likely to own, yet COMMONS POLICY basically got that Wikibook all (100+ pages ca 2008-2009!) but abandoned, for one needs screenshots to discuss things tutorially in any sensible manner, and the culture clash was severe. Trainzers on one mission, copyrights Nazi's on another. Unfortunately, that leaves little options for those of us trying to help seniors and kids understand the complexity of the system. Deletions reigned supreme for this culture with all the verbosity is very alien. Since 2004 when I began editing as an anom, I've contributed on 13 WMF sites and can barely figure out what is what here with all the licensing verbiage. Most of the time I'm guessing, so I left the verbosity and self-conflicts of WMF projects in the main back in 2009.

If this policy is implemented then don't be a hypocrite as well, you have to delete all the non-free images such as WMF logos from the site. PERIOD! One way or the other, or ease up and join the real world and allow limited use licensing like the GFDL and software screenshots, where the 'back drop' company's application (e.g. Notepad, Windows) is just like a Panorama in most legal contexts-the architecture or statue is under discussion or a part of a greater whole, not something being infringed upon because an architect designed the object. Screenshots are no different, imho. Is it really likely that anyone at a major corporation will try and sue Wikimedia foundation for displaying screenshots-a frame of a moment in time much faster than a heartbeat! IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC RELATIONS NIGHTMARE, so not hosting such just handicaps the Educational mission of the foundation. <br/
Then add another factor, IT TAKES TIME to upload, license and categorize an image properly, yet the chuckle-heads supporting this measure totally disregard such factors. I 'guess' we're all rich with a trust fund and have no need of support, or a student or government worker equivalently on 'the dole' because we're secure in our living from a big institution of some kind. NOT! And only those who are could make such ulterior motives into something distasteful at all. Or maybe they're just socialists without realizing the fact as it so often gets hidden by tags like 'progressive' these days. Some if not most of these people need a reality check—need to have a living dependent solely or mostly on their own time for a while and if not, recognize they are in a Blessed position being not so time limite. THE IDEAL of hosting only all free content is what is flawed, the mission should be to host any content useful to an educational or informative purpose, not make people jump through hoops who are trying to write informative prose supported by the imagery! I've taken several hundred photos the last couple of months for feedstock into learning 3D modeling, but the mere thought of uploading and licensing them here makes me sick! It'd really be a time sink, and discussions like this remind me why I probably shouldn't! If you voted yes on this, you need to get a life in the real world and get your head out of the clouds. // FrankB 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would an author choose GFDL1.2-only over CC-by-sa?

This is a sincere question. No-one seems to disagree with the fact that choosing GFDL1.2-only makes sharing in print media incredibly harder (I for one would state that it makes use in educational material simply impossible). The license also seems harder to understand by a novice visitor. There must be positive sides somewhere. So, can Commoners who publish under GFDL1.2-only explain why they select that license? What does it bring you that CC-by-sa does not? -- Ariadacapo (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I thought it was clear that I mean "why choosing GFDL1.2-only exclusively". And, I look for answers from people who made that choice, not for guesses. --Ariadacapo (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit 2: Summary at bottom of section. --Ariadacapo (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that GFDL is mostly used out of habit and maybe a little sentimentality. The question is NOT if it makes sense or not, the question is what does the uploader WANT to use. Besides giving the opportunity to uploaders to use GFDL there's nothing CC-by-sa can't do that GFDL can. Just my 2 cents. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they failed to get consensus on adding an NC license as a valid license in Wikimedia. JKadavoor Jee 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why? This is very simple: because of the forced re-licensing. I dont want to conclude a contract I do not know (any later version ...) why I reject also from GFDL 1.3. "Any later version" may also mean that everything is tomorrow CC-0. No thanks! --Ralf Roleček 07:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ralf, that's a reason for picking "1.2 only" as your GFDL licence choice rather than plain "1.3". But you also offer CC in a multi-licence for your images which is absolutely great. So your reason doesn't answer the question. The GFDL licence is not just "harder to understand". It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when attached to a lone photograph, say. I think at one point some people felt GFDL was a stronger copyleft than CC -SA but this now seems doubtful. And what's the point in thinking one licence is "stronger" in some aspect when in fact its legal basis is dubious in the first place. If you want to licence your images, use a licence designed for images. Not one designed for computer manuals. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Multi-licensed are the photos, who are supportet by Wikimedia. I use the license who i like, no the, who others think are good for me. My private photos are GFDL1.2 and nothing more. If this license is banned here, i dont upload more of these photos. If the phrase "any later versions" is deleted, the License i do not care. --Ralf Roleček 10:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Ralf, now I understand the root cause behind your objection. There are many other people who don't like the license migration. I don't know the full story behind, though. JKadavoor Jee 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ralf, doesn’t choosing CC-bysa3.0 (or another specific version) also give you that guarantee about not relicensing? Ariadacapo (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons

• • • Not entirely - the copyleft is compatible with possible future versions (section 4a of cc-by-sa-3.0), so those who modify it may choose a later version for their modifications. darkweasel94 14:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you! (I think you mean section 4b by the way). So if I understand correctly Ralf’s fear is that the Creative Commons organization turns around and the work is modified and the derivative is relicensed under a subsequent (more permissive) license version. So that’s a second answer to the original question. --Ariadacapo (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
        • • Yes I meant 4b. However, as I read the license (IANAL though), if somebody did exercise this option, they would still need to fulfill the license in all other points (such as giving a hyperlink even to the old version); just their modifications could be under a later version (or they could combine the work with one released under that later version). darkweasel94 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Does Ralf upload any images to Commons with only "GFDL-only"? I can't find any. All I can find uses CC also. If by "my private photos" Ralf may be referring to a personal collection (e.g., family) that aren't on Commons. If so, this is of no concern to this debate. The issue of share-alike and versioning are problems. On the one hand, there's the dubious history of the 1.3 GFDL -> CC migration. On the other hand, many would be quite happy if a CC BY-SA 3.0 image was derived from to create a new CC BY-SA 4.0 image. And indeed would be upset if their image could not be reused just because of some versioning issue. The "GFDL 1.2 only" images here cannot be incorporated into a "GFDL 1.3" work even though the licence migration terms for 1.3 have expired. And this "stuck with a legacy licence nobody uses" issue will remain for the many decades till copyright expires. By "more permissive", I don't believe any of the fundamentals would change, though the specifics might (e.g., dropping the requirement for a URL). One has to balance concern of theoretical future issues against the huge "this licence makes no sense" actual problem. Using a "WTF?" licence like GFDL is highly likely to produce a negative reaction (either give up using it or else a f***k you and your stupid licence abuse of the image terms) whereas using a licence for images (FAL/CC) should be more likely to achieve reuse and cooperation with the terms. IMO we should work towards easy-going licences and stop fretting. It isn't good for the soul. Colin (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I agree: why fret? What exactly is the percentage of pictures uploaded under a GFDL-only license? Is it less than 1%? Less than a tenth of a percent? I don't see the problem. Let people do what they want to do. GFDL is still a free license. Fletcher6 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Again, one man's freedom is another's restriction. The "do what they want to do" should apply to the reuser, not the uploader. The balance of freedoms given by those who oppose this are wrong wrt this site (but reasonable POV othewise). Commons exists to host free content for anyone to use for any purpose. It is not a photo-ark or a source of pics for Wikipedia-web-site-and-nowhere-else. Colin (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I looked through a few of your recent uploads, and saw that they are licensed as cc-by-sa. How is that compatible with your opinion that reusers should be able to "do what they want to do"? There are a lot of things that they cannot do with your photos, such as releasing nonfree derivative works, not printing the license URL beside the image, combine it with FAL-licensed works, and so on. These are restrictions that are essentially very similar to those the GFDL imposes. But yes I know, those who choose the GFDL are hypocritical. darkweasel94 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
              • As darkweasel notes, you ignore that CC-BY-SA imposes limits on commercial re-use that may not be acceptable to some. You also ignore my request to explain the scope of the alleged problem, which I suspect is really small, perhaps vanishingly small and not worth all the time spent discussing it.Fletcher6 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
                • I don't "ignore" anything. I do have a life and this discussion seems more about some people scoring points in a debate than improving Commons. There are various definitions of free and reasonable people draw the lines in different places. Commons is based on Moller's definition, which has a set of allowed restrictions including attribution and share-alike terms. This proposal is simply about where to draw the line. Like the "slippery scope" fallacy Jee linked to elsewhere, it is reasonable to discuss where the line should be and much that Sinnamon and others have written falls into that fallacy and are essentially argument for argument sake. I'm tired of it. As for the problem being small. Well thank goodness it is. That is an irrelevant point. Colin (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yes, it's indeed about where to draw the line. We've long established where we want to draw the line: at the definition of free cultural works. Nothing is broken here, why fix it? darkweasel94 15:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Oh for goodness sake darkweasel. Step away from the keyboard unless you have something constructive to add. We know your opinion. The "why fix it" is explained right at the start, and Eric Moller (eloquence), author of said Definition, also explains why fix it. This proposal is indeed based on that definition, which requires licences to be practical. Now please, if you nothing new to say, don't reply just to have the last word. Colin (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• A possible reason could be to spread the knowledge about the Freedoms. CC -SA tells the person that they must give to others the same rights that they received from the original author, but does not require them to explain those rights. If a person, who is new to all this sees the image in the newspaper, and under that image there's a line "CC-BY-SA3.0 '95 Doe, John" do you think that they will say "Oh, this must mean that I can freely photocopy this picture, and then distribute it as long as I credit John Doe and give others the right to copy and modify it under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported". I think they will conclude that this is some garbage that got accidentally added by a bug of the layout program. GFDL avoids this problem by making sure that you know your rights. It's the same thing about Miranda warning in the USA, you have the right to remain silent even before the cop tell it to you (despite what Fox News hosts think), but they need to make sure that you actually know this. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just an argument for argument. I think nowadays even newborns know what is a CC! JKadavoor Jee 11:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Strike off per Ariadacapo below. JKadavoor Jee 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That maybe true in the circle that you are in, but I am sure that if I ask the members of my family, then none of them would know that Creative Commons is even something that would make sense to type into a search engine. I have friends who are artists, and I am sure that many do not know of such a thing either. And those who come across CC assume that it means 'non-commercial'. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it’s a valid argument. I think it’s a weak one (Colin below is more realistic I think), but it’s the first true one I read --Ariadacapo (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sinnamon, do you read your posts before making them? What newspaper would print a GFDL photograph? It would have to use an entire broadsheet page to also print the GFDL licence. Assuming this insanity occurred, the reader would think this was an April fool as why would a licence for a computer software manual be printed next to a photo of a butterfly? Copyright licences are complex and there's no way we can expect a version to be included other than in large textbooks like, em, software manuals. But we have this wonderful thing called Google. I can type "CC BY-SA" into it and get a highly readable explanation of my rights. And if the newspaper was online, then of course the license could be hyperlinked in the first place. There is no reason to use GFDL for images other than to restrict or discourage reuse. As Eric Moller says "GFDL is a silly license to use for a media file". So lets stop being silly. Colin (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If I understand things correctly an online newspaper could also hyperlink the GFDL; this is how Wikipedia worked before migration to CC -- individual articles did not appear with a copy of the GFDL. The difference between GFDL and CC becomes more apparent in print where CC requires the URI of the license but not the full text, while the GFDL requires the full text.Fletcher6 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes but the online newspaper would probably need to host the text of the GFDL itself, since gnu.org might be down (or in some countries, censored, or whatever you may think of). darkweasel94 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "CC-BY-SA 3.0 '95 Doe, John" would not satisfy the license conditions. See 4(a): You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. darkweasel94 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • So it's no better than this then. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Eric Moller says a lot every day. And the problems with re-use are not project goal, otherwise we would no have "project scope". --Ralf Roleček 12:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sinnamon, thanks for the answer, you say "a possible reason could be"; is this a reason for you? What are your reasons for using GFDL1.2-only? --Ariadacapo (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have a laser cutting business. I use GFDL a lot. Why? One simple reason: I'm making derivative works from other people's previously GFDL-licensed components. I don't want to use GFDL, I'd rather they didn't use GFDL, but I'd rather work round this and build on their component (even for wedge-tailed eagles) than I would lose access to their component and build solely from PD or CC- resources. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you explain what a "laser cutting business" is and how you are able to use GFDL images (where do you stick the 6-page licence?). Are any of these "components" on Commons are in-scope for Commons? What form does a "component" take? -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I work with CAD files, more than images. These have a defined metadata slot for noting things like licences. Size isn't an issue. Take a look at http://thingiverse.com for an open source project, not entirely dissimilar to Commons, where (as noted previously) the CAD community makes much more extensive use of GPL/GFDL than the image community does. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, so the CAD files have the GFDL licence, not the created artwork/product? It looks like the CAD folk are using a poor licence because they have nothing better, much like Commons did before CC/FAL were created. There doesn't seem to be a "burden" problem with them but there's still a "not designed for" problem because these aren't really text documents (GPL might be more appropriate if one considers the source executed -> product step, but it's still not a great fit). Anyway, the issue we have here is whether the licence is appropriate for the media and also about files in-scope for Commons. It doesn't look like these files are in-scope for us, and perhaps there's a case for saying they are appropriate because at present there isn't a significantly better licence and/or the burden isn't an issue. Colin (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
      • And this is the first time I see a CC GPL 2.0. JKadavoor Jee 16:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Creative Commons used to also make deeds for the GPL, LGPL and I think even GFDL, but it seems they no longer do so - I couldn't find it with a quick web search at least. darkweasel94 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
          • CC don't make licence deeds for GPL, but Gnu did adopt ccREL as their Rights Expression Language. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

_________

Summary: As I understand it there are three answers given above:

1. Use of GFDL1.2-only exclusively as a guarantee that license terms are not changed (scenario: Creative Commons organization turns around and the work is modified and the derivative is relicensed under a subsequent more permissive license version). As answered by Ralf Roleček.
2. Use of GFDL1.2-only exclusively because it educates users about their rights (scenario: re-user thinks "CC by-sa URL Author" is a typo but GFDL full text avoids this). As answered by Sinnamon Girl.
3. Use of GFDL1.2-only exclusively because work is derived from sources under that license (scenario:(?) these files wouldn’t make it to Commons instead). As answered by Andy Dingley

Thank you all for your answers. --Ariadacapo (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting briefly that authors have the privilege to amend their CC licenses to prevent automatic relicensing under later versions of the license, and that such a license would remain Commons-compatible. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Double standard

If this proposal fails, I suggest to include all acceptable license in the Special:UploadWizard so people can select whatever they like with freedom.

Currently only CC-BY-SA (recommended), CC-BY and CC0 are listed in the Special:UploadWizard for own works.Special:Upload was hidden and so not accessible to a newbie. That also not giving an option like GFDL only; only a GFDL+CC-BY-SA is there. But it gives an option to add a predefined license tag at the “permission” field and leave the license field blank. A cleverly planned backdoor for our privileged users to abuse our system; while cleverly cheating all our newcomers and innocent users. It is time to stop this cunning idea. Stop this Double standard game; and be honest in our principles. JKadavoor Jee 12:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The upload wizard is not the only method of uploading images. I don't agree with adding "GFDL only" as a suggested choice -- it is no longer offered for the very good reason that even the oppose votes here agree it is nearly always a poor choice. However, there are situations where it must be chosen because of the nature of the source material (e.g., GNU related software, logos, icons, etc). And there may be valid reasons for some other oddball licence too in certain cases. I agree that allowing some users to restrict reuse while publicly claiming to be a "free culture" project is hypocritical. No matter what some people would like to spend hours arguing about, whether one licence is free-er than another or whether this needs urls or that. The end situation is nobody chooses GFDL or GNU as sole licence options unless they want to restrict reuse, or they really really have to. Colin (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should put every copyright tag in existence into the dropdown box. There are simply too many of them and this would not be practical. Everyone can equally inform themselves about what licenses exist and are accepted, so there is no real "privilege" here; on the contrary, I think newcomers would probably be confused by too much choice. But I do think we should put {{Attribution}} there, perhaps even instead of cc-by, since it is definitely more easily reusable than any CC license and it should be more encouraged. darkweasel94 14:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Template_talk:Attribution#Disservice.3F JKadavoor Jee 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. However, contrary to what people in that discussion say, CC-BY is absolutely not the same as {{Attribution}}. CC-BY requires a link to the license, so it is impractical for reusers such as newspapers with very limited space. CC-BY has clauses such as one that allows the licensor to send "cease and desist letters" to reusers that they should stop attributing him when he no longer wants to be associated with his work. CC-BY terminates under specific conditions of license violation. These are certainly just a few of the things that {{Attribution}} does not do. darkweasel94 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My OTRS experience has taught me that the more license options you give people, the more confused they are, and the more often they abandon the contribution altogether. CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA are the three that I always offer and they cover 99% of all needs in practice (many other agents routinely offer only one option!). Anyone facing an exceptional case can simply request assistance with their upload at Commons:Upload help, already linked from the upload wizard. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Free Culture Works: fact or fiction?

Is there any evidence the use of "free" licences has contributed significantly to a new economy, education or wealth re-distribution that couldn't have been achieved with non-commercial or educational-use concepts? I read lots of dogma here regarding free cultural works but little of it is substantiated by fact. Yes, there are a few examples held up anecdotally but nothing seems research based. I often wonder if the quality of the endeavour isn't held back by a failed notion of how to best foster the ideals. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this is in any way directly related to this discussion. If you want to debate this, I'd suggest to do so elsewhere, since it is totally out of question that we won't accept non-commercial or educational-only licenses. darkweasel94 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't see how this is related? It's related because there are many photographer's that don't believe the "free cultural works" philosophy works for them or perhaps at all. As such they resort to things like GDFL to restrict what they see as the unfettered commercial use of their works by entities that would otherwise be required and capable of paying for that work. If we could show to them that their concerns are unfounded (commercial entities don't use Commons as a source) or that the number of small farmers in Africa that get educated by offering these works freely is materially changing the world then we could perhaps allay their concerns. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here I agree with Saffron because most of the people who use GFDL now are those who argue for the introduction of NC licensed photos on Wikipedia earlier. JKadavoor Jee 04:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see such research as Saffron Blaze refers to, but it's going to be a non-starter to change Wikimedia's free content mission, and outside the scope of this discussion. I do agree however that we could show more tolerance for contributors who don't sing the songs of free culture loudly enough. This is an educational foundation, not a cult. The idea that we need to maximize the ease of commercial reuse is not called for; as others have noted, that would imply we accept only public domain/CC0 licenses, as even CC-BY-SA imposes restrictions. We can afford to have different types of free licenses, some of which may be more easily reused than others. If a GFDL license is not amenable to a re-user, they can use another image or contact the copyright owner, same as with CC-BY-SA. Fletcher6 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Photographers are an odd bunch. I don't know how complete amateurs have developed the culture of obsessive copyright and an attitude of "If I'm not making money from it then I'll be damned if someone else, freeloader or big corp, is going to". If photography is one's profession, then one should definitely aim to maximise one's profits from one's efforts. And copyright and legal threats and watermarks and thumbnail previews are all reasonable ways of ensuring one can make an honest living. But why are millions of amateur photographs locked up on Flickr and elsewhere with full copyright and -NC terms that won't expire for a 100 years. How does that help the world?

In the US, works by the government are free. All those Nasa pictures everyone enjoys round the world are free. In the UK we have Crown Copyright, which is as restrictive as you can get. If the UK had conquered space rather than the US, we've have few pictures to enjoy and our government would be extracting money for every picture in every textbook or documentary or poster all over the world. The harm this attitude has caused to our economy is serious. Ordnance survey maps and post code databases are two examples of where our dunderheaded MPs have made us pay for data our taxes paid to gather in the first place. We've been unable to create mapping applications for survey purposes, for commuting and recreational travel, for population analysis, etc, etc, until quite recently as some of this data is being opened up. The cost the government wanted for this data was eye watering. I believe Tim Berners Lee is part of the effort to get our data and pictures opened up. It helps the economy. Photographs are no different.

Take Linux. The free software community have always encouraged commercial reuse. They know it is essential and how the world works. They don't code some routine thinking "I'm not paid for this, so I'll be damned if Apple or Google or Microsoft use it for their capitalistic purposes". They give it away. And thank goodness they did. For your mobile phone operating system (regardless of make) is mostly free software. We'd all be playing Snake on our tiny Nokia's if that hadn't been possible and only a few rich executives would have "smart phones". And linux may well be helping run your car, or your television or your hifi or the heart monitor that saves your life. The cardiologist who types your stats into an app on his mobile phone and is then advised on the treatment is using free software (there's a free app for that :-)

This isn't about donating images to third world schools. It is about setting them free for anyone to use. Colin (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that people who expect to be compensated for their work change their tune when it someone else doing the work. I doubt very much Colin would be willing to give his services away for free yet he expects photographers to do just that. Regardless, this isn't about preventing free use it is about the perception of unfettered commercial re-use. The argument that Linux is a similar case neglects the fact that software, especially operating systems, are inherently complex. Individuals contribute to projects like Linux for many reasons, but one of the main ones is enlightened self-interest, in that they get something in return... a functional OS. This situation does not extend to artists of any kind that are asked to donate their works to to a venture like this. With Commons the last person who is ever likely to make money from a contribution is the creator. More so for the fact that many photographers have noted the most common use of their works is from entities quite capable of paying. I don't think the overall mission of "free cultural works" would be jeopardised by addressing this imbalance. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not hypocritical about being paid for work. I'm not going to discuss my personal circumstances on wiki but plenty people give away services for free without having to denounce capitalism. There's a whole extreme between working for free as a charity doctor in Africa and someone who doesn't do anything without self-interest and financial or other reward. Most of us lie somewhere in between. There's a time and a place for paid work and there's a time and a place for making a donation. Everyone is free to decide how much they want to do of either. Commons is the place for making a donation. If you were to make a donation to a cancer charity, would you say that this should fund research only for poor people and the rich can bloody well research their own illnesses? As for free software, I don't buy your argument that those doing it are rewarded directly by the functional creation. That's really a tiny aspect of the huge amount of grunt work and hassle involved in such projects. There is no fundamental difference between the developer and the photographer. The difference is cultural. Colin (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If wikipedia were a charity at least I could get a tax deduction for my donations :) Colin, we already have gone through this discussion a couple of times and I am loath to rehash the same arguments here. I will say that Linus Torvalds disagrees with you on the issue of open source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419231 Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting what he says, though he's only one of thousands and can't speak for them all. Everyone has different politics. Linus says the "selfish" reward for him is "the pleasure of tinkering", not getting a functional OS. My point is his reward is in his head, not a physical or monetary thing. The same reward applies to the pleasure of taking and processing a great picture, or of tinkering with Commons categories or finding images to stick on WP articles. Nobody here is taking pictures for the "greater good" as Linus calls it. They take the because they enjoy doing so. But if they don't want to make money from them, then donating them to the community is a better thing to do than locking them up. But that's my politics. Colin (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I also found it interesting he said success of the project was founded on copyright being firmly established and that they used a license that enabled open source but prevented one-sided commercial exploitation of the project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's seeming to me like Share-Alike clauses are less beneficial to photographers because photographs tend to be more standalone works than derivatives (though not always, of course), so the re-user can benefit commercially from the creator's work without having to give anything of his own back to free culture. If I fork your GPL'd code, my new program is also GPL'd. If I print your photo in my magazine, I only need to caption the picture with the attribution and CC license, but my magazine as a whole is still "All Rights Reserved" and I take all the profits from it.Fletcher6 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty standalone open-source or free projects where a lone or nearly lone developer builds something from scratch. But I agree that a huge composite thing like Linux is an iterative thing (like Wikipedia) whereas photos tend not to have many iterations at all. The "exploitation" that GPL prevents is where people make modifications to the source code and don't donate that source back. There are limits to this though. IOS is not open source but has open source components. Like your magazine. Also your Android phone contains open source software, closed source software and hardware that makes huge mega-corporations millions of dollars of money. So it kinds of depends what you mean by "exploitation". A company could take plain Android, put it in a phone, sell that at a profit and give nothing back to the developers. The GPL only extends to the source code. You can put GPL software in a closed-source O/S or ship them on a hard disk or DVD along with commercial software. The comparisons and analogies only take us so far. The main difference I feel is cultural. Photography can develop an open culture where people get a buzz out of creating their photographs but then set them free. Colin (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be cultural if the premise of the donation were the same. They aren't. GPL provided a kind of protection that coders needed to feel their contributions were not exploited selfishly, and if improvements were made they could get access to them freely, according to Linus Torvalds. As pointed out by Fletcher this is most often not the case with photographs. You say I should consider it a donation to the greater society but much of my experience and other anecdotal evidence is that I am donating to profitable companies. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It really depends what you mean by "contributions were not exploited selfishly". If we use the same meaning that photographer's use, then yes they are very much exploited selfishly. Everyone who donates their time for free to the Linux or Android are making Samsung richer, Carphone Warehouse richer, Vodaphone richer, etc. These are billion-dollar companies often with dubious tax arrangements. Some microscopic part of Samsung's empire might donate back some bug fixes to the Android codebase, but the software shell and in-house apps they put on top of it is proprietary closed source copyright protected. Most of those benefiting from that coder's work are giving nothing back and are among the most profitable companies in the world. We have different politics on this and there's no "right" position. Colin (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Android was developed under quite a different license. One that allows creators to provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of any modifications of the source code. No wonder those big corps you point out love android so much. Apache 2.0 is little more than attribution; it has no share-alike safeguards. None of this detracts from the fact that contributors of content to Commons are those least able to accrue material benefit from that creative enterprise due to unfettered commercial re-use and that this is at the root of why many people still use GDFL. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree that attitude influences the choice of a restricted licence. I think that attitude is part of photography culture and not part of free works culture. Why should it bother someone that, if they have decided not to make money from a picture, that someone else does? Why should it matter whether a picture is used on a quiz for a fundraising event or installed by Apple as wallpaper for their latest luxury laptop? This sense that it is bad that someone got something for free who could have paid, or bad that someone made a profit from other people's labour. These things are bad if I'm trying to sell my pictures and they are the means by which I'm supporting my family because they directly lower my earnings and make me poorer. When when the aren't they have no tangible effect on me whatsoever. There's no loser. A concern for fairness only matters when there's a loser. My point is that other people take a different view on this, it is political, and showing them how much some third world school benefits from their pictures won't help if they go to bed fretting the Apple might freeload their work. Colin (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

True, and there is many a great image languishing in Flickr with licensing terms that make them useless to anyone, but there is another perspective in what you say. There is no new economy that arises out of donating images to Commons. In fact donating quality works to Commons, even those for which someone might never seek remuneration, hurts those that do use photography as a means to support themselves. Open source projects and collective works, like Wikipedia, are different from photographs in that the image stands alone. It is complete in and of itself. The same is rarely true of other open source or collective works. Contributions there have little marketable value on their own or would not survive outside the collective much like the source code for a sub-routine in Linux. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. We've discussed this before and there's plenty areas of traditional and microstock where Commons is utterly lacking and no threat whatsoever. And it is no threat to commissioned photography. There are essentially no images of business, sports, wedding, concert, current affairs, etc, etc. What kills off the pros is where amateurs offer to do commissioned photography like weddings or concerts for free or next-to-nothing, or newspapers get iphone current-affairs images from the public for free, or folk take stock photos and sell them for pennies. There are plenty areas where small open source projects have killed off commercial software. Where I agree is that there isn't a significant economy created by free images whereas open source software has had a huge impact. I think that reflects a lack of maturity though. The Ordnance Survey mapping is an example where locking up images has hurt the economy and business and Nasa is an example where sharing images has benefited us all. Colin (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ordnance survey mapping and NASA imagery is more an issue of access to taxpayer paid programs than it is of licensing. I suspect in the case of the maps there is an argument for user fees so as to minimise impact on the taxpayers, particulaly those who would never use or care for the service. Regardless, I think we have now sufficiently diverged from the orginal point to make darkweasel94 concerns valid :) I end where I began... I seriously doubt there is any evidence that the stated goals of free cultural works actually succeed in the realm of photography. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think this is totally unrelated to this proposal. The goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to encourage production of free cultural works, so Commons cannot and won't accept files that aren't free cultural works. This isn't the place to debate over whether that is good or why people should produce free cultural works or why they shouldn't or might not want to do so. Let's not clutter people's watchlists with discussions as unrelated as this one. darkweasel94 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's directly related as to why people use GDFL. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

since the under lying reason people choose GDFL for photographs is to prevent re-use they arent contributing to "freee culture" nor to the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, so that then says the community must take a position on whether we accept these photographs that are technically freely licensed but practically unusable, much like cc-nc and cc-nd Gnangarra 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"[...] these photographs that are technically freely licensed but practically unusable, much like cc-nc and cc-nd" - So your whole argument is based on the faulty belief that GFDL is anything like CC-NC or CC-ND? Non-Commercial and Non-Derivative licences are not "technically freely licensed" in any sense of the term. They are completely different. CC has published both free and unfree licences, FSF has never published a single non-free licence, which means that there is much less danger of having the next version of GFDL to be non-free, but it is possible that CC will go insane and decide to add some pro-monopolist non-commercial only clause. I have spoken to several people who do the website promotion, and not a single one of them would agree to add hyperlink to a different site on every page that uses an image (especially not during the startup of that site), but they can be persuaded to host the text file on their own server with the text of GFDL, that wouldn't hurt their rating on some search engines. So there are commercial uses that are completely off the mark for the CC, but can easily be accommodated by GFDL. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

no I'm not say GFDL is the same as to CC-NC or CC-ND, when applied to photographs they have similarities in intent in that they can be reused freely but under conditions that make them impractical for reuse. Gnangarra 10:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

CC licenses with -nc or -nd are not even "impractically" freely reusable. darkweasel94 10:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't these website promoters need to provide a hyperlink to the text of the licence they host? Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The FSF has published nonfree licenses. The GFDL is only a free license when used without invariant sections and cover texts, which is the only way we permit it. And I'll better not write here what I think about the AGPL, since that's totally offtopic here. BTW, the CC licenses also allow you to include the entire license if that is what you want. darkweasel94 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Curious, is there any other community, other than photographers, that so actively resist this so called "free culture"? Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

oh yes, there are museums who persist in putting copyright on works of people who died over 100 years ago; there are dictionaries who copy paste PD works to the web with, "publisher 1887; copyright 2004"; there are museums who upload images of PD paintings to flickr with an NC; there is an ongoing institutional resistance to the bridgeman decision by using terms of service. the attitude is: how are we going to pay for our scanning except by charging commercial prices, to augment our exhibition catalogs. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Other communities very strongly opposed: 1. stock photo licensors like Getty Images and iStockPhoto, which routinely claim copyright on reproductions of public domain works, and fiercely pursue "infringers". 2. Independent artists, some of whom support very strong notions of authors' rights to the exclusion of use by others, although this community is not so unified. It should be telling though that e.g. deviantART doesn't even offer a CC option. Note that, as museums go, a few institutions like the J. Paul Getty Museum are very much pro-free culture. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Where would this lead us to?

Nobody explained me yet where exactly the problem is with GFDL. In regard to media, the only real difference between GFDL and Creative Commons share alike is that GFDL demands a verbatim copy of the licence. The very most re-usages happen online. To provide a digital copy on one's subpage is no problem at all. Offline re-users have to add a copy in letter size. A book editor can easily add it as an appandix. Even a newspaper has enough space for the licence text. A t-shirt or cup seller can add such a simple paper copy to each sold item. There is not a single court decision that disallows such a reasonable fulfilling of the licence requirement.
Let's say we would agree to the proposal. What next? The real problem that re-user have is to fullfill any requirements, even of CC content. That leads us to discuss about the freeness of CC-by-sa as well in a couple of years. The necessity to provide a hyperlink to the licence text is an unbearable restriction for at least offline re-users, thus CC-by-sa not a free licence?!
It is surely not a coincidence that the proposal wants to list CC0 as preferred licence choices. The proposal is not against GFDL mainly; it is pushing towards a general CC0 policy; and I don't share that vision for a lot of reasons. --Martina talk 14:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Martina, the problems with GFDL are quite well explained in the proposal and the FAQ. Your description of t-shirt sellers handing out GFDL booklets made me smile. It is not only ridiculous but not legal. Please don't attempt to invent ways to make the GFDL legal for sole images on t-shirts. It makes as much sense and tying to make a driving licence legal for such purpose. And Jean Fred has already pointed out the en:Slippery slope flaws in your other argument. There is absolutely no danger that the CC licences, which were created to meet the Free Cultural Works requirements for images and other medial on Commons, will be "next". See [Permissible restrictions. The requirement to print "© User:Colin CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)" next to an image is a relatively small burden and by no means unbearable compared to "© Famous Photographer Getty 2013". It is a problem for some image usages, but sensible people can come to an agreement on where Commons wants to draw the line. The fact that we want to draw the line, or shift the line, doesn't imply (per slipperly-slope flawed thinking) that the line will be shifted the whole way.

What is fascinating about this discussion is that those using the GFDL don't try all these nonsense arguments. They openly admit that it is or is perceived to be an impractical licence. They openly admit they want to restrict reuse. Quite why other folk invent weird arguments defending GFDL here is beyond me. Colin (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice to give you a smile. You might like to insult me by talking of "nonsense", "ridiculous", "weired". You might ignore arguments of GFDL users that go beyond handicapping re-users. This behaviour is normal for a man on mission. But you still didn't show me a single court decision that required a licence print ON an item, or that demanded any other specific handling of the licence copy. Then, you'd be right to say that a reasonable handling depending on the manner of re-usage is illegal. Reality check: Somebody who grants free usages to everybody for any purpose will not successfullyy claim a complete licence print on a t-shirt or a cup as long as the re-user can prove that he did his best to comply with the licence terms.

You write "sensible people can come to an agreement on where Commons wants to draw the line" (unsensible people can come to another conclusion than you). The line already is clearly drawn: by Project scope, Licence policy, freedomdefined.org. The only problem for re-users with these free licences is that they either don't know enough about copyright and licence issues, or they simply don't care for. It would not help them at all to suppress a single free licence which is globally spreed since more then a decade. --Martina talk 17:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no legal court case involving GFDL for photographs for the same reason there is no legal case involving driving licences for photographs. They have no legal merit. Martina, please stop defending the GFDL with this nonsense. The only law here is copyright. It is up to the re-user to show they have a permit to avoid being sued for copyright infringement. And the permit they have in their hands is for computer software manuals. Why would any commercial entity risk that when they can buy a microstock image for $10? Such a case will never come to court. Colin (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been relatively few court cases involving any free license, because usually the violation is ceased after a notification, or not pursued anyway. The GFDL is clearly usable for images, it even says so itself in section 1: A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. So your argument about "driving licenses for images" is simply nonsense. darkweasel94 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a section defining transparent/opaque copies of the document, terms which are later used wrt the copies you publish. The images they are referring to are the images in the "document". What this section is for is to ensure the text and images in the document are editable by widely available free software. So if your text is a Word document or your image is a Photoshop file then you may need to provide it in some more common format. This section does not help the GFDL make sense for sole photographs or for sole sound recordings or for sole videos. Colin (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, both the CC licenses and the GFDL predate the definition of Free Cultural Works, so it isn't possible that either were made to conform to that definition. So that part of your argument isn't true - though this is not especially relevant. Since I am one of the people who do not use the GFDL but oppose this proposal, I will respond: I think it is good if people choose easy-to-reuse licenses - the easier the better, and people who choose {{Cc0}} should certainly be applauded! At the same time, there is also an interest for Commons and its reusers that we have a wide collection of files, because some reusers may have no problem at all with the GFDL. We have to draw the line somewhere, as you have correctly stated. I think the definition of Free Cultural Works is a clear, non-arbitrary and generally good place to draw the line. Saying that certain licenses are not allowed because the strings that need to be attached are too long, or that certain licenses are only valid for software icons, logos, screenshots, or whatever you may think up, ..., and otherwise only if they were uploaded before a certain date, is a much more arbitrary place to draw the line. If we now draw arbitrary lines that are not supported by the definition of free cultural works, we might later have to regularly have discussions about new licenses and whether they are practical enough even if they meet the definition of free cultural works. Let's not start doing that.

As for whether distributing the GFDL on a sheet beside e.g. a t-shirt is legal, the clause that requires reproduction of the license is pretty vague for such cases: provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies. But since the intent is that licensees get the license, I believe courts will and should interpret it so that it is legal. darkweasel94 18:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons) is largely responsible for the term "Free Culture" being used. Yes CC licences have been around a while, but the versions we are using were designed in collaboration with folk from Commons. Wikimedia moved over to CC precisely because the GFDL did not meet their purposes. The point is that slippery slope arguments that we might next ban CC BY-SA are ridiculous. The Definition requires that licences are practical to be free. Eric Moller himself says that it is up to the community at Commons to decide how to interpret that for each licence and its use, and agrees that GFDL for images is "silly". What we are doing is simply interpreting and establishing consensus. We are working out where to draw the line because it isn't back and white. Saying simply "GFDL is a free licence" is oversimplistic rubbish, like saying "The USA is a free country".

The point of us having a discussion about whether GFDL/GPL make any sense for a photo of the Colosseum is to avoid our re-users having to do that. So yes Commons should have a discussion for each licence it uses. If we're here to help people re-use our media. But, we all know that some people aren't here to do that. Colin (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And again. "Ridiculous", "rubbish". You are obviously not able to discuss in a fair way. I doubt that you'll gain a lot in this polarizing way. As already said: If you want to force people to donate their images to an easy as possible re-usage you should be honest enough to openly promote CC0 only.

People are donating images, time, and engagement; and you accuse them of dark motifs. Your attitude is like insulting a donator because, in your view, the 100 bucks he gave are still not enough. He is a bad person as long as he doesn't completly empty his pockets.

Eric Moeeller? Hah. It's now my turn to smile. How many images did he contribute to Commons? How much time did he spent voluntarily for Commons? How much of his monthly WMF Deputy Director wage did he donate for project and contributor support? How much of his earnings depend on cooperations with enterprises like Google and Orange? What is his background to - eloquently :-) - push free beer mentality on others? --Martina talk 21:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• What is Commons? Commons is an image library for free images for a lot of uses. GFDL 1.2 only is a free license. We photographers are not only the slaves for the commercial scrounger. We are also photographers for our Wikipedia projects. What the problem with GFDL 1.2 only? If Commons will be a free image library for all without any conditions than please create a Commons ver. 2.0 only with CC0 and PD !!! Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What can we agree on

Thank-you to everyone who read and considered the proposal. This has been a bit like a discussion on the wording of a job advert for a new Youth Pastor at one's church. Someone proposes some wording and after a long night of discussion, we find that not only is "Anglican" deemed too restrictive but many people feel "Christian" is going a bit far and really they just want someone who is good with the kids and has a clean police record.

There are several opposing views I see:

• Some people regard Commons's mission as just (or mainly) providing images for Wikipedia. And if one conveniently ignores that Wikipedia is also a free-content project, then yes GFDL images do that job.
• Most licences impose some conditions on reusers that can be impractical (such as attribution or URLs) in at least some circumstances. On that point, only CC-0 and public domain are free of all problems. So there's a spectrum of ease-of-reuse, with full copyright at one end, followed by non-commercial or educational-only restrictions next, followed by GFDL/GPL's requirement for a full copy of the many-page licence text, followed by CC BY's requirement for attribution and a URL, followed lastly by CC-0 and public domain images. The Commons' requirement that media be reusable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose" is therefore an ideal that isn't 100% achievable by any established licence. We should, as a community, be able to decide where on that spectrum we want Commons to draw the line without fallacious slippery slope arguments.
• Some like the simplicity of "free licence" as a concept and don't agree that it should be further refined.
• Some are concerned we will lose potential future content if any tightening of upload rules are made.
• Some don't like the complexity or open-endedness of the proposal and would prefer if we simply discussed specific problem licences.
• Some thought that although GFDL should be discouraged (e.g. not an upload drop-down choice) it should still be available to experienced users.
• Some disagree with the Free Culture concept and agree with restrictions on reuse. Indeed they would like if Commons held -non-commercial and -educational-only licensed media.
• Copyleft licences can themselves make reuse difficult because different licences don't work well together and copyleft requires the re-user grants freedoms they may not have wanted to.

I didn't see any convincing arguments that GFDL/GPL made any sense for sole photographic images, or sounds or videos. Most chose not to attack that aspect of the proposal. Some felt the "intent" was enough, though it isn't at all clear if the intent was to be free or to be restrictive :-).

There is a slim majority in favour of the proposal, if one simply counts the !votes, but this isn't sufficient imo to change policy.

Many didn't want GFDL (as a sole licence) to be a simple option on upload. In other words, you'd have know what you were doing to choose that option. I believe this is currently the case anyway. The "old form" asks if you are uploading screenshots of free software and helps you pick the right licence in those cases, but for photos and other original art, the GFDL isn't offered on its own.

You might disagree with my personal summary or arguments here. Let's not continue to debate them. What I want to do is propose a very small change:

Since most people accept GFDL/GPL is generally a poor choice for most of the media hosted on Commons then I propose we remove "GPL", "LGPL", "GFDL" and "Open Data Commons" from the list of well-known licences that are preferred for materials on Commons at Commons:Licensing. This section currently explains why GFDL/GPL/LGPL are poor choices so keeping them as "preferred" is contradictory. In addition I propose we note that GPL/GFDL/LGPL licences may be essential for media related to free computer software or some such wording. Finally, I propose we amend the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses" bullet-point to include CC0 as well. The exact wording of these changes can be worked on. The point is to not be contradictory and to help the reader choose an appropriate licence for their work. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You wanna close your proposal with a new proposal?! How many weeks do you want to go on discussing until you get what you want? It's enough now. --Martina talk 21:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Martina, the above suggestion is a minor part of the original proposal. Not new. And it changes nothing other than fixing some confusing wording. The licence policy already says GFDL/GPL should not be used, so it is simply confusing to also claim they are "preferred", when they aren't. Colin (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, removing inconvenient licenses from a list of preferred licenses is certainly a very good idea; I'd also suggest adding {{Attribution}} to that list, it's a license option that should be more encouraged than it is now. However I don't think it will change much in practice because most people just pick something from the upload form anyway. This even seems like something that can be done through normal talk page discussion on Commons talk:Licensing, since it doesn't actually change policy. darkweasel94 21:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You state "what we can agree on" then proceed to editorialize any points you want to make about those that are on other side of the debate. This to include admonishing those that invoke slippery slope fallacies then propose the addition of CC0 to the preferred list thereby validating their argument. I voted to support the change but I am getting to the point where I'll change the vote simply because the discussion is becoming increasingly annoying to even read. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I make no claim to be a neutral party so expecting me to summarise without editorialising to even a small degree is unfair. The CC0 suggestion was always part of the proposal and in no way validates the slippery slope argument. I agree with darkweasel94 (for once) that this is the sort of minor wording improvement that doesn't need huge community discussion. On Wikipedia someone would have done it already. Perhaps suggesting it when so many annoyed people are buzzing around like wasps was a bad idea. Colin (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Commons:Licensing should have sections of media types, Photographs, Graphics, Screen Shots & software, Video & Audio, other content (text, pdf, djv). with preferred licenses suitable for that type specified with key features highlight. Because thats what people really need is just an easy to decide guide as most people who need the help dont have the basic knowledge, after they been a round for a while they stay fairly consistant with what they are already using. As it stands I happy even though I vote! against the proposal with what Colin is suggesting here. Gnangarra 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let's drop this for now as too many people have red mist in front of their eyes and can't agree even a minor tweak to the wording of policy. Colin (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What GFDL actually says

The same people who accuse others of logical fallacies are often ones who have not examined their basic premises, thus their logic may well be ok, but it's built on fud. Let's examine the validity of statements like "GFDL cannot be applied to images". Supporters of this proposal will argue that we shouldn't do such an examination, because the text of the licence is very long and too complicated (and they perform a logical fallacy of quoting a figure of authority that says what they agree with). Actually the text is not very large and is available for everybody at https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

In order to see if GFDL can be applied to images we need to determine two things:

1. Are images mentioned in GFDL text
2. If they are is this mention in any way discourages licencing of such media under this licence or does it give guidance about distributing images under GFDL.

The first point is easy, load up the text of the licence in your browser, press Ctrl+F (or other combination which allows you to search for text on the page), type "image". Shazang! GFDL does talk about images.

Now let's see if it says something like "images are excluded from GFDL" or "here is how you distribute images under GFDL". To do this we need to read the two paragraphs that we were able to find in the previous step (copied here for your convenience, but don't trust me, actually go and read the whole licence).

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.

So now we are presented with the daunting task of figuring out what this whole thing means. In my opinion this gives guidance about how to distribute a free work. Within this guidance it explicitly talks about:

1. Giving reusers copies of the work that is suitable for "generic paint programs" or "some widely available drawing editor"
2. Going as far as to call these works "images" and "drawings"
3. Lists among preferred file formats "PNG, XCF, JPG" (which to my knowledge of formats common only to visual media)

So I believe that anybody who says that GFDL opposes free reuse of images has simply failed to read or to understand the licence.

Let's stop arguing and close this proposal already, as the whole thing is getting boring. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As a long time user and 3 day registered user, I am saddened and disappointed with this discussion. At first I believed it was a reasonable proposal. Then I became swayed by some of the opposition. Then I realized it was way beyond my expertise to form an opinion, but I kept reading because I do want to contribute at some point. After spending 5 hours or more reading this discussion, I have to agree with Sinnamon Girl about closing this proposal. I have to say, though, that it was getting boring, long, long before Sinnamon Girl said it in her comment above. THUMOV (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sinnamon, I have already responded to this misinterpretation of the GFDL here. You are very sure of yourself. And very wrong. I have no further wish to discuss this with you. Colin (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the section that lists PDF for text is talking about a file that is embedded in the document and not the whole document. Actually I think that you are wrong. Also, I have for a long time resisted answering you on this page, but it is getting really annoying that you answer to me with statements like "I have no further wish to discuss this with you." and then the next time I post something you respond to me again. If you don't wish to talk to me, I have no problem with that, but then stop talking to me don't just say that you have. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sinnamon. I could not find any clauses in the GFDL that would not be applicable to images; the "sections" that it talks about would simply need to be distributed together with the image. But if anyone can find a clause that really does make no sense when applied to images, please post it here. darkweasel94 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

{{PD}} - No respect for grandfather.

{{PD}} has gone from being acceptable to being unacceptable, even on uploads from back when it was totally fine to use. I don't want to see the same happen to works tagged GFDL.

What is broken

Many of the arguments opposing the proposals are of the type "GFDL is a free license, if it ain’t broken don’t fix it". As a heavy re-user of Commons material I would like to point a case I regularly encounter where GFDL-1.2-only-exclusively licensing is breaking our mission:

When I point university students to Wikimedia Commons I tell them "You can use, re-mix, modify any of the material you find there in your report, all you have to do is indicate the license and author with a URL". This is great because it is a great introduction to free culture and a step away from the "you-can-use-our-material-only-to-say-good-things-about-us" corporate licensing terms or the plain copyright violations that are both so common in the aerospace industry and academia.

But then I have to add "ooooh except if you see GFDL-1.2-only and there are no other terms, because then you would not be allowed to print them in the report". Now there are always those editors who will point out that all the students have to do is print the whole license at the end of the report, suuuure good luck with that in the real world.

That restriction of "you have to print the whole license" in practice means "you cannot print this stuff", and it is working against our mission of providing a database of free cultural works. It is making Commons a tricky place for newcomers. It is adding conditions that bar re-use in lecture hand-outs, newspapers, magazines and science journals, whether commercial or not. Whether that restriction is used for good or bad purposes, it makes understanding our mechanisms harder and going by our principles impossible in the printed world. I’m not convinced the proposed change can work (the devil is in the details) but the "nothing is broken don’t touch anything" argument is, in my view, putting our head in the sand. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't think you're being honest and accurate if you say "all you have to do is indicate the license and author with a URL". Different licenses used here on Commons have different requirements. You should tell them something like "you'll see a license tag on every description page, that will inform you what you need to do". Also, I agree with you that the GFDL is not a good license, but banning it, especially if only for new works, would be too arbitrary for my taste and potentially cause perfectly good material not to appear here. darkweasel94 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just indicating the license and author isn't nearly enough in many cases. If they re-mix or modify (i.e. make an "Adaptation" from) a CC-BY-SA licensed file, they need to take "reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify" any changes made. They must also license the result under CC-BY-SA. Even with CC-BY, they must show the work's title (if given), and the copyright holder can specify other people besides the creator who must be credited. And depending on their jurisdiction, they may not be able to legally use some FOP or PD-Art images either. So GFDL is certainly not the only thing that can make reuse awkward. --Avenue (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

@Ariadacapo: what do you do when you don't find the right image??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I draw them myself and share the results. You are welcome. Ariadacapo (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly the right conclusion. We share our material in an extremly free way; even commercial users can use it for any purpose; if they don't find material that fits perfectly to their needs, they can make it themselves (or buy it somewhere else). The only difference is that they rarely share their material under a free licence. Where I want to lead to is: This proposal assumes that everybody's goal would, and should, be to provide free as possible material to everybody. But I think a good part of the people here provide their material mainly for Wikimedia projects and don't give a damn on external, especially commercial resusers. An I think their attitude is as good as completly donating one's material into the public domain. --Martina talk 12:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying one attitude is "as good as" another is the wrong way of thinking about it. They are different points of view and reasonable people may hold either. But what is important is that the "only for Wikipedia" view is totally incompatible with what the WMF have created in Commons and Wikipedia. Both are free content projects. That is not going to change. It might be reasonable to wish it was different but it isn't different. Both projects require contributors to give away their work for anyone to use. Imagine for a moment if Wikipedia allowed "for Wikipedia only" donations. It could accept not just CC -NC licences but all-rights-reserved images too. Professional photographs could licence their images to the WMF alone. It might even attract news agencies like Reuters to donate small copies for free. Getty could put preview-sized images onto our articles with links to the full size version to purchase for a fee. We'd have more images than we knew what to do with them.

The proposal isn't about what people "should" do. That's entirely up to them, with no judgement made. But the contract Wikipedia and Commons requires of anyone choosing of their own free will to contribute here, is that they give away their work to anyone for any purpose. The GFDL (as a sole licence) is only used by folk who don't agree to that contract. It is deeply disappointing that so many people don't get that and support deliberately restricting the content here. There's a place for a website where you can look but not use: it's called Flickr. Colin (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right in almost all ways, and no, I am not sympathetic to people who don't share our free content mission. But their intentions do not matter in my opinion - their deeds to. The GFDL is one way to give away one's work:

• to anyone (there is no clause discriminating between people in the GFDL), and
• for any purpose (there is no clause disallowing certain purposes in the GFDL)

What the GFDL does is impose some requirements. So do many other licenses. Some of them are easier to follow for some people, others not so, and different reusers may have different needs (for example, a book publisher might actually prefer GFDL to CC-BY(-SA) because printing a bit of legalese in the end of the book is relatively cheap, but potentially having to remove attribution notices from subsequent copies may be far more expensive). There will always, by necessity, be one "most restrictive" license that we accept; today it's the GFDL, tomorrow the FAL or CC-BY-SA. That one will be the license people choose when they don't want to make reusers' lives particularly easy. darkweasel94 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Gewinne und Verluste

NOTE: Dschwen removed his comments here: " removing all my comments. this is not a constructive discussion".

NOTE: If Dschwen is allowed to destroy the history of this diskussion, it cannot be legal to disallow any changes for other users immediately thereafter. Removing my answers on Dschwens wording. -- Smial (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ein Verbot von GFDL-only, egal ob 1.2 oder 1.3, ist eine rein politische Entscheidung, die der Umerziehung einiger bockbeiniger Fotografen dienen soll.
Was spricht denn tatsächlich gegen die GFDL? Es ist praktisch ausschließlich die Unhandlichkeit der Sache mit dem mitzuführenden Lizenztext, alles andere sind Nebenkriegsschauplätze. Nun, bei einer Online-Nutzung gibt es keinen praktischen Unterschied zu den meisten anderen Copyleft-Varianten, auch bei CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, FAL muß der Lizenztext verlinkt sein, er muß nur nicht zwanghaft auf demselben Server liegen, sondern man darf auch auf eine zentrale Resource verlinken. Daß Fotos unter GFDL praktisch nicht für Urlaubspostkarten verwendbar sind, ist richtig - aber man kann sehr, sehr viele Fotos auf commons nicht einfach für Postkarten verwendenverwenden, bei Aufnahmen von lebenden Personen stehen beispielsweise die Persönlichkeitsrechte dem entgegen. Es sollte also auch ein RFC geben, daß das Hochladen von Fotos, auf denen Menschen erkennbar abgebildet sind, untersagt werden möge. Btw: Wann hat einer der Mitlesenden zuletzt eine Grußkarte geschrieben?.
Bei größeren Druckwerken ist es normalerweise kein Problem, den Lizenztext unterzubringen, der paßt nachweislich in akzeptabel lesbarer Form auf ein Blatt A4 - das Horrorszenario vieler verschwendeter Druckseiten ist und war immer Humbug - das Kleingedruckte in Mobilfunkverträgen ist gewöhnlich schlechter lesbar und jeder akzeptiert die.
Was spricht sonst gegen die GFDL? Nun, die 1.2 ist nicht sonderlich kompatibel mit CC. Das liegt aber nicht an der GFDL, sondern an CC, die aus unerfindlichen Gründen in Sachen Kompatibilität ungeheuer sperrig ist. Dagegen sind GFDL und FAL problemlos miteinander und mit etlichen anderen Copyleft-Lizenzen kombinierbar, nur bei CC hakt es.
Was ist positiv an der GFDL? Sie ist seit vielen Jahren weit verbreitet und bekannt (was latürnich der Werbung für CC zuwiderläuft) und kann sowohl für Medien als auch für Texte verwendet werden. Sie fährt klare Kante: Copyleft, Namensnennung, kommerzielle Nachnutzung erlaubt, Lizenz muß genannt werden, Punkt. Beim CC-Lizenzzoo braucht jeder Nachnutzer, der Medien aus Commons mit CC-Medien aus anderen Quellen kombinieren will, eine mindestens dreißigseitige Anleitung oder ein Studium das US-Amerikanischen Zivilrechts, um all die Feinheiten und Fallstricke auseinanderzudröseln. Da werden Erfolge bei der Verbreitung von CC-Lizenzen gefeiert - und stellt dann mit Bedauern fest, daß z.B. DRadio/Deutschlandfunk sowas zwar einsetzt, aber blöderweise mit dem NC-Anhängsel. Unbrauchbar. Mit GFDL oder FAL wäre das nicht passiert.
Aus Vorhergehendem folgt, daß es für viele Produzenten von Mediencontent hierzucommons durchaus gute Gründe gab und gibt, sich für GFDL, FAL oder eine andere unkomplizierte Lizenz zu entscheiden statt für CC-Kram. Der von den Befürwortern gern erhobene Vorfurf, die Nutzer dieser Lizenz seien vornehmlich darauf aus, die freie Nachnutzung zu behindern, halte ich in Einzelfällen für möglicherweise berechtigt. Aber so what? Was soll ein Verbot der GFDL daran ändern? Und so kommen wir jetzt zu Kosten und Nutzen eines solchen Verbots:
Wir vergrätzen mit einem solchen Verbot einen ganzen Schwung Contributoren, darunter etliche, die tatsächlich durchaus nennenswert wertvolle Beiträge geleistet haben. Wäre ich persönlich davon betroffen, würde ich entgegen meiner Überzeugung, edukativ möglichst wertvolle Inhalte zu liefern, z.B. schlicht auf 640*400 skalieren - für Wikipediaartikel reicht das völlig aus. Oder ich würde einmal an die Stirn tippen und die Mitarbeit halt einstellen. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß ein Verbot der GFDL zu weniger und oder minderwertigeren Uploads führt, halte ich für ausgesprochen hoch.
Was gewinnen wir durch ein GFDL-Verbot:
Nichts. Für Nachnutzer wird nichts einfacher, denn da 'alte' GFDL-only-Inhalte ja nicht gelöscht werden, müssen sie weiterhin bei jeder einzelnen Nachnutzung überprüfen, ob das gewünschte Bild nicht evtl. so ein Schätzchen ist. Aber Nachnutzer müssen sowieso bei jedem Bilderwunsch genau nachsehen, was unter der Haube steckt: CC-BY? CC-BY-SA? 1.0? 2.0-de? 2.5-fr? 3.0? Ported? Unported? FAL? PD-Old? CC0? Bla? Foo? Ob da nu noch neue GFDL-Only dabei sind, macht den Kohl auch nicht mehr fett.
Es bleibt als Fazit, daß dieser RFC einzig der Disziplinierung einiger Uploader dient. Es gibt dadurch weder jetzt noch zukünftig wirklich nennenswerte Vorteile, dafür einen Schwung Risiken und Nebenwirkungen, die die Sache völlig unverhältnismäßig erscheinen lassen. Es sei denn, es gäbe wichtige Gründe, die bisher hinter all den vorgeschobenen Argumenten verborgen geblieben bzw. bewußt verschwiegen worden wären. -- Smial (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bei der GFDL gibt es genauso verschiedene Lizenzversionen. Insgesamt sind CC-Lizenzen natürlich besser als die GFDL, auch weil sie eben allgemeiner gehalten sind und weniger spezifisch auf Dokumentation gemünzt sind; furchtbarstes Juristenenglisch hast du in der GFDL genauso wie in den CC-Lizenzen. Viele deiner Argumente sind also ehrlich gesagt nicht richtig. Das heißt aber nicht, dass ich finde, dass die GFDL weggehört. Sie ist eine freie Lizenz, alles darüber Hinausgehende ist völlig willkürlich und nicht rational begründbar. darkweasel94 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ob die eine oder die andere Lizenz juristenenglischer formuliert ist, spielt für das Fazit keine große Rolle. Auch bei der FAL gibt es drei Generationen, denen jedoch z.B. allen gemeinsam ist, daß sich der Nachnutzer die Variante aussuchen kann, die ihm gefällt. Mach das mal bei CC-BY-(SA)-(NC)-(ND), wenn du unterschiedliche Werke aus unterschiedlichen Quellen kombinieren möchtest. Die Hexenjagd auf die GFDL-Freunde hatten wir schon mal in der deutschsprachigen WP, dabei kommt nix rum außer Feindseligkeiten, ohne daß auch nur irgendein Gewinn für das Projekt, für Autoren oder für Nachnutzer herausspränge. Wer sich tatsächlich Nutzen davon verspricht, würde ich freilich gerne mal wissen. -- Smial (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Woher hast du eigentlich die Information, dass GFDL und FAL miteinander kompatibel sind? Meines Wissens ist das völliger Unsinn. darkweasel94 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kompatibel im Sinne von: Hat dieselbe Intention. Warum sonst sollte die FSF ausgerechnet die FAL empfehlen und nicht primär CC? Aber dieser Aspekt ist nebensächlich und lenkt nur von der schlichten Tatsache ab, daß dieses Proposal nicht mehr, sondern weniger Freiheiten ergibt. -- Smial (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA hat genauso "dieselbe Intention". Wieso die FSF was macht, musst du sie selbst fragen, hier wird dir das keiner sagen können. In deinem Beitrag sind jedenfalls nicht wenige Fehlinformationen enthalten, die die Argumentation für das Erlauben der GFDL eher schwächen. Tatsachen sind: Die GFDL ist eine freie Lizenz, es gibt Leute auch außerhalb von Commons, die Medien unter der GFDL verfügbar machen, und die Definition freier Werke ist eine gute und bewährte Grenze, um zwischen dem Wunsch, unseren Nachnutzern nur freie Werke zu geben, und dem Wunsch, möglichst viele Werke zu haben, abzuwägen. Die CC-BY-SA und FAL stellen genauso Bedingungen, die manche Nachnutzer vielleicht nicht befolgen können oder wollen, aber deshalb verbieten wir sie auch nicht - und es gibt nichts, absolut nichts (oder es wurde hier jedenfalls nicht gezeigt), was die GFDL objektiv wesentlich schlechter macht als besagte Lizenzen, außer man definiert ein (per Definition willkürliches) Zeichenlimit für die Länge des beizufügenden Texts. darkweasel94 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nur mal als Denkanstoß: Seit ich bei privaten Bildern NC als zusätzliche Lizenz drin habe, werden die Bilder lustig weitergenutzt. Vorher habe ich mehrmals wöchentlich Anfragen von Schülern, Studenten und Lehrern bekommen, jetzt nehmen sie die Bilder einfach. Das ist zwar unlogisch, es ist aber so. Sie dürfen ja BY-SA genauso, sie begreifen "da draußen" aber die Lizenzen nicht wie wir. --Ralf Roleček 21:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Objektiv gesehen ist es ein willkürliches Limit, daran ist nichts verlogen. Natürlich sind beides gewissermaßen Extrembeispiele, aber jede Textlänge zwischen diesen könnte auch von einer freien Lizenz verlangt werden (ich kann auch jederzeit selbst eine schreiben). Ein vernünftiger Vorschlag müsste definieren, was noch geht und was nicht. Das tut dieser hier aber nicht. Ich habe schon weiter oben gefragt: wäre etwa {{BSD}} in Ordnung, oder ist das schon zu lang? Wenn das zu lang ist, ist {{Beerware}} in Ordnung? Und so weiter ... darkweasel94 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1.2 ist noch etwas kürzer, da fällt der Teil über die Umlizenzierung weg. darkweasel94 22:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Und wer zwingt dazu, die GFDL in der Schriftgröße zu drucken und nicht in der, die Smial gepostet hat? Das ist aber eigentlich völlig nebensächlich. darkweasel94 20:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Umerziehung einiger bockbeiniger Fotografen" ist ganz gut gesagt. Es wäre auch nicht weiter schlimm, wenn diese paar bockbeinige Fotografen sich nicht ständig als die Oberwikipedianerfotografen aufspielen würden. Ich finde, man kann sie gerade noch so dulden, aber sie sind geradezu Feinde freien Wissens im Sinne der Wikimedia-Projekte und sollten auch so behandelt werden. Geduldet, nicht noch protegiert von WMDE u. a. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Eine "Feindschaft" gegenüber freiem Wissen kann ich nicht erkennen. Dagegen, daß die GFDL als alleinige freie Lizenz allmählich ausgetrocknet wird, habe ich nichts, sie hat ja den einen, bekannten, vielfach beschriebenen und beklagten Nachteil. Es reicht völlig, sie nicht mehr zu empfehlen bzw. wegen der bekannten Nachteile von einer Verwendung abzuraten. Trotzdem ist und bleibt sie eine freie Lizenz nach allen bisher bekannten Definitionen. Im Gegensatz zu einigen anderen lustigen Anmerkungen auf dieser Seite ist von daher überhaupt kein wirkliches Sachargument für ein Verbot vorhanden, ein solches Verbot ist reine Politik. Nachnutzer müssen sich in jedem Fall mit Lizenzbedingungen auseinandersetzen, auch bei CC-BY oder CC-BY-SA, sogar bei CC0, bevor sie ein Werk nachnutzen. Auch bei CC-BY-SA existieren Einchränkungen, die in bestimmten Fällen eine Nachnutzung unmöglich machen. Es sind also immer nur graduelle Unterschiede, um die es geht. Wenn nächstes Jahr jemand meint, strenges copyleft sei nicht frei genug, CC-BY-SA und FAL seien deshalb als nächstes zu verteufeln, haben wir die nächste überflüssige Diskussion. -- Smial (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

+1, ja zum Teufel mit allen Lizenzen. PD oder CC0 müßen endlich her. Amen. Stellt Euch vor die PD-Wikipedia ist da und (fast) keiner macht mehr mit ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Es ist eben nicht nur die konsequente Umsetzung der WMF-Lizenzpolitik, sondern geht über die WMF-Lizenzpolitik hinaus - sonst wäre ja die WMF schon längst eingeschritten. darkweasel94 18:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Genau, um die GFDL-Uploads loszuwerden, die ohne bestimmten Grund so lizenziert wurden, wurde ja die Umlizenzierung durchgeführt. darkweasel94 23:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wäre die Umlizenzierung gegen den Willen der Urheber nicht gewesen, würde heute vielleicht niemand mehr GFDL benutzen. Aber daran sind ja auch die bockbeinigen Fotografen schuld? --Ralf Roleček 15:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich lasse mich nicht gerne zwingen. Bereits 2004 habe ich unter CC hochgeladen, seit der Zwangsumlizenzierung mache ich das nur noch bei geförderten Bildern. --Ralf Roleček 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Faktencheck. Die "ganzen Contra-Stimmer" sind etwa die Hälfte und davon nutzt die ganz überwiegende Mehrheit keine GFDL (als Hauptlizenz). --Martina talk 23:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich sehe einen deutlichen Verlust (um mal bei der Überschrift zu bleiben) an Diskussionsklima. Könntet ihr damit aufhören? --Isderion (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Seit wann sind wir alle Dumm? Pappnase So lasse ich mich nicht bezeichen! Werde mich umgehend dagegen wehren. ---Huhu

Smials sarkastische Anmerkung bezog sich wohl auf Kommentare wie diesen. --Martina talk 17:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as if any of you have anything new to add to this RfC apart from fighting among yourselves and completely misinterpreting my comment. I'm not going to insult you guys with my misundertandings of your German, so please do me a favour with your misunderstandings of my English. Now please, if you have nothing to say that hasn't already been said, or you just want to fight with each other, then go away and do it somewhere else. If you continue to post like the above, then I'll ask an admin to close this section and issue you a warning. Colin (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought I was ever going to write that on this page, but I agree with Colin here. darkweasel94 20:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

|}

Is there a replacement with similar strong copyleft written for images?

I often encountered the point that GFDL wouldn't be specifically written for images. Ok, this is true but is there a license which offers a comparable strong copyleft and where you, as the copyright holder, do not have to agree with any new version of that license? -- Rillke^(q?) 08:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Soweit ein Werk nicht ausdrücklich einer bestimmten Version dieser Lizenz unterstellt ist, gilt die jeweils aktuellste Version.". Die FAL hat eine ähnliche Formulierung, die aber für Nachnutzer nicht bindend ist. Als Urheber kannst du für ein Werk sowohl bei ifross als auch bei der FAL eine bestimmte Version festlegen und bist nicht genötigt, Lizenzänderungen jedesmal zu folgen, aber nur bei ifross ist das nach meinem Verständnis auch für Nachnutzer und abgeleitete Werke bindend. -- Smial (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Die Formulierung, die du da zitierst, klingt Commons-inkompatibel: wenn die jeweils aktuelle Version gilt, heißt das, dass allfällige zusätzliche Rechte, die eine frühere Version Nachnutzern gegeben hat, zurückgezogen werden, sobald eine neue Version erscheint. Lizenzen, die jemand zurückziehen kann, sind aber hier nicht erlaubt. darkweasel94 12:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Da steht nirgends, daß ausschließlich die jeweils aktuelle Version gülte. Die Klausel wirkt nur, wenn nichts anderes vereinbart ist (Generalklausel). Ich habe keine Lust, mich jetzt durch den CC-Zoo zu wühlen, aber ich denke, darinnen wird es ähnliche Klauseln geben, z.B. im Bereich länderspezifischer Portierungen. Ich hoffe, CC-BY-SA wird dadurch nicht commons-inkompatibel. Btw: Im Zuge der Kompatibilitätsverwurschtelung beim Übergang von (damals) GFDL 1.2 zu CC-BY-SA/GFDL 1.3 war der Passus mit den "zukünftigen Versionen" dieser Lizenzen einer der Hauptgründe für die Entstehung der GFDL-1.2-Fraktion. -- Smial (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Diese Abneigung gegen den "any new version"-Part habe ich nie wirklich verstanden. Der Geist der Lizenz muss eh gewahrt bleiben, sonst wäre es ja rechtswidrig. Und immerhin sprechen wir von einer Lizenz, die die nächsten 100 Jahre oder so gültig ist. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass sich auch das Urheberrecht entsprechend wandelt. Daher ist es doch nicht schlecht, dass Lizenztexte gemäß der ursprünglichen Intention an neue rechtliche Grundlagen angepasst werden können. --Isderion (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Und genau das ist das Absurde an dem ganzen Lizenzkram: "ich kann doch Heute nicht etwas zustimmen was noch überhaupt nicht da ist"! Ist das so schwer zu kapieren??? So ein Blödsinn hält keiner rechtlichen Prüfung statt. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin zwar kein Jurist, aber das glaube ich nicht. Immerhin könntest du ja auch jemandem (zum Beispiel der FSF) überhaupt ein völliges Nutzungsrecht eingeräumt haben und das wäre auf jeden Fall legal, in dem Fall könnte die FSF das auch unter jeder beliebigen Lizenz vertreiben. Was du mit einer "jede spätere Version"-Klausel gemacht hast, ist etwas Schwächeres als das: du hast der FSF das Recht gegeben, deine Werke auf dieselbe Weise wie die Werke aller anderer, die das gemacht haben, unter eine zusätzliche Lizenz zu stellen. Natürlich zwingt dich keiner dazu, das zu machen, aber dass es rechtswidrig ist, kann ich mir nicht vorstellen. darkweasel94 23:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Alchemist-HP da immer wieder wiederholt is nicht anderes als eine Ausrede. Eine vorgeschobene Begruendung um nicht des Pudel's Kern anzusprechen, naemlich, dass er mit dem GFDL-Trick kommerzielle Weiternutzung unterbinden moechte. --Dschwen (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Klar, ich bin einer der die eigenen Bilder auch kommerziell weiternutzen möchte. Das soll doch ja erlaubt sein: "kommerzielle Nutzung soll ja nicht eingeschränkt werden dürfen". Ich bin mir selbst der nächste ... Bla, bla, bla und Amen! Ich verkaufe Dir Heute ein Auto Du zahlst es mir in zwei Raten ab: die eine Rate beträgt 10000,- Euro, die andere ist Heute noch ungewiß, das erfähst Du dann später: "any new rate". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC) P.S: @Dschwen: schon gemerkt: ich nutze übrigens die GFDL 1.2 only gar nicht mehr!

Nicht alles, was man an den Haaren herbeiziehen kann, ist ein Vergleich. darkweasel94 00:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bei der Adaption der cc ins deutsche Recht haben u.A. das Institut für Rechtsinformatik der Universität Saarbrücken, das Zentrum der angewandten Rechtswissenschaften (Karlsruher Institut für Technologie) und das ifross mitgewirkt, als Person kann man da vielleicht de:Thomas Dreier hervorheben, weil er ja auf WP:URF so oft zitiert wird. Das es "einer späteren Version dieser Lizenz mit denselben Lizenzelementen" eben auch in cc-by-sa3.0-de gibt, halte ich die Behauptung, dass cc-by-sa3.0-de keiner rechtlichen Prüfung standhält, etwas weit hergeholt. --Isderion (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich halte eine Diskussion internationaler rechtlicher Feinheiten an dieser Stelle für nicht zielführend. Oder seid ihr alle Fachjuristen? Ich nicht. Wir haben einen Strauß verwendbarer Lizenzen, deren Gemeinsamkeit ist, daß sie entweder alle Nachnutzungsrechte freigeben (CC0 et al) oder aber mehr oder weniger strenges Copyleft aufweisen (CC-Zoo, FAL, GFDL usw.). Ich finde für verschiedene Dinge CC0 genial, weil damit endlich eine Lizenz eingeführt wurde, die die international extrem unterschiedlichen gesetzlichen Regelungen für "völlig freigegeben" rechtlich sauber zusammenfaßt. Wie jeder, der mich kennt, weiß, habe ich eine gewisse Abneigung gegen das bisherige CC-Gelumpe, weil deren drölfzig Varianten (NC, ND, pipapo) den gemeinen Nachnutzer imho völlig überfordert. Mein Ausweg ist die FAL - one size fits it all. Ich benutze die GFDL 1.2 nicht als alleinige Lizenz, genau deshalb, weil die unhandlich ist, behalte die aber aus Kompatibilitätsgründen bei. In einem wirklich offenen und freien Projekt muß es aber Autoren gestattet bleiben, eine definitiv freie Lizenz beizubehalten, die seit vielen Jahren eingeführt und auch außerhalb des Wikipedia-Kosmos weit bekannt ist. Ein Verbot würde nichts klären, sondern eine weitere Verwirrungsmöglichkeit einführen, wenn vorhandene Medien unter GFDL-only beibehalten werden, neue jedoch verboten wären. Welcher Nachnutzer, der beispielsweise ein vorhandenes GFDL-Foto aus commons bearbeitet hat (z.B. eine Collage mit weiteren GFDL-Fotos oder ein mit Standbildern ergänztes Filmchen zur Illustration eines technischen Vorgangs) und das Ergebnis wieder nach commons hochladen will, könnte nachvollziehen, daß das unter derselben Lizenz nicht erlaubt ist? Dieses Proposal ist ein grandioser Schuß ins eigene Knie, wenn es durchkommt. Wenn GFDL-only auf commons verboten werden soll, damit die Nachnutzung vereinfacht wird, kann das nur zur Konsequenz haben, daß alle diese Uploads gelöscht werden müssen. Es wird sonst nichts einfacher, sondern es wird sonst noch komplizierter für Nachnutzer. Dieser Antrag hier löst keine Probleme, sondern führt zusätzliche ein. -- Smial (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ein Beispiel zum Lizenzchaos: ein neues Werk und die Diskussion dazu: de:Disk. Macht mal alles weiter so schön inkonsequent ... warum einfach wenn es viel komplizierter geht?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dass die deutschsprachige Wikipedia eine Einstellung zum Urheberrecht bei Bildern hat, bei der es nur eine Frage der Zeit sein kann, dass die Wikimedia Foundation einschreitet, ist allerdings eh allgemein bekannt. Den verlinkten Screenshot als PD-ineligible zu taggen, wäre normalerweise ja bestenfalls ein schlechter Scherz. darkweasel94 11:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on!

Fruit juice for Saffron

WikiRed. Under CC BY-SA 3.0 DE, naturally.

Be friendly, we are a one and big commons family with a different opinions. A free beer for all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha, cheers to that! --Dschwen (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

May I too participate in your joyful mood, Heinrich Pniok? I regret for my efforts to encourage free culture here. Now I believe it is better to protect our copyrights; because our personal and moral rights are desperately under risk, in free culture. JKadavoor Jee 02:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Alchemist. (quickly checking it isn't a GFDL beer before consuming). -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a CC0 image free (beer) for all --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And I always thought it was free as in speech and not as in beer. :) darkweasel94 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Ralf and Saffron! I expect you too here. JKadavoor Jee 14:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't like beer or any alcohol for that matter! Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We have fruit juice or other drinks, especially for Saffron, too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in... I'll bring the pretzels. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Saffron; I prefer pretzels for this occasion. :) (Where is Ralf; I really miss him here.) JKadavoor Jee 02:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

BEER??? I`m here! I have here some bottles of the best beer of the world for you. But stop, NO! This is the next endless discussion ;) --Ralf Roleček 21:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ralf; I prefer the green on right. :) JKadavoor Jee 02:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Free beer as in free speech truly exists. Unfortunately you still have to pay for it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We might want a bit more free beer. Cheers --Martina talk

This needs to be somewhere in the middle of the page. Give everyone a nice reprieve and remind us all that we are all on the same team here! Zellfaze (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• While I'm not able to attend this years Wikimania, I think the impasse here could be resolved over a few beers during Wikimania with a workable solution drafted to take this forward, as most people are reading the same book just not the same page. Gnangarra 00:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll be there and I know Ralf will be, too :-). Anyone else interested in discussing this face to face? --Dschwen (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • only with Beer ;) --Ralf Roleček 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Beer in the face? ;-) Ah well, beer in that hole in the face! --Dschwen (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Count me in :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Free beer at Wikimania? I'm in ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Come in, you get free beer and need no longer carry your heavy camera, i do it for you. --Ralf Roleček 06:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

FSF on the GPL for media files

I had previously announced that I was asking the FSF about what the implications of the GPL, in relation to "source code", are for media files. Today I received a response from the FSF:

Extended content

With media files, it is not clear that the preferred form for making modifications implies that it must be the file format that it was previously edited in. With something large and complex like an animation file, there might be greater consensus on this point. With something like a photograph, it is not clear that the format that is being transmitted is a binary format and not the source format itself. I would argue that in most cases when you convey a media file under the GPL, you are doing it in the source form, regardless if whether or not it may have previously been edited or generated through some other method. However, truth be told, we would need to take this on a case by case basis. My analysis above clearly would have counter examples (such as the one I pointed out). So, my recommendation is that you urge people to not use the GNU GPL and encourage them to adopt a different license (or see if it has already been multi-licensed). However, I wouldn't put an across the board ban on all media files that are licensed under the GNU GPL simply because it might be the case that the source code needs to be provided. It is the copyright holder, after all, that would be licensing it under the terms of the GNU GPL and hopefully they will make it clear what the preferred modified format is. But, to be clear, I am not trying to provide you with any legal advice. My recommendation is that you should not rule out the GNU GPL as a license for media files and that you should ask the wikimedia legal councel for advisement both in this general decision making process and for any particular situation that arises. Best, Josh -- Joshua Gay Licensing & Compliance Manager Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org/licensing

Just FYI, though I'm not sure if anybody still cares. darkweasel94 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think you will get a similar answer if asked about GFDL too. JKadavoor Jee 07:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no I don't think so. The GFDL does not talk about "source code", only about "transparent copies" (which have a much clearer definition), so my question isn't even applicable to it. darkweasel94 07:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

My comment is based on their recommendations at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html I didn't see ever they recommend GFDL for works other than tutorials, reference manuals and other large works of documentation. JKadavoor Jee 08:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't what I asked them about, I asked specifically about how to define "source code" in relation to media files. darkweasel94 08:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

May be. I see little chance for they recommend GFDL, GPL or GLPL for media works. That's all I said. JKadavoor Jee 08:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.