Template talk:GPLv2+

Problems

First, we need to link to the correct version of the license. The GPLv2 tags, such as Template:GPLv2 only, should link to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html , not http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html . The latter address used to have version 2, but now has version 3. Because of this change, we should be careful to link directly to the version we want for both versions. The specific link for version 3 is http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-3.0.html.

Second, I believe we should really be linking to a local copy of the license. Linking to an offsite may be a violation of the license. It is required (GPLv2, but GPLv3 has similar text) that we "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." Linking to an off-site original is probably a violation, and could result in the license text off site changing (like it did this time). Superm401 07:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already fixed the version issue where I noticed it on Commons. In the process I linked to both current versions for Template:GPL, which has the boilerplate "either version 2 of the License, or any later version." I want to see what others think about linking to an onsite version before doing that. Superm401 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have linked this from En Wikipedia, as similar issues apply there. Superm401 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thai Language

{{Editprotected}} Since the talk page of the Template:GPL/lang is empty, I posted here and would like to request the translation of Thai Language (Code below) to be included. Thanks. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<!---->[[Template:GPL/th|{{#language:th}}]] |

 Done--Kwj2772 (msg) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RTL template

{{editprotected}} Similar to Template:GFDL, please consider replacing the line --

|[[File:Heckert GNU white.svg|64px|link=|GNU head]]

with

|[[File:{{#ifeq:{{dir|{{int:lang}}}}|rtl|Heckert GNU left white|Heckert GNU white}}.svg|64px|link=|GNU head]]

Thanks, – Fuzzy – 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change for licensetpl_link

Please see this proposal. /skagedal^talk 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category

This template should set Category:GPL Images (for images), not Category:GPL. The latter should be reserved for media about the license, not under the license. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I just recently noticed this, too. This is also a problem with the LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL categories. Even more can be found in Free licenses. Media related to the licenses themselves is indeed unfit for these categories, which prevents us from having categories dedicated to the licenses (unless we want to use dirty workarounds such as categories like GPL-related media). What this template should do, like you said, is to set the media to a different category like Category:GPL-licensed media. Additionally files could be placed into subcategories based on their types (e.g. images to Category:GPL-licensed images, audio to Category:GPL-licensed audio, and video to Category:GPL-licensed video. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Hosting local copies of LGPL/GPL/AGPL license texts on Commons

Background

Currently, Commons has a copy of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 at Commons:GNU Free Documentation License. The GFDL 1.3 is much more explicit about inserting a copy of the GFDL 1.3 license to such licensed works. Template:GFDL-1.3 also links to this local copy.

Also currently, Template:GPL, Template:LGPL, Template:AGPL and their versioned variants all link to an external copy of the license hosted by the GNU Project. These licenses talk about "offering the license" or "how to view a copy of this license". A standard GPLv2 offer usually carried something like the following:

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA.

In GPLv3, this standard offer has been changed:

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

GFDL 1.3 talks about inclusion of a copy (required):

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".

Both assume the GPL license text is conveyed along with the distribution, something Commons doesn't yet really do. It may not be a strict requirement to serve a local copy, but a good or best practice.

Including a local copy would defeat any possibility of linkrot, downtime of gnu.org or other unknown variable of failing to convey the license text. As an example, Debian GNU/Linux distribution conveys local copies in /usr/share/common-licenses/ directory.

Proposed question

Should Commons add and host local copies of the beforementioned GNU licenses and their versioned variants? This would include at least LGPLv2.1, LGPLv3, GPLv2, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 licenses texts. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1.
• GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0.
• GNU General Public License v2.0.
• GNU General Public License v3.0.
• GNU Affero General Public License v3.0.
• GNU Free Documentation License v1.3.

Discussion

Support

•  Nominator's support for greater benefit, for use in templates. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

4 years past, nothing happened? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Commons:GNU General Public License, version 2 and Commons:GNU General Public License, version 3 were created back in 2017, but the others (LGPL, AGPL, and GFDLv1.3) haven't been created. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Italian typo since 2010

It seems since 2020 this template was broken in Italian:

I tried to fix in translatewiki:Special:Diff/10469633 on [[MediaWiki:Wm-license-gpl-text/it]]. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)