File talk:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg

Contradicting licences?

Hello,

maybe a stupid question, but how can a picture be licenced at the same time "Free Art" (alowing all kinds of use and derivative works) and ""CC-NC-ND"", which forbids commercial use and derivative works? And is the latter not forecluded from Wikimedia Commons? --Zinneke (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Again and again a similar question. Please read simply this. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Licence

Hello,

Congratulations ! Though, I'm not sure I understand the licensing: why is is both under the Art Libre licence (basically a CC-BY) and a CC-BY-NC-ND (which means a non-free licence, which you wouldn't even find on Commons)?

I imagine the NC-ND is a mistake?

Best wishes,

194.199.4.203 07:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is simple: you can select your favorite license that you like. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Alchemist-hp: It is better not to create confusion in the minds of users, by using non compatible licenses, as Commons:First_steps/License_selection explicitly says that CC-BY-NC-ND is not allowed.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I read this: Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. The inconsistency infos on Commons aren't my problem! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The main page: Licensing says:

This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. (See the list: Policies and guidelines) It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy.

and the part: Licensing#Multi-licensing says:

You can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use.
....
Non-permitted licenses may only be used on Commons if the work is multi-licensed under at least one permitted license.

--Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple question: why did you dual-licence this picture with an unfree one? (I am aware COM:L allows it) Jean-Fred (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Counter-question: why not? The CC-BY-NC-ND is also a free license, but only for non commercial users. Two different licenses are better then only one. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in your interpretation of the Licensing policy. You are also, of course, under no obligation to answer any questions about your reasons for choosing the licenses you did. But if you just don't want to answer, it might be better to simply say so than to answer a straightforward question with a counter-question. I think users are (I know I am) simply curious why you chose to append the more restrictive license CC-by-nc-nd. Anyway: Thank you for allowing free use of you beautiful work and congratulations on winning Picture of the year! --Bensin (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

POTY Template

How is it that he POTY year is not identified as such in any manner on the image page? 131.137.245.208 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)