Template talk:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0

2.0 not necessary

As of Creative Commons license version 2.0, the CC licenses are effectively multi-licensed with every later version of the same license, as well as any internationalized version. So if you have a 2.5 work, and want to include 2.0 content, you can just treat the 2.0 work as if it was 2.5 and be done with it.

It's 1.0 that is missing the "any later version" clause, so for compatibility with legacy content, it may be desirable to dual-license with 1.0 (though one could make a good case that such works should simply be upgraded by their creators, if at all possible). But I don't see a strong case for multi-licensing with 2.0 and 1.0.--Eloquence 22:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I had thought that was a new feature of 2.5. I suppose that means that releasing under 2.0 is exactly the same as releasing under 2.5. Shall we move this template to Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5 and 1.0, and update the language to clarify that 2.0 = 2.5 = any later version? dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Eloquence 19:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that releasing under 2.5 does not automatically release under 2.0, since the license only specifies "later versions". dbenbenn | talk 22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you not have discussed this before reverting all my changes? No, 2.5 does not automatically release under 2.0, but 2.0 can be silently "upgraded" to 2.5 due to the "or any later version" clause. So there's no point multi-licensing under 2.0, as any work under that license can be upgraded to 2.5 if it is to be combined with a work under 2.5. This is not the case with 1.0, which lacks the "later version" clause, so it makes sense to dual-license the latest version with 1.0 due to existing works under that license (e.g. Wikitravel).--Eloquence 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

But what about some existing project that requires all content to be under 2.0? Such a project would not be able to include 2.5 content. (Sorry about reverting, but I felt it was important to limit damage. I'll be happy to do the work of re-reverting back to your version if it turns out you're right.) dbenbenn | talk 03:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Any project that requires its work to be under 2.0 can, and should, upgrade to 2.5, especially if it wants to include 2.5 content. Creative Commons doesn't upgrade its licenses just for fun, it upgrades them to fix "legal bugs" -- making sure that the licenses work under all jurisdictions. Just like with an insecure operating system, it's generally a good idea to upgrade, and the CC licenses allow just that. The only reason we are supporting a broken license like 1.0 is that many of those people who are using it do not have the power to upgrade easily. For example, Wikitravel would have to ask all its contributors to relicense under 2.5. This is not the case with 2.0, which has the "any later version" clause.--Eloquence 09:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that all projects should upgrade does not imply that all projects do upgrade. And it isn't a question of us "supporting" old licenses. I have in fact released some pictures under cc-by-sa-2.0. Whether the Commons provides a template to express that fact or not doesn't change the fact. dbenbenn | talk 02:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there is no project that could conceivably have a problem if we did not add "2.0" to the list of licenses. Any project that wants to combine materials from 2.5 can simply upgrade their own license -- even individual users on the project can (e.g. I could legally alter existing license templates from 2.0 to 2.5). That's the point of the "any later version" clause, which doesn't just apply to the applied license, but also to the distributed license. Section 4.b of CC-BY-SA, for example, explicitly states:

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License or other license specified in the previous sentence with every copy or phonorecord of each Derivative Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. [emphasis mine]

In other words, we gain absolutely nothing by multi-licensing under 2.0, and all it does is add complexity and confusion. This will be especially problematic if we do it with future releases as well.--Eloquence 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What about a project that for whatever reason doesn't want to use material under the conditions of 2.5? I recently had a discussion with someone who releases his photos under the GFDL version 1.2 and no other versions (Template:GFDL-1.2). dbenbenn | talk 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Creative Commons is different from GFDL in that the "any later version" clause is a fixed element of the license text itself. If you use the GFDL, you must specify whether you want later versions to apply or not. If you use Creative Commons 2.0 or greater, this is always the case, and the only option for a creator who doesn't want this is to use an earlier version that doesn't contain the clause (you're not free to alter the license conditions and call it "Creative Commons").--Eloquence 21:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to This file?

The text in this template starts with This file. When the template is used on a Media page the link links to the media page itself, and the link is therefor not a link. I cannot see that this link serves any useful purpose. So, is there a reason for this link? If not I suggest we change:

[[Media:{{PAGENAME}}|This file]]

into:

'''This file'''

or only:

This file

/EnDumEn 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What are these "media pages" of which you speak? Anyway, I agree that the link isn't very useful. It's here only because it appears on all Creative Commons license tags. User:dbenbenn 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, yesterday I did not notice that the link links to the actual uploaded file. I can see that that can be useful sometimes. I don't know why I thought that the link linked to the image description page. /EnDumEn 09:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is another version of this tag without link - see this template {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0-no-link}} and examples. --Chepry 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

new CC-BY symbol

Thank you for replacing the old attribution symbol by the new one: Image:cc-by new.svg. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

language link template added

To Adminisrators:

{{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/lang}} added, please join it on English Version template, because translations in Turkish Version and Traditional Chinese Version exist.

Rico Shen ^contact... 13:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add a link to the Danish template

A Danish translation has been created. Please add the link to the list. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Category

Perhaps it is a good idea to put "This template automatically places the image in Category:CC-BY-SA-2.5,2.0,1.0" or something like that in the <noinclude> section. Cristan 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew - admins needed

Please add a link to Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/he (עברית), thanks. Yellow up 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean translation

Please add Korean language : Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/ko, Thanks. -- iTurtle 09:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian translation

Please add Bulgarian language : Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/bg, Thanks. --DStoykov 05:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Telugu Translation

Please add Telugu Language: Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/te, Thanks. __Mpradeep 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delink "this file"

{{editprotected}} Hi, this template has a link on "this file". This link should be removed as it only creates a link to the image itself, thus preventing images with this template from showing up on the "Unused files list". Thanks, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Difference in picture and discription

Hi,

The picture I see is of the Famous Bhawani Mantap Dwar[gate] near Shri Mahalaxmi Temple Kolhapur; whereas the discription is of the New Palace Kolhapur which is another Building at another place, hence necessary changes be made. Inside of this gate is the Old Palace campus where the Royal Family of Kolhapur resided before shifting to the New Palace, where they even stay today.

Suryakant Patil

Vietnamese translation

{{editprotected}} Please add Vietnamese translation of this license at {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/vi}}. Thank you. Tân (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for helping out. →Nagy 08:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)