Template talk:GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa-2.0

Voto a Brios que esta es la más absurda licencia doble que he visto nunca! Sanbec ✉ 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur! --ALE! ¿…? 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relicensing

The text at the top of this template (since 10 July 2006) says that "If you want to use this file commercially, you have to do this under the terms of the GFDL." It appears that at least some users are interpreting this clause as rendering section 11 ("relicensing") of GFDL 1.3 inoperative or void. I suspect that this was probably not the intention of Duesentrieb, who introduced that sentence, nor am I particularly convinced of the legal validity of that interpretation anyway. Even so, it does seem possible that some users who used this template may have assumed this, or at least that they might be expected to object to the relicensing given their explicit choice of multilicensing with CC-BY-NC-SA instead of CC-BY-SA.

So, the question is what to do about the relicensing status of files tagged with this template:

a) leave undecided, to be specified file-by-file, just as if the files had been tagged with {{GFDL}} alone,

b) mark as "not eligible", based on the (IMHO somewhat dubious) interpretation mentioned above, or

c) mark as "opt-out", on the presumption that anyone choosing to multilicense their files as CC-BY-NC-SA will not want them migrated to CC-BY-SA.

Opinions? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The "If you want to use this file commercially..." is just a commentary on the following licenses and doesn't (can't?) modify the licenses (we wouldn't accept modified licenses, right?). So technically it can be relicensed, but in the spirit of the opt-out negotiations, I would say the intention of the licensor is clear, and they would not appreciate a migration to "CC-BY-SA" - hence treat it as an opt-out. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The community has decided that users who wish to opt out, have to do so for their own images. We can and will not make this decision for a lot of images tagged with this template. The intention might have been that the images cannot be easily commercially reused and thus the users are gaming our licensing system. If they want to keep on doing this, they need to opt out on their own. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that really helps anyone, we are just asking for lots more complaints and reversion of licenses further down the line. Talk about "gaming" the system is provocative and uncalled for, do we want their images or not? People have a moral right to license their images how they want, period. We have no moral basis for ignoring their expressed wishes if their intention is so clear. The provision of the opt-out parameter is meant to facilitate people in preserving their original licensing, it is not meant (I hope) to be a bureaucratic impediment. It is a way to express their intent so that a dumb bot will take the appropriate action. The most efficient way of doing that is to assume opt-out for this template - the alternative is going to waste a lot of time and resources. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If people don't understand our licensing system, then they need to complain, not much to do about that. Licenses cannot be reversed, as we all know. This template includes the GFDL and GFDL files may be relicensed, if they meet the relicensing criteria. We are not blindly assuming opt-out just because the users might have wanted to put a burden on commercial re-users, this is not what we want. If they feel strongly about it, they can opt-out their images. If they don't, even better for us. The opt-out has been created for a small group of people who are personally strongly opposed to the relicensing and not so we could start second-guessing what users intended with their licenses so we can respect their whishes. If we didn't want to facilitate commercial re-use, we would never have started the relicensing in the first place. Please stop argumenting with morals, this is a legal question and we would not even have to allow authors to opt out. We do it as a courtesy and it undermines our project goal, so we certainly will not opt out images if the author does not explicitly request it on his own. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere on licensing, courts are more interested in the intent of copyright licenses when making judgements. I think the intent of this sort of license is obvious. And of course it is a moral question, not simply a "legal" one - this is a community, we are dealing with real people. It is bad enough when governments or corporations stomp over people because there is nothing to stop them, it is intolerable for a non-profit organisation to try and extract more from their voluntary contributors than they are willing to donate. It appears to me that we are relying on people not to notice this change until it is "too late". For a "gain" of, at most, 205 images converted to allow commercial use we are willing to alienate yet more contributors and dent our credibility when it comes to respecting the moral rights of the creators to determine licensed use of their works. The "project goal" is all very worthy, but how we proceed towards it is just as important. Aim to convert people to the free-use ethos, rather than convert their images.

Anyway I have notified most of the people using this license apart from the bots. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this Relicensing project has clearly shown that it is a bad idea with to many templates. Has there ever been a discussion if we like the idea of bringing NC to commons? I have seen this template used to bringing NC-images from flickr to Commons. Sadly I forgot to tag the image so it is hard to find again. Personally I do not like this template.

Legaly I think we can migrate the images because it is licensed under GFDL. Users have had just as much time as everyone else to add "opt-out" on their images. If we want to play nice we leace a message on the users talk pages telling them to opt out if they do not like the migtation. --MGA73 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did find a couple of images that had been imported from flickr and the uploader appears to have added a GFDL license to the -NC- license, which of course they can't do, I marked them for flickr-review. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. No, not without a OTRS-permission or if they are the uploader on Flickr. Next time I'll remember to tag them at once. --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for a Flickr user to add something like "This image is also released under the GFDL" to the image description, and technically that's a perfectly valid free license. The Flickr review bots won't understand it, but a human reviewer should be able to handle it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the images first, couldn't see anything. I can not find the names of both the files that I tagged, but one was File:Murray_Chandler.jpg, and File:Broch of Gurness (1).jpg --Tony Wills (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't the GDFL-license on Flickr on these two images. Can any of you? --MGA73 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we put images marked with this into a CC category

{{Editprotected}} Files marked with this template do not show up in any CC category, so there is no easy way to see how many files are so labeled. Catscan has a bit of a hernia when I ask it. So any category, say Category:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual would do. Of course if you don't want cc-by-nc type category then even just Category:Dual-Licensed would do. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the desirability of categorization, I'd just like to note that you can easily get a list of files using this template via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

...or if you tell me what you want, I can run a toolserver query. For example, if you want usage statistics, it seems that this template is current used on 205 files, of which 124 were uploaded by Erkan Yilmaz, 24 by Dante Alighieri, 9 by Yoda, 8 by BetacommandBot, 5 by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), 4 each by Reelax, Valadrem, and Carstor, 2 each by SdeVries and Jan Ovelgönne and one each by Peteforsyth, Ayack, Alstradiaan, Kocio, Pako-, Markus Schweiss, Springm, Lauchi, Infrogmation, Vilallonga, Efegé, Platonides, Shizhao, Sakarie, Miastko, Maxmasc, Scroch, Liftarn and Minnecologies. Mind you, those are the last uploaders of each file — some may have be originally uploaded by someone else. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that 12 of the files tagged with this template have been uploaded more than once, and 7 of those (US-power-strip-rotated.jpg, Bandera_de_Toledo.svg, Escudo_de_Toledo.svg, Escudo_de_Cataluña.svg, Escudo_de_las_Islas_Baleares.svg, Willamette_Meteorite_AMNH.jpg and Bulgarian_Football_League-logo.png) have multiple uploaders. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I was aware that the Special:WhatLinksHere would give me a list, I just expected there would be many pages, and other tools work best with categories. And yes, you've read my mind, those usuage stats are exactly what I need :-). I will cancel the edit request. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#GFDL_license_migration

FYI: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#GFDL_license_migration. Rd232 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit request}}

Add <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! Majora (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)