Commons talk:License Migration Task Force

Bot request

I'd be more than happy to help if you tell me what you'd like done. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It will be something like:

1. Load each image tagged with any of several GFDL 1.2 or later versions templates.
2. Check that it was uploaded before November 1, 2008 or it was uploaded by the copyright holder (e.g. GFDL-self, etc.)
3. If yes, add a CC-BY-SA tag if one doesn't already exist. If no, do something else. (Flag for manual review?)

The details need some fleshing out. For example we may create a joint GFDL-CC-BY-SA tag rather than having two tags everywhere. Dragons flight (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely off-hand, one issue I think you're going to run into nearly immediately will be image imports from other projects to Commons. The upload / page history for such images will be incomplete and inaccurate.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as they were imported before November, everything is fine. It is the last 9 months of uploads that could be tricky. Some of the upload tools in wide use have a standard format that may be usable, but ultimately some group of images will probably need to be flagged as "needs review". My hope is that we can be clever enough that out of 1.6 M images we only need to manually look at 1% or so. (That may be too optimistic though.) Dragons flight (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When you know which templates will be converted (or even categories, I suppose), I can query Toolserver's commonswiki_p and pull page titles and MIN(rev_timestamp) for each. That should give a better idea of how much work will need to be done (manually or automatic). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is Category:GFDL and all subcats except Category:GFDL-1.2. So that's about 1.7M images to start with. Ones already also in Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0 and any of it's subcats can be excluded, as probably can anything in any of the dozens of non-SA CC-BY categories (e.g. Category:CC-BY-[0-9.]{3}.*). Dragons flight (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Category:GFDL has 20 subcategories (and probably endless subcatgories below that). It isn't really possible to query recursively, so I think the best option is to focus on the big categories: Category:GFDL, Category:GFDL-en, and Category:User-created GFDL images. I figure I'd pull the file titles and MIN(rev_timestamp) for those three categories and then remove overlap with the large CC-BY categories. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good start. I think it would take care of the majority of cases. And files uploaded after November 1 that are not GFDL-self should be logged for manual review as you said. So that leaves the following tasks: decide how we're going to do the tagging (2 templates or 1), write the bot, and create a page that explains exactly what the bot is doing and why (so that we can link to it from the edit summaries). Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. I ran this query as a starting point:

SELECT
  page_title,
  rev_timestamp
FROM page
JOIN categorylinks
ON cl_from = page_id
JOIN revision
ON rev_page = page_id
WHERE page_namespace = 6
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND cl_to = "GFDL"
AND rev_timestamp = (SELECT
                       MIN(rev_timestamp)
                     FROM revision
                     WHERE rev_page = page_id);

(All files in Category:GFDL with their creation dates.)

It had 1,609,436 results. When I removed the ones that were before November 1, 2008, it had 1,303,067 results. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely clear. Do you mean there are 1.3M from before Nov 1, or do you mean there were 1.3M left after you removed the early ones? The former seems more likely. Dragons flight (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry for the confusion. 1,303,067 files in Category:GFDL were uploaded to Commons before November 1, 2008. 306,369 files in Category:GFDL were uploaded to Commons after November 1, 2008. Assuming my calculations are correct, obviously. The raw data is available here for those interested: tools:~mzmcbride/gfdl-raw-data-2009-05-28.txt.gz. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot operator

I'm a bot operator and I'm willing to look into doing this but I need more detailed step by step of what your looking to get done. and a list of all affected templates. Betacommand 01:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

If you would like any help, I'd be glad to assist you. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this doesn't seem extremely hard. I'll start working on a bot by tomorrow. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am writing the bot as we speak :D ContinueWithCaution (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1 template or 2?

Should the bot just add a CC-BY-SA tag to the image pages or should it replace the GFDL tag with a dual-license tag? Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, a more genericized template would be best in my mind (though that probably would just cause more delays...). Something like: {{license|1=gfdl|2=cc-by-sa}}

Or, a parameter could be added to the current GFDL template, something like: {{GFDL-en|also=CC-BY-SA}} Though, that's a bit kludgey.

--MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, {{Self}} already supports multi-licensing so we could create a generic {{License}} template based on it. We would just need to change the text at the top. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like {{License}} is already in use, so we would have to pick a different template name. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Licensing}}? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, we almost certainly want categories to track images that were relicensed / need review / not relicensed after review, etc. That could be embedded in templates if we go the custom route. Dragons flight (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The opt-out discussion

I am wondering whether the opt-out discussion ought to be happening in a more public place and/or with a page devoted solely to that issue. Though I know my way around Commons, I'm not a major contributor here, and I'm not entirely sure how such discussions are usually handled. On the current question, if one strips away the details surrounding timetables and methods, this is largely a binary choice: Either the community allows for some form of opt-out or it doesn't.

Based on conversations with Erik it appears unlikely that the Foundation will actively impose any answer, so the decision to allow for an opt-out will be deferred to the will of the community. Since this is a big decision, potentially affecting many contributors, is there a more natural place and way to present that question on Commons? Dragons flight (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good place, though we should probably take it to the talk page and announce it somewhere. Leaving a note on the Commons:Village pump usually attracts more contirbutors. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to try restarting this discussion below. Dragons flight (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Allowing people to opt-out of the License Migration? Yes/No?

The initial discussion at the main page seems to have died out with only a small number of participants.

I would like to reboot that conversation as the question of whether some authors should be allowed to opt-out of relicensing is an important out that potentially affects many works. Key to that, I plan to advertise this widely across Commons, and I would appreciate your feedback below. The main goal is to establish whether an opt-out provision should be allowed at all, though the finer point of when and how one might be applied are also open to discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

The Wikimedia Foundation has resolved to exercise its rights under GFDL 1.3 to dual license all eligible content currently under GFDL 1.3 and GFDL "1.x or later versions" as also CC-BY-SA-3.0. This applies not only to text but also to GFDL media files, including approximately 1.7 million GFDL images on Commons. Consistent with the language in GFDL 1.3, the Foundation does not need the author's consent to do this.

This is a one-time event affecting existing GFDL works only. After the transition, new GFDL materials may continue to be uploaded and they would not be subject to relicensing. (Separately, some people have proposed that we begin moving away from or restrict the use of the GFDL license for media. Such discussions are independent of the Foundation mandated relicensing effort.)

The Foundation position, as articulated by Deputy Director Erik Moller, is that the relicensing applies to all works; however, the Foundation will allow the communities to create conditions under which the works of certain authors may be opted-out of the relicensing effort if the communities choose to do so. In that case, the image contributions of those authors would continue to be indentified as GFDL-only even after the relicensing. Several authors have expressed a belief that the ongoing relicensing effort is unfair and they would like to opt-out their images. Concern for the wishes of these contributors is a primary motivation for considering an opt-out option.

If opt-out is allowed at all, it must be explicitly requested by the copyright holder. The community is further free to set any additional conditions (such as deadlines for exercising it) or reject the idea entirely.

So, what does the Commons community think about allowing an opt-out provision for GFDL images existing here?

Courtesy template "license-change-request" ?

Strictly speaking, opting out is not an option : if a GFDL1.2+later licence has been issued, and the file has been used as such, the user definitely has the right to use it with that license (you can't take it back) ; if this means that a CC license is accepted as a "later" version of GFDL, so be it. On the other hand, when the file is unused in the Wikimedia world, I don't object to a deletion request made by the uploader (assuming good faith) - the file+license was just an open offer, nobody took it, it can be taken back at that stage. Strictly speaking, the rule could be :

• If a file is used (checkusage), a license can't be suppressed (though it can be "upgraded", and/or another license can be added).
• If a file has no usage, the license can be changed by the uploader.

Now, in extreme cases, if someone badly wants the license to be changed, a version-A file can be uploaded in a version-B with a different license, the version-A orphaned by replacing it by version-B, and then, presto! the version-A can now be suppressed since it has no usage ;o). But in that case, I wouldn't "assume good faith".

I think it is better to regulate this maneuver by offering a template "license-change-request" that would display on the license page "the uploader has requested to opt-out from license X to switch to Y, you may formulate any objection on this commons page before xxx-date-xxx" + ask a 'bot to post that notice to all discussion pages where the file is used (otherwise it wouldn't be seen by end-users). After a given time (a month?) if nobody has objected the license is changed (who cares?), but if somebody has requested that the license remains unchanged, the initial license can't be changed (that's legal).

My guess is that nobody cares, but if someone does want to opt-out, and in the unlikely case this does lead to an objection, at lease the situation will be clear. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that there should be an outreach project primarily to inform people about the change, so that everyone knows it is happening and what it means. As part of that process, anyone who actively doesn't want an image of theirs to be available under the new license (and I expect there will be almost no such people) should out of courtesy, not for any legal reasons, be allowed to request a deletion of their image, and to upload it again under 1.2-only. +sj + 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• I believe that the GFDL is a cumbersome license that should be generally avoided, particularly for media. However, I support opt-out, based solely on my reasonable prediction that virtually all authors will decline to exercise this option, either because they don't care, or because they realise now that the GFDL wasn't the best choice. Additionally, if these authors who choose to opt out can be later convinced of the error of their ways, they can migrate their content at that time of their own volition, so it's not a one time chance. It's also important for us to keep in mind that we need to represent the common needs of all Wikimedia projects, and I think allowing (but discouraging) opt-out is the best way to do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me that relicencing the work without the author's explicit consent is something that should be avoided. I certainly had no idea GFDL works allowed people to relicence them at will... -mattbuck (Talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not "at will", it's a one-time escape clause that was negotiated between WMF and FSF. AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is not a "license change" : the original license (GFDL xx and higher) must be maintained, the only thing is, its one-time consequence (CC-BY-SA as well) can be explicited. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I do not quite understand the legal issues, but I know that some users have uploaded their images because GFDL is a cumbersome license, which would have prevented their work from being used in print or on T-shirts. So yes, I would support the possibility for an opt-out. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad then that their subtle understanding of arcane licence issues would not have gone as far as to make them wary of a clause like "1.x or later". Rama (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• No problem at all for me, but wiki collects so a large variety of people, and different culrures, that is really difficult to guess what is "fair" and "unfair" for anyone of them. My suggestion is, to apply new licencing for new works, and to delate (for some months) re-licencing of old ones, giving to authors a reasonable time to know the ongoing change and to post their opinion about. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also support an opt-out clause. It can be discouraged, but it should also be easy to opt out, or we'll lose contributors. Comments made on the Village Pump make me think that a number of Commons active users weren't aware that the relicensing also applied to media, and possibly felt that media and text should be treated differently. As long as Commons still accepts new GFDL works, I don't see why we should force anyone to move to CC-BY-SA if they feel strongly against it. Pruneau^talk 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• I don't support this clause. Users who uploaded their work under a "version X or any later version" were aware that the license terms of their images could possibly change in the future. They had the option to upload under version 1.2 only if they wanted to only use that license.
  Note that GFDL images uploaded after 2008-11-01 can only be migrated if they were not previously published elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Not only does an opt-out grossly miss the point ... but anyone could relicense it to CC by-sa anyway under 1.3. Don't promise things we can't ensure. - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I understand the license: The operator of a Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site may republish [material] contained in the site under CC-BY-SA. Only the WMF may relicense. Pruneau^talk 12:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• The operator of a Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site (here: the WMF) has decided to change the licensing of GFDL material to GFDL+CC-BY-SA. No matter what template we put on those pages, the content will be reusable under CC-BY-Sa anyway. Also allowing to opt out is against our goal to provide images free for commercial use. See my reasoning on Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force#Is_opting-out_of_the_migration_an_option.3F for why this is a very bad idea. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• I do support an opt-out, though it (and GFDL in general for images) should be strongly discouraged. The license is still "free" per policy, so I would think we will continue to accept GFDL uploads (which cannot be cross-licensed) unless there is a change in Commons policy, and I don't think we should antagonize existing contributors who feel strongly about the issue, as we have accepted them for years. It seems very abritrary to disallow current contributes to keep GFDL-only licenses but then to allow future uploaders to do so. There should probably be a time limit on the opt-out though; it shouldn't be open-ended such that authors can change it down the line. Maybe a month or two (and this is another reason why I would also like to see every image tag actually changed, rather than just changing the GFDL tag, so that all such images show up on authors' watchlists). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Redundant

It would also be redundant to tag images tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.5 as CC-BY-SA-3.0, because CC-BY-SA-2.5 license term 4b allows use of any later version. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be only possible for derivative works. --AVRS (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, change one pixel of an image by one degree of colour (e.g. from #AAAAAA to #AAAAAB) and it's a derivative work which can be under the new license, while appearing absolutely the same. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for cc-by[-sa] 2.0, I would think. The 1.0 versions did not have that clause, if memory serves. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Opt-out

I'm sorry that I don't know much about the license migration process, but is opting out allowed or not, finally? Is that kind of thing allowed to removed the CC-BY-SA tag from an image page? --Eusebius (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Opting out has already been implemented, even though we IMHO were not done discussing this. Under the current policy (why is this not just a proposal?), this is allowed. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Script

I have made a simple Javascript for migrating the licenses. You can add it to your monobook with importScript('User:ContinueWithCaution/relicense.js'); ContinueWithCaution (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY + GFDL: ok?

From Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration:

redundant: If the image already has a CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-SA-3.0 tag, use this to indicate that relicensing would be redundant.

But don't we need CC-BY-SA? Thanks--Trixt (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY is less restrictive than CC-BY-SA, so if it was already licensed that way by the original author, there is no need to add CC-BY-SA (since the SA part is already not required). Users are perfectly free to use a CC-BY image as part of a CC-BY-SA derivative work; those licenses are compatible in that direction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I, Infrogmation (talk), wish to "opt out" of the involuntary license migration. Where do I leave my name to opt out? Note: The vast majority of my uploads I would happily agree to add cc-by-sa-3.0 to the listed license options, if that license is not one of the listed options already IF ASKED. I do not consent to any change license of any of my copyrighted works that I have not personally authorized, nor have I authorized any party other than myself to change licensing of any of my works without my explicit permission. Infrogmation (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Additional note: I see on the page that eligible images include:

"Any image correctly licensed GFDL 1.3, or any earlier GFDL version with an "or later versions" clause, provided that:

"The copyright holder first published the image under the GFDL at a WMF site,

"OR the image was first published under the GFDL elsewhere and was incorporated into a WMF site before November 1, 2008."

A good number of my images were first published elsewhere than Wikimedia, and not under GFDL. Has there been even the least effort put into seeing that images tagged meet the requirements seen above? Infrogmation (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy again

Hi everyone, I am about to remove most of the categories which are claimed to be redundant to CC-BY-SA. This is _not_ true. The only images where adding CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported would really be redundant are images licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 1.0,2.0,3.0 (basically only images which are already licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0). All others are not redundant, those being especially images under

• localized CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses, such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 DE/FR/CA etc.. These are different licenses, which are the same in spirit but might not be adjusted to legal system except the one they were designed for. Adding CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported is mandatory, so the image is licensed under the generic license and re-users can stick to the English license text.
• minor versions of CC-BY(-SA) licenses. Yes, CC allows incorporation of CC 2.0+ works into works under a license with a higher version. However, this only applies when creating derivative works, not when publishing the image as-is.
• CC-BY licenses. Yes, using those in CC-BY-SA works is allowed, but only if you create a derivative. What about organizations devoted to free content who whish to use only copyleft images in their publications? Most re-users will probably choose the less restrictive license, but we are still making those images available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree to ChrisiPK's view of those redundancy issues. In some cases there are only marginal differences. But there are some and therefore adding CC-by-sa due to the licensing update is not redundant. [[ Forrester ]] 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this?

Nice this task force, but is anyone actually working on checking images? Category:License migration redundant already contains around 600,000 images but most are probably cause by {{Self}} and {{License migration is redundant}}. Multichill (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to do all of it by hand, so we're going to need a bot run to get things started. There was some discussion about it above in the #Bot request section, but I'm not sure if someone's currently working on it or not. If not, I think I ought to have some time to spare for writing such a bot (and for compiling the list of files that can be safely bot-tagged, which is the major part of the job). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've generally found bot ops don't usually like to read through pages of pseudo-coherent copyright-related posts. ;-) If there are specific tasks that need doing, somebody needs to clearly outline them and there are a number of people who would be willing to help. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So you guys are basicly stalled. Fired up a bot to do change a lot of images using {{Self}}. Multichill (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Open bot request for approval

All input would be welcome at Commons:Bots/Requests/DrilBot regarding a bot to help with this. --Drilnoth (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

License simplification

Hi. For some of my images, bots are changing {{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} into {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated|Cc-by-2.5}}. Is it ok for me to simplify the license scheme by making it {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}? Or can I really not replace CC-BY-2.5 by CC-BY-3.0? Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The CC-BY-2.5 license remains valid, such that if someone wished to distribute your images under it they still could, but I at least wouldn't object if you wished to simplify the licensing terms listed on the page. Although you could avoid the problem altogether by using {{Cc-by-all}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

License changes from GFDL to GFDL-1.2 on file pages

Hi, I have opened a thread about license changes from GFDL to GFDL-1.2 at the village pump. Please voice your opinion there if you are interested in the discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What happens on August 1?

So what exactly needs to happen on August 1? I suppose we need to remove the relicense notice from the default GFDL templates. Have the bots finished all their work? Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not really that important when this happens; all that the extra template says is that the image might be available under CC-BY-SA, not that it is. The more important issue is the migration of the files that cannot be migrated by bot but need human attention. As soon as this is done, I think we can remove the template. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide more information on what needs be done manually and how people can help? Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in Category:License migration needs review need human review. As this category is empty, I assume that nobody is currently running a bot that sorts images into this category. There are also many images which have not yet been evaluated, check Category:License migration candidates for those. You can start there right away. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• @ChrisPK As far as I can see the re-licensing *must* be done before 1-Aug-2009, am I wrong? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of the relicensing notice in {{GFDL}} is that it says that we have already relicensed all eligible files tagged with that template. What remains is simply the tedious task of clarifying the notice by going through all the files and checking them against the eligibility criteria so that people using our content won't have to do it themselves. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense. So all eligible files already are relicensed. I guess that my bot on en.wp doesn't have to run at super-speed to finish up before August 1. :) --Drilnoth (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

I've been fixing some with my bot but I have two problems I need help with.

1) What do we do with Template:GFDL-en? It has a disclamer but is that a problem?

1. We change to GFDL and migrate just like all other images.
2. We keep the GFDL-en an migrate just like all other images.
3. We can migrate but to a Cc-by... with a disclamer.
4. We can't migrage:
5. Somthing else?

2) What do we do with templetes like Template:Information Picswiss (seems there is more here Category:Templates using the license migration system)?

If we migrate the template all images using the template will be migrated. If we have to migrate the images one at a time the templates probably needs to be fixed wo work. We could also add a new "Cc-by...migrated". --MGA73 (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The disclaimer in {{GFDL-en}} is not a problem. The right answer is #2: keep the GFDL-en tag and migrate just like any other image. (Unlike the GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0 has a blanket warranty disclaimer built into the license, but doesn't seem to require the preservation of notices referring to other disclaimers, although the wording in section 4(a,b) might be a bit ambiguous in the regard. Certainly it is, in any case, prudent to leave any explicit disclaimers in place, but that's just common sense.)

2) If all the Picswiss images are eligible, we can just update the template to mark them all so. As far as I can tell, they should be (modulo the concerns expressed at Commons talk:Picswiss project, which are not really related to the migration in any way.) Otherwise we'd need to make it pass through the migration parameter and tag the images individually. (In fact, it might be best to pass the parameter through anyway, and just make it default to "relicense".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps. I just ran a toolserver query, and it seems almost all Picswiss images were uploaded before November 2008. The only exceptions are these five image uploaded in March 2009 by User:Kurpfalzbilder.de:

• File:Kloster_St_Georgen_5.jpg
• File:Kloster_St_Georgen_4.jpg
• File:Kloster_St_Georgen_3.jpg
• File:Kloster_St_Georgen_2.jpg
• File:Klosterkirche_Pfäfers.jpg
• File:Kloster_Fischingen.jpg

Those are probably not eligible, although one could argue either way based on the text of GFDL 1.3 section 11 and the peculiarities of this particular case. Also, we should think about what to do with any new Picswiss images that may be uploaded in the future (since the collection is AFAIK still growing); obviously those won't be eligible any more. Oh, and someone really ought to contact Roland Zumbühl and ask if he'd be OK with explicitly licensing his (low-resolution) images under CC-BY-SA. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be super if you could check the other templates in Category:Templates using the license migration system with the toolserver also. --MGA73 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're interested specifically in those templates in that category that don't currently contain a (fixed or passed-through) migration parameter? Here are the last upload dates for files tagged with each of those (click the blue arrow to uncollapse the table):

Template	Last upload	Old	New	Total	Notes
{{BD-propagande colour}}	2009-07-29	19	2	21	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.0
{{Kettős licenc}}	2009-07-28	90	41	131	pass-through added, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{GFDL-self-en}}	2009-07-27	4042	146	4188	pass-through added
{{GFDL-user-en-note}}	2009-07-26	2901	64	2965	pass-through added, deprecated
{{GFDL-Armenica}}	2009-07-25	30	7	37	migrated
{{MaleneThyssenCredit}}	2009-07-24	356	6	362	already migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{SOlicense}}	2009-07-20	1534	78	1612	redundant, multilicensed cc-by-3.0
{{Vlasenko}}	2009-07-07	27	26	53	redundant, multilicensed cc-by-sa-3.0
{{The Emirr}}	2009-06-28	0	78	78	redundant, multilicensed cc-by-sa-3.0
{{Falcorian}}	2009-06-22	33	3	36	redundant, multilicensed cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0
{{Attribution-GSC Game World}}	2009-06-21	0	6	6	not eligible
{{Adult female diagrams}}	2009-06-16	0	2	2	not meant to be a license template, fixed
{{Willtroncreated}}	2009-06-10	346	43	389	redundant, multilicensed cc-by-sa-3.0
{{Information Picswiss}}	2009-05-30	4447	9	4456	migrated by default, allows pass-through to override
{{GFDL-user-ja}}	2009-04-22	13	1	14	pass-through added
{{GFDL-CC-triple}}	2009-04-22	131	2	133	pass-through added, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5 and cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 (!)
{{PalestineRemembered}}	2009-01-16	0	2	2	not eligible
{{DMonniaux-DADVSI-20060507}}	2009-01-04	20	154	174	already migrated, multilicensed cc-by-2.0
{{Willtrontaken}}	2008-12-27	210	4	214	redundant, multilicensed cc-by-sa-3.0
{{Shogi diagrams}}	2008-03-02	67	0	67	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-2.5
{{Created by ForrestSjap}}	2008-02-19	1	0	1	only use substed, nominated for deletion
{{Pengo DECF}}	2007-12-30	9	0	9	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-2.5
{{Cameca}}	2007-12-15	16	0	16	migrated, only valid for a specific set of files
{{WassiniCredit}}	2007-05-06	27	0	27	already migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{WikiProject India City Maps}}	2007-03-17	3	0	3	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0
{{Med}}	2007-03-13	17	0	17	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{ChristianRasmussenCredit}}	2007-01-27	12	0	12	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{Arjan}}	2007-01-11	34	0	34	migrated
{{Dvdm}}	2006-11-24	9	0	9	migrated
{{Animated constellation}}	2006-10-07	51	0	51	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0
{{Sabaudia}}	2006-09-06	10	0	10	converted to {{Attribution}}
{{JJM-5ko}}	2006-07-10	20	0	20	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{Rudi-mapa}}	2006-05-31	7	0	7	migrated
{{Evstafiev Mikhail}}	2006-03-15	8	0	8	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{MLDoan}}	2006-02-19	1	0	1	multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.0-fr
{{NavyPostSchool}}	2006-01-27	1	0	1	multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.5
{{Atille}}	2005-09-13	1	0	1
{{LSF vocab clairette}}	2005-03-09	26	0	26	migrated, multilicensed cc-by-sa-2.0-fr

The "Old" and "New" columns give the number of tagged files uploaded before and after November 2008 respectively; the "Total" column is simply their sum. Note that some of the later uploads may well be reverts or other things that don't really count — this is the case for three of the nine new Picswiss images, for example. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that a few of those templates were already marked as migrated, redundant or not eligible, even though my crude regexp filter didn't catch that. I've struck out those from the list. I also took a look at all the templates and noted any existing multilicensing as well as some other details. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a great list. I hoped that we could migrate some of the templates (if all images using it was old enough). Like {{Arjan}} that has 34 old and no new. You agree we can migrate all those templates?

Problem is those templates where there is both old and new. Like {{Information Picswiss}}. How do we solve this? If user do not respond or say no do we make an extra non-migrated-template and put that on the new files or do we "subst" them?

Having though about it, I'm not sure we should really be adding migration=relicense to any templates unless we can be (reasonably) sure that they won't be used for any new files in the future. Instead, for the user-specific templates, we should really ask the users involved if they wouldn't mind adding {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} to those templates, thereby making the migration redundant (most of them already include some variant of CC-BY or CC-BY-SA anyway). For most of the rest, we should just add the usual migration= and migrate the files one by one.

The {{Information Picswiss}} template might be a special case — I'd be willing to consider marking it with migration=relicense, i.e. defaulting to relicense unless explicitly marked otherwise. Saving about 4.5 thousand edits might be worth the trouble of requiring any new Picswiss uploads to be tagged with {{Information Picswiss|migration=not eligible}}. BUt, as I noted above, asking the maintainer of Picswiss for an explicit CC-BY-SA-3.0 license would be even better. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Making a fix so images using the template are migratet if "blank" but makeing it possible to say no (opt-out or not eligible). But I also agree that makeing the owner add 3.0 would be the best. We could also tag the few exceptions and make a bot migrate the rest if you prefere that. --MGA73 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I notised that {{GFDL-user-da}} and some other templates was not on your list. Is there no need to check them or have you just not had time to check yet? I tryed to make this template migratable but could not find out how to do it. I could "kill" the template with my bot and convert it and similar GFDL-user-templates to a simple {{self|GDFL|author=[[xxx]] at [[xx-wiki]]}} so we can migrate images. --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd... for some reason, it was completely missing from my original list. Anyway, this is how to fix them — it can now be migrated just like any other GFDL template. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaarg... Well that looks easy :-) Anyway I see 108 in Category:Templates using the license migration system. If we could get those fixed it should do the job more easy. When templates are migratable we only need a list of those old enough and then a bot should be able of doing the rest. When all the old are done maybe we need to check the new ones manually. So lets hope its only a few. --MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of those should already have that feature, that's why I didn't include them in my list above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Do you prefer that we migrate images instead of templates? If we migrate templates with only old files (like {{Shogi diagrams}} then we fix many images with only one edit. I'm on vacation with a slow an expensive so I prefer to wait doing thousands of bot-edits until I get home :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a case-by-case decision. I just migrated {{WikiProject India City Maps}} and {{Animated constellation}}; both of those had no uploads since Nov 2008, they already included CC-BY-SA-2.5 and earlier, and by their nature it seems to me likely that, if any new files tagged with them are ever uploaded, they'll be derivatives of the earlier ones, and thus using the same license should be no problem.

For the user-specific templates, I guess migrating the templates should be safe enough as long as we also leave the user in question a note on their talk page — that way they won't be surprised if they come back and try to use the template for a new upload. For the Picswiss template, I think I'll do as I planned above: make the template mark files as migrated by default, and put a big red warning box on the template documentation page telling people how to override it. The rest? Dunno, but there aren't that many. Default to pass-through, I guess. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and templates like {{PalestineRemembered}} should not be migrated as far as I can tell. It would be great to get this and others like that tagged so it/they no longer show up on the list and the images get out of the migration-category. The ones that have been struck out is there an easy way to get them out of the category? If not we could use the list above to see which have been checked and which still needs attention. --MGA73 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added migration= also to {{GFDL-self-en}}, {{GFDL-user-en-note}}, {{GFDL-user-ja}} and {{GFDL-CC-triple}}, and migration=not eligible to {{PalestineRemembered}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed (one way or another) almost all of the templates listed above. The few remaining old single-image templates should probably just be substed (and nominated for deletion). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What about this one {{NetMarine}}? Any ideas? --MGA73 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual

Please have a look at this template, I had to revert the migration twice because the text of the template explicitely tells us the commercial use is only allowed under the terms of GFDL. Adding CC-BY-SA-3.0 would not only break the original intention of the template but also violate the stated licensing conditions and the files would have to be deleted or relicensed by the authors. --Denniss (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This might be best discussed at the template's talk page. Replied there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Still "new" files to come

I thought all files were in the category Category:License migration candidates, but found out that "new" files is added to the category when bots edit them (this was not in category when my bot edit yesterday but today it was File:Button sup letter.png). So I wonder how many files are left. An hour ago there were like 124,600 files but later there were 125,200 files. --MGA73 (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

By bot has finished what I found for it and the number is now 98,399 total. Lets hope no files from after August 1 is added and that there is not many old ones that suddenly show up. --MGA73 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is now 101,620 images in the category. I now have a list of 192,741 images that may wrongfully not be in the right license migration category. So I will try to get these files in the right category. Lets hope not all files end up in the migration category. --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad news. It seems that almost all these files should be in the candidates list. So the number of images on the to do-list was not 100.000 but close to 300.000. There was a problem with the coding on the list, so some of the images on the list can't be fixed by a bot. So we need a new list to complete the task. I will work on as many images on the list until the new list is ready. --MGA73 (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Status is that I got a new list from Multichill and in af few hours (like at 12:00?) my bot should have got them in the right category. After that Category:License migration candidates should only grow if new candidates are uploaded on Commons. Sadly some om the new candidates are here because of a typo during upload [1]. The typo is in "|migration=reundant". We should locate the error and fix it to avoid extra work (I thought it was fixed long ago). --MGA73 (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope this [2] (+ [3]) will do. --MGA73 (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CC...3.0-images are in Category:License migration candidates

Just found out that some CC...3.0-images are in the candidates-category [4]. Can that be fixed easy? --MGA73 (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and when it is fixed it would be nice if someone could help me with at list of migrated images that did not need a migration. --MGA73 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aargh somthing is wrong. Check this out [5]. Any ideas? I can remove the "junk" with my bot but if it is not fixed more will show up. --MGA73 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This one too File:021 Bow Fell Rocks and South East view.JPG. --MGA73 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a bug in CommonsHelper. (Or, rather, it's working as designed but it should really be updated to skip the license migration templates.) Should probably file a bug report (and/or maybe poke Magnus on his talk page too, given how old some of those bug reports seem to be). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

2 CC tags for one file?

Went through a few community pages and didn't find it being asked clearly enough already. So I wonder – whether it's necessary implement licence migration on files that already have CC licence along with GFDL, but not the Cc-by-sa-3.0 one. Or different CC licences really are different enough that it's needed to have 2 CC licences for one file? For instance I see bot(s) adding Cc-by-sa-3.0 as well for files that already have Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0. 195.50.197.68 08:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or should the previous CC licence be removed in that case? 195.50.197.68 08:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They are different enough. For example, Debian accepts works under CC BY-SA 3.0, but not 2.5. --10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and meanwhile cc-by-2.0 is alive and well with a large body of works on Flickr. Certainly the licensing under an older cc license SHOULD NOT be removed when a new version is added. That would be revocation of a license. Infrogmation (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What about all the subcats?

Category GFDL has more subcats than I thought. Big ones should be ok (I crossed them), but what about the other ones? Have anyone checked those?

1. [+] GFDL-IS
2. [+] User-created GFDL images
3. [+] GFDL-en
4. [+] GFDL-ja
5. [+] GFDL-it
6. [+] GFDL-1.2
7. [+] Armenica images
8. [+] Commons screenshots
9. [+] Commons screenshots (en)
10. [+] Commons screenshots (fi)
11. [+] HotCat
12. [+] ImageAnnotator
13. [+] Commons screenshots (pl)
14. [+] Commons screenshots (ru)
15. [+] SLOnavodila
16. [+] GFDL-GMT
17. [+] Landsat images with Kashmir 3D
18. [+] Picswiss
19. [+] PolishPresidentCopyright
20. [+] PolishSenateCopyright
21. [+] Riverships.ru
22. [+] S.L. Dixon images
23. [+] Steamsounds
24. [+] Wikipedia screenshots
25. [+] Wikiquote screenshots
26. [+] Wikiversity screenshots
27. [+] Wiktionary screenshots

--MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing to do with those subcats? If you are looking for images to be migrated, I guess you want to go to Category:License migration candidates. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First. There is more than enough to do. It seems that for some reason Category:License migration candidates does not seem to be complete. That means that old images keeps showing up and makeing it hard to end the migration. The subcats are "special" images. I hoped that someone with good understanding of the migration project would look through the categories and fix template/license so images can be migrated if relevant or that they will be marked as a "no go" if migration is not possible. I tryed with Category:GFDL-IS but can't decide if we could migrate or not. --MGA73 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The GFDL states: An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008. So no, GFDL-IS is not eligible for relicensing. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great - then that can be tagged and crossed from the list. Only 21 to go :-) For example the screenshots. As you can se from this example File:174px-Wikipedia-word1 7.png it is in Category:GFDL but not in a Category:License migration xxx. That means that the license template has to be changed. If all wiki schreenshots are both GFDL and cc...3.0 it is easy to fix (migration=redundant). If some one has the time to look at these cats it would be great. If not I will have a look some time. --MGA73 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just ran a query and found 10 templates that are in Category:Custom GFDL license tags but not in Category:Templates using the license migration system: {{GWArt}}, {{GWArtOld}}, {{PolishPresidentCopyright}}, {{Dot5ko}}, {{Not5ko}}, {{TownBulgaria}}, {{Wikiversity-screenshot}}, {{Wikiquote-screenshot}}, {{Wiktionary-screenshot}} and {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}. The first three (struck out above) appear to be GFDL 1.2 only, and thus not eligible. The following three are user-specific license tags; I'll run a further query to check, but I suspect they're all eligible and should be marked so. The remaining four are the WMF screenshot tags: we'll need to decide what to do with them. {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} has, in effect, already been migrated; I think we should probably just change the rest in the same way. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree they should be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help on this

Can someone fix User:WilyD/License and the few images that uses it? --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Found out my self! --MGA73 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You should substitute the template. Multichill (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How about templates like this?

• User:Cburnett/Triple
• User:Thgoiter/Dual
• Template:Author-en
• Template:Author-en2
• Template:AnotherAuthor2
• Template:Free screenshot

How do we fix that? --MGA73 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed {{Free screenshot}} so you can add the migration keywords. The other templates should be replaced with {{Self}} (don't forget the author field) and deleted as unused redundant templates. Multichill (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone care to look at this? {{Lensovet}} --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one User:Cory/Template:Self (User:Cory/Lic). --MGA73 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And this User:Cory/CoryD. --MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One has been "fixed" but Cory's templates still needs to be fixed. Who can fix it? --MGA73 (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The second one isn't a licensing template. I'll look at the first one. Kaldari (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cory/Lic is pretty similar to {{Self}} except that he's added support for cc-by-nc-sa-2.1-jp, a non-free license that we don't support. It's transcluded in about 200 files, so we may want a bot to handle it. Kaldari (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A bot is no problem. I have made more than 500,000 edits with my bot - many of them in the migration project. My problem was to make the template migratable. Just fix the template and tell me if I should add "migration=relicense" or "migration=not-eligible" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE ok?

If CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE does make migration redundant then {{License migration is redundant}} should be fixed to do so. The same goes with other "ok" licenses in Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0, but DE seems to be the "biggest". It would help migration process not to waste time on images already ok. --MGA73 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling bold. I changed the template. If someone feels this is incorrect feel free to revert me. Multichill (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Template:GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa

This {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}} has been marked as not migratable. Agree? --MGA73 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Less than 50 images so agree ;-) Multichill (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be non migratable? The cc-by-nc-sa option is meaningless here, as that license on its own is not permitted on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply the intention of the licensor is clear, if that is someone who doesn't want to opt out, I don't know what is :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What now?

I asked a question Commons_talk:Licensing#Migration_is_not_over_yet_(?) when this is going to stop. Maybe the question should have been asked here. --MGA73 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Automatic work pretty much over

Hi everyone, today me and MGA73 emptied out Category:License migration candidates and moved the last difficult images to Category:License migration needs review. Now we can use your help:

1. Help with reviewing the images in Category:License migration needs review
2. Help with keeping Category:License migration candidates empty

Multichill (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we still have a task force?

I wonder if we still have a task force? Not much is happening in Category:License migration needs review. Is anyone working on these images?

I have been away some weeks with other jobs (migrating 120,000 images on enwiki to stop the flow of un-migrated images comming from there). Further more it is hard for me to keep Category:License migration candidates empty since my bot is still having problems. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying, but I doubt I can pull this off on my own. Review is tedious work, so it takes a lot of time. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in yer categories, fixin yer filez! Kaldari (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. I just did a lot. Now we "only" have 1,528 left :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 1,391 left :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart 2020

@Kaldari, ChrisiPK, Ilmari Karonen, OhanaUnited, Kwj2772, Diti, SB Johnny, Multichill, Lantrix, and Pandakekok9: Hi! This project started a long time ago and it was almost finished in 2009-2011.

But new files have shown up:

• Category:License migration needs review 9,715 files
• Category:License migration candidates 17,874 files

If you have any good idea on how to clean out the categories let us hear them. Perhaps some magic with database queries? Some awesome coding of a bot? Or do we need a lot of manual work? --MGA73 (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fine doing manual work myself while tools are being developed. I started cleaning up since yesterday. Though we definitely need some automated tools for this job. Maybe a bot that would search all upload logs of every Wikimedia project for one image, then it automatically marks it as relicense if the earliest upload date is before 1 November 2008 (not 1 August 2009 because they may be some files that are first published to a non-Wikimedia project)? I don't know how to program though... pandakekok9 09:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I also saw some files uploaded after 2009 that are still marked for review (the most recent I saw was 2018, there's also a 2016 own work photo uploaded by an admin who joined after the license migration), so maybe we should have some notice (like the Watchlist notice) encouraging photographers to check all their GFDL-licensed pics uploaded after 2009 and mark them as not-eligible (not redundant, even if they have cc-by-sa-3.0, see this section I made on the redundant category). pandakekok9 09:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The main problem is that when files are copied for Commons from another wiki project there is not always added a good upload log. That is why we can't be sure that just because a file is uploaded after 2009 then it is never eligible for a relicense.

It is sometimes hard to find out if a file is eligible for a license review or not. It is much easier to mark it as redundant because if there is a cc-by-sa-3.0 its redundant. That is why we choose to mark as "redundant" and not as "not eligible" if it is uploaded after 2009.

Ogre bot should not request a review like on this edit. I think the code was made long ago and never updated. I think that it should be possible to have a bot remove the review request on files like that. There is no reason to give humans more work when it is not needed! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I fixed some with my bot. Almost 4,000 is now removed from Category:License migration needs review and more than 5,000 are removed from Category:License migration candidates.

We will need a lot of manual work. So it is so nice we have someone who is not afraid of manual work! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Files imported from Korean Wikipedia had been relicensed there. However, being imported to Commons, some files are treated as "pending" because template parameter is incompatible. For these files, working with autonomous tool would be possible. – Kwj2772 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kwj2772: Yes that is right! Thank you! I fixed some of those. There may be some left. Feel free to put a link here if you notice some. --MGA73 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We once had User:Ilmari Karonen/licensemigration.js to assist us. I don't think it is still working. If anyone can fix it then it could make manual reviews faster. --MGA73 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My idea is that the script add a few buttons to this template {{License migration announcement}} and when you click them they add some code to the templates:

• "Relicense" that adds this code: |migration=eligible
• "Redundant" that adds this code: |migration=redundant
• "Not eligible" that adds this code: |migration=not-eligible
• "Review" that adds this code: |migration=review

To begin with the script should be able to recognize templates {{Self}}, {{GFDL}}. If there is a "migration = review" the script should change that to whatever the reviewer choose.

The code works only if "migration" is written with lowercase "m" so "Migration" does not work. Some other script added spaces around "=" som in many cases it is "migration = review" instead of "migration=review".

If there is a "migration=opt-out" then we should not relicense. So either the script should refuse to work if there is an "opt-out" or the reviewer needs to be careful.

Perhaps we can use the script above or copy and modify MediaWiki:LicenseReview.js. --MGA73 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I changed the template and the script so now it is possible to use the script to work on the files. See MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js#License_migration. The code have not been edited for a long time so there will probably be some things the script can't handle. But it's a start :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been working on Vietnamese Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia and have hopefully fixed most of the files there so in future files that are imported from those wikis should be good. If you notice any wikis where there are problems with license migration please fix it or leave a notice here so we can try to fix it.

Some time ago User:Mdaniels5757 have taken over the task to operate a bot that works on the files. Thats really great and it is working. Today there are less than 5 k files:

• Category:License migration needs review 2,176 files
• Category:License migration candidates 2,582 files

Yesterday I changed {{GÖBL}} to {{GFDL}}. I hope that will help the bot. If anyone notice problems that you think will prevent the bot from working please fix it or report it so we can try to fix it.

@Pandakekok9: if you still wanna work on files manually you are very welcome. I hope MediaWiki:LicenseReview.js will make it easier. --MGA73 (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

License reviews with script

As mentioned above MediaWiki:LicenseReview.js can be used to review files. If you install it and go to a file that is a candidate or need review you will see some buttons and boxes where you can select the option you want in a drop down menu. Then you can click save. If you want you can add an extra edit summary before you save. --MGA73 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Opted out

I have stated repeatedly in any places I can think of as clearly and emphatically as I'm able that I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANYONE ELSE CHANGING THE LICENSES OF MY WORK. I have "opted out" of the change. As I have stated repeatedly, I am generally very happy to allow reuse under other licenses IF ASKED. I consider any unilateral change of licensing of my work without my permission to be fraudulent and a violation of my author's rights. Some earlier discussion: User:Infrogmation#Free_licenses, [6]. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)