Commons:Requests and votes/File Upload Bot (Vishwin60)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This proposed RF Bot is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File Upload Bot (Vishwin60)

User:File Upload Bot (Vishwin60) is now a bot.


I will use this bot for uploading and updating files that I upload. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

Comments

  • No objection. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections. Could you please make a test run? --EugeneZelenko 15:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Test run done. Look at Image:MO-47.svg's uploader. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may not be the right place to raise this... but you have your own license tag? {{Vsh60lic}} ??? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Withhold support pending clarification. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, this should be clarified. --ALE! ¿…? 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • About the license tag...I basically used it so I did not have to use {{PD-self}} or any other preset license, as it does not have the sufficient license(s) that I need. What if Public Domain is not possible and I have to select another license? I would have used Creative Commons. Of course, that is not the main license for any US Road shield, so I used PD. Also, former user SPUI had his own license tag at {{Spuiother}} and {{Spui}}. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see no implications on this tag. It basically says, if I can't release it PD, you can do anything you want with it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, it means that it can be copyleft or copyright. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • My issue is that as a custom single user tag, changes in what it says may not be very obvious or noticed. Once a license is given, it can't be taken away, for a particular version of an image, it has to stay licensed as it was, and changing a single user tag means a back door way to change permissions is possible. This tag has in fact changed in meaning (check the revision history), at least potentially (one wouuld have to parse what the original text said and map it to the two licenses now included) which is a very big concern for me. There is also really no reason that a standard tag or tags could not be used, instead of the current version. Until this user resolves this issue satisfactorily I am not comfortable with this user running automation. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose pending satisfactory resolution of tagging and demonstration of understanding of the issues involved. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Original licenses restored. Check the template. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, on Commons:Licensing, it says here: 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 allowes commercial use. Multi-Licensing with restrictive licenses may be desirable for compatibility with the licensing scheme of other projects; Also, multi-licensing allows people who create derivative work to release that work under a restrictive license only, if they wish - that is, it gives creators of derivative works more freedom with regards to which license they may use for their work. So basically, CC licenses are generally copyleft. I could apply a free use copyright as well, but that's the choice of the person viewing the image, as in the free choice of licenses I have applied. So basically now, I will officially declare, that the licenses on {{Vsh60lic}} will be PD, a CC license, Free Art, and the free use copyright. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stops you from changing it again. That's true for a general non user specific license, to be sure, but it's much less likely to escape notice. That's my issue there. Licenses for a given image version, once granted, cannot be revoked. ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never said the licenses was going to be revoked. I just restored them. In fact, the PD part of it hasn't changed at all, just the sub-licenses underwent some tweaking, but has been fixed. Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 04:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe substing the template would cancel lar's objection? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Or make a new combination license that includes these (3?... 2?...) particular licenses, in project space, where non user specific licenses live, and use that instead. It in the long run benefits more people than just one. But again, once you apply a license to an image version, you can't unapply it. Not to that version of that image. Your "tweaks" mean you're changing licenses. And that, fundamentally, is what I see as the problem with the bot nomination, that you don't see why that is a problem with your custom license. A bot that wants to upload files should be run by a user with more familiarity with licensing, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Bryan said was a proposal I was going to say here. And I also agree with Lar, with the parameterizing and stuff like that. But I have just thought of this: reupload all files that have my license template on it, so that the new file is a completely new version and the licensing process starts all over again. That will be the same each time I upload something new. That will make sure no licenses to that version of the file are tampered. Perhaps some admin could lock my template? Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our other license templates are not locked, and don't need to be locked, they are high usage enough that we catch and revert changes to their terms. I think reuploading every file you've ever contributed seems like a lot of work. Why can't this license be made generic in name (not specific to a userid) and added to the list of publicly available templates by putting it in template space? I'm still concerned that you don't see the fundamental problem with a license that can be changed by the user after it's applied. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Image:Indiana 431.svg. Note that I have taken Bryan's advice and substed the template. Perhaps I should subst the rest? Vishwin60 VCtalk • VContribs 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/File_Upload_Bot_(Vishwin60)&oldid=21183700"