Commons talk:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 Mark as reviewed 2 {{GFDL-user-w}} 3 GFDL images uploaded after August 1, 2009 4 KISS

[edit] Mark as reviewed

{{GFDL-self}} shows, "The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed." After adding {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} what change should we make to mark it as reviewed? Superm401 - Talk 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• {{GFDL-self|migration=relicense}} should do it. →Diti the penguin — 23:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{GFDL-user-w}}

This template {{GFDL-user-w}} does not respond to "migration=relicense". Am I doing something wrong? Sv1xv (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the template wasn't passing the parameter along. I think I've fixed it now, see if it works. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it works now, see File:Averof Today.jpg. Thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL images uploaded after August 1, 2009

Will they stay GFDL or will they automaticly recieved the multilicensing of cc-by-sa? Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thos images will stay GFDL, at least under the current version of the GFDL. It might be that in a few years the FSF adds another relicensing clause. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] KISS

I find all the fine detail of these licences rather boring. Could someone please state clearly in the article: what tag should I put on my uploads to replace {{GFDL}}? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot replace GFDL tag: if you published your works under GFDL, they will be under GFDL forever. You can only multilicensing your works: you could release them also under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Please see Commons:License Migration Task Force/Licensing change by uploader for further informations.--Trixt (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)