Commons talk:License Migration Task Force/Licensing change by uploader

Bot Migration

Hi,

I have a lot of images on commons. I agree to "Licensing change" dual License {{GFDL-1.3}} and {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} but can not do it myself due to large number of images. Can any admin or some bot do it for me?

--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that your license on the images are GFDL 1.2+. During the migration, someone will write a bot and automatically add CC-BY-SA 3.0 to all GFDL 1.2+ templates. You don't need to do this yourself. This page is mainly addressed to those that are using GFDL 1.2-only. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it legal to change a file's license to a more permissive one with out the creator's consent? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Legally it would at the very least be highly questionable, and morally certainly wrong. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to give a consent for a bot to change all my GFDL 1.2 only uploads to dual license. But there is no form to fill. Currently BotMultichill and AbiBot are converting licenses on my GFDL 1.2 + CC 2.5 files to GFDL 1.3 and CC 3, which seems OK. But what about GFDL 1.2 only files? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Page suggest making a license revocation

The last section of the page read:

Switching/dual-licensing is easy. Simply go to the GFDL 1.2-only images that you uploaded and replace {{GFDL-1.2}} with:

1. {{GFDL-1.3}} or
2. {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} or
3. {{GFDL-1.3}} and {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}

The middle of the 3 options seems to be against Wikimedia policy, as it licenses are understood to be irrevocable. Copyright holders may add additional license options if they choose, but cannot revoke free licenses which have already been released. I am therefore removing the middle option. Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)