Template talk:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated

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

Until such times as the bot doesn't have thousands or tens of thousands of images tagged with this incorrectly against the wishes of the copyright holders and directly contrary to the criteria as spelled out at Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force/Migration#The_opt-out_provision, I suggest adding some sort of disclaimer to this template. Proposed wording:

"This license may not have been approved by the copyright holder, and may be incorrect"

Other suggestions? Infrogmation (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawyers from both WMF and CC agree the license doesn't have to be approved by the copyright holder. Opt-out is being offered as a courtesy, and is not a legal requirement. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Pardon, I meant to link to Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force#Images_affected for the second part of my point. Images which were first published outside of Wikimedia and which were not originally published under GFDL (and therefore according to that link not among those eligable for relicensing) have been marked with this tag by the bots. Infrogmation (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If the bots are making mistakes then that should be pointed out and fixed. That said, I think you may be subtly misreading the criteria. It's not "first place published" that matters, it is "first place published under the GFDL". The exception deals with works that were originally licensed under the GFDL while outside the WMF sites. If the very first time an image was GFDL licensed occured when the copyright holder added it to Wikimedia, then there is no exception. This is true even if the image had been previously published under a different set of restrictions. Dragons flight (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Our understanding of the page indeed seems to be different. If the intent was convey the meaning you got out of it rather than which I got out of it, it is perhaps poorly worded and should be rewritten. Section "Images affected" as it now reads copied below. My reading of this indicates that images first published elsewhere than Wikimedia under licenses other than GFDL are NOT eligable; and this seems quite reasonable to me. Infrogmation (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • 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.


{{editprotected}} {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated/ro}} could an admin add the romanian translation?→Luciandrei (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done--Justass (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for licensetpl_link[edit]

Please see this proposal. /skagedaltalk 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Parameter 1[edit]

{{editprotected}} The described parameter 1= is not output (only attribution= is output). The source-code should be: {{#if:{{{attribution|{{{1|}}}}}}| '''{{int:wm-license-cc-attribution|}}: <span style="font-size: larger;" class="licensetpl_attr">{{{attribution|{{{1|}}}}}}</span>''' }} --MatthiasDD (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks for your help. --whym (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)