Template talk:Kremlin.ru

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

Split up[edit]

This template should be split up in a source part and a normal cc template like for example {{BArch-License}}. Multichill (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Отдельная категория[edit]

Как посмотреть все файлы загруженные с kremlin.ru, чтобы не повторяться? Может быть, стоит изменить шаблон, чтобы файлы, помеченные шаблоном автоматом попадали в отдельную категорию? --Dnikitin (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{sudo}} Please remove 3 interwikis (en, ru, uk): These three interwikis are migrated into Wikidata with QID 12780137. (verify). —레비Revi 09:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done whym (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

License update[edit]

  • 1. Site has changed license from 3.0 to 4.0 (since April 8, 2015).
  • 2. OTRS-permission tag can/must be removed. It is outdated (per license update) and superfluous (license is mentioned on site directly). Alex Spade (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The 3.0 license (and therefore the OTRS tag) must be kept, see COM:LRV.    FDMS  4    08:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
OTRS tag was not and is not needed, because CC-BY license tag was are shown on site directly (archive.org is more, more correct evidence, compared to initial outdated and ambiguous words in permission). It was needed before, because kremlin.ru (compared to {{premier.gov.ru}}) had initially refused to use CC-BY license link directly and had given only CC-BY-like permission (which is/was more suitable for {{attribution}} tag).
And you are misguided about CC-BY-3.0 and COM:LRV. LRV is telling only about revocation (ru: отзыв) - action, then copyright holder make content nonfree (e.g. CC-BY(-SA) --> nonfree), or less free (e.g. CC-BY --> CC-BY-SA), or change copyleft license (e.g. СС-BY-SA --> GFDL or vice versa). That is not our case. Version update for non-copyleft free license is not revocation in any possible meaning. Alex Spade (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
But it no longer does (I guess), so for evidence that new works appearing on the website are also CC BY 3.0-licensed we need the OTRS tag. Different CC license suite versions grant different freedoms, there is community consensus (see multiple VP and VP/C threads) not to remove old license versions.    FDMS  4    11:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you provide me link to discussion about CC-BY-3.0/4.0? Not for CC-BY-SA or other copyleft cases (for these cases I agree that previous tag(s) must be preserved).
And new works appearing on klemlin.org are not downgraded-licensed (3.0-licensed) anyway (only works appeared before license update can be considered 3.0-licensed), where have you read it? Alex Spade (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's a link to a VP thread, I am sure there are more but can't find them right now (I don't remember any 3.0–4.0 discussions). The OTRS ticket applies to all content from the website. Do not change my comments' indentation, please.    FDMS  4    12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
CC-BY is free license, but it is not copyleft license. Mentioned thread is about update for copyleft CC-BY-SA licenses. That is very different case because of their copyleft-status (which as I have also said/agreed, must be preserved).
The OTRS ticket was applied to all content on site before April 8. Now it is clearly outdated and non-relevant for content appearing on site after April 8. Your supposition/assumption about that old OTRS ticket can be applied to new appearing content (after clear license update) must be proved. For example, Wikimedia/Wikipedia projects also changed/updated their base license/permission from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, and previous GFDL (as base license) is not applied to new content. If OTRS ticket and/or cc-by-3.0 tag will be retained in this template, they will be applied only for content appeared on site before April 8, while cc-by-4.0 tag be applied will for content appeared both before and after April 8. See again Wikimedia/Wikipedia license update.
NP. I have changed my ones. Alex Spade (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Please read the linked discussion, especially Dcoetzee's comment. What matters here are the terms (the legal code, not the Commons Deed) of the CC BY 3.0 and the CC BY 4.0, which changed and mostly but not necessarily always became more permissive. (BTW re must be preserved.)
Regarding my OTRS "supposition", the release just doesn't have an expiry date.
   FDMS  4    15:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't pretend that you aren't aware of the details of the release.    FDMS  4    15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have (re)read and I know the big difference between human-readable summary and legal code for CC-license, but I still see only copyleft problem in mentioned discussion. BTW mentioned CC-policy describes only two copyleft license, and says nothing about any non-copyleft CC-licenses.
I know that your OTRS-user, you don't need to prove it. Nevertheless, permission is not only stored in OTRS-bank, its legal base (press service letters) were published openly. It was additional (clarification) answer for old kremlin.ru copyright policy (last non-4.0 version) (same is in 200x [1]). I don't say that letter is incorrect, but it is outdated - not only kremlin.ru has dramatically changed its copyright policy (not only new version, but also new more clear public statement, compared to previous one), but the Russian Civil Code has dramatically changed attitude to CC-, GFDL-, and other like public offered licenses. BTW the initial GFDL-based license policy of Wikipedia doesn't have an expiry date also, but new content is CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed only. I might agree that previous kremlin.ru-content can be considered as double today (CC-BY-3.0+CC-BY-4.0), but new content is CC-BY-4.0-licensed only.
Plz, don't foget about COM:GOODFAITH. Your assumption, that I am pretending, is not good. If I am wrong or/and when we will find the most correct variant for this template (and similar two others), I will revise my (and my bot) edits om Commons, en-wiki and ru-wiki. Alex Spade (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
We have no reason to believe that the CC BY 3.0 release has somehow been explicitly terminated, nothing more than the addition of a compatible license to their copyright policy happened. There is a huge difference between kremlin.ru and Wikipedia, as Wikipedia does not own the copyrights of content contributions (with the probable exception of WMF employee works for hire) and therefore cannot release "all future content" the way kremlin.ru did.
It's difficult to believe in your good faith as you still haven't reverted the licensing template (!) to the last stable version even tough there is no clear consensus in favour of your changes "yet" and license templates shouldn't be changed boldly.
   FDMS  4    23:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said to you on my talk page, I agreed to revise my changes and just did not want to do double work (I wanted to unite revision and new editing in one action). But your command tone and bad behaviors are so rude for me (I made enough good and supported operations with Russian-themed commons pages and files), that it is difficult to me to believe in your good faith too. So I prefer to not talk with you anymore; I hope that are enough other editors, with whom I can speak without suspicion in me. My opinion is not important for me in this case, I can evolve/comfrom it with consensus of other editors. Alex Spade (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • License upgrade from Version 3 to 4 is valid and permitted by the license. To preserve licensing history the OTRS tag has to be kept, a small note with licensing upgrade should be suffient. The removal of the permission pdf from license tag subpages has to be reverted.--Denniss (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Do you offer next statement (in short form)?
This file comes from the website of the President of the Russian Federation is licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
Note: Works published on site before April 8, 2014 is also licensed under CC-BY-3.0. The permission letter from the Press Secretary for the President of the Russian Federation is available as Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf.
  • Or do you support opinion, that new (after April 8) content also licensed by previous CC-BY-3.0-license? Alex Spade (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Questions for discussion before template update[edit]

As I understand, that statement "both new and old kremlin.ru-content is CC-BY-4.0-licensed" is out of question (Note: I do not say "only" in this sentence).

So controversy has got next main questions:

  1. Is CC-BY-3.0 actual license for new kremlin.ru-content, appeared after April 8?
  2. Is CC-BY-3.0 still actual license (in variant "it must be preserved") for old kremlin.ru-content, appeared before April 8?
  3. If any of 1-2 is "Yes", then does the template need both evidence of permission - OTRS-tag and commons-link to letter scan?
  4. If 1 is "Yes", what license is main today (should be mentioned in template firstly)?

Alex Spade (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In short, my opinion - 1. No (the letter is clearly outdated for me); 2. No (I can change my opinion, if I will have seen any previous commons discussion about version update for non-copyleft free licensed work); 3. I think, OTRS-tag is enough evidence, and additional link is superfluous - it made template larger only; 4. I think - CC-BY-4.0. Alex Spade (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So, we have 3 possible new base variant of template.

Variant 1.

{{CC-BY-4.0}}

Variant 2.

{{CC-BY-4.0}}{{CC-BY-3.0}}(with note - ''before April 8'')cc-by-3.0-evidence(s)

Variant 3.

{{CC-BY-4.0}}{{CC-BY-3.0}}cc-by-3.0-evidence(s)

Alex Spade (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the OTRS tag isn't part of the actual template, but as the release is available as a file on Commons (I wasn't aware of that on 2015-04-19 08:06 as your bot had removed the links to it) it could IMO be removed as unnecessary template background info anyway. My replies would be yes/yes/–/4.0.    FDMS  4    14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Old content was and is still available under version 3 although this has been upgraded by the licensor to version 4. New content is only available under license version 4. So the license tag upgrade is valid but the old licensing info has to be preserved (as small note regarding version 3 up to xxx date and the OTRS tag). --Denniss (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)