MediaWiki talk:Licenses/ownwork

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Namespace-mediawiki.svg MediaWiki:Licenses/ownwork forms part of the MediaWiki interface and can only be edited by administrators.
To request a change to MediaWiki:Licenses/ownwork, add {{Edit request}} to this talk page, followed by a description of your request.
This interface message or skin may be documented on or TranslateWiki.


Just a question, why do we recommend copylefting images? -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean, why do we recommend "GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0" in particular? since GFDL and CC-BY-SA be themselves would be copyleft...
I think we just put this because there is disagreement about which is the better copyleft license, and dual-licensing saves that argument. The earlier versions of CC-BY-SA are necessary because those versions didn't automatically allow for any later version of the license as well. or something like that. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I was wondering why we recommend users to li8cense their images under copyleft licenses, instead of attribution only or public domain. We shouldn't recommend them anything, should we? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
When the usability of our wikis was studied uploading was singled out as the hardest task. The hardest part of uploading was getting the images included in articles, but selecting a license was also cited as being confusing and difficult The recommendation was made to remove all mention of licensing.. duh.. well we can't do that. So, alternatively, it is best from an ease perspective to provide a single clear recommendation. Since the license grant is not really reversible we wouldn't be being fair to uploaders if we took advantage of their inexperience by suggesting they use the most permissive licensing possible. With that in mind it would probably make sense to ask them to just release as cc-by-sa-2.0 (2.0 because with 2.5 loses attribution if their content is uploaded to a site which revokes it via their terms of service). Then once the user gains experience they can add more permissive releases if they wish... But even with cc-by-sa, their works are license incompatible with GFDL works, so true derivatives combining them can't be legally created if someone really cares about the licenses. Since the GFDL is even more restrictive than the cc-by-sa (mostly as a side effect of being more focused on pure educational works like documentation than on content more generally) I wouldn't expect anyone willing to release under cc-by-sa to reject releasing under the FDL except with the intention of creating a gratuitous incompatibility. ... so we end up with the recommendation. If you'd like to go around encouraging folks to choose more permissive grants I'd see nothing wrong with that, but I think having a single clear recommendation which isn't more permissive than our minimum requirements is important.--Gmaxwell 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I now understand why we recommend copyleft. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, attribution-only and public domain material can become unfree further down the line, because they don't have this "share alike" "viral" restriction. That's the clause that keeps open source going, and will keep open content going too, IMO. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

german translation[edit]

  • Ideale Lösungen
    • self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|Eigenes Werk, Copyleft (Mehrfachlizenzierung GFDL, jegliche CC-BY-SA)
    • PD-self|Eigenes Werk, jegliche Rechte abgegeben (gemeinfrei oder GFDL für den Fall, dass die Gemeinfreigabe ungültig ist)
  • Bessere Lösungen (Mehrfachlizenzierung)
    • self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5|Eigenes Werk, Copyleft (GFDL, CC-BY-SA-2.5)
    • self|GFDL|FAL|Eigenes Werk, Copyleft (GFDL, Free Art License)
    • self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5|Eigenes Werk, Namensnennung (GFDL, CC-BY 2.5)
  • Gute Lösungen (Einzellizenz)
    • self|GFDL|Eigenes Werk, Copyleft, Namensnennung (GFDL)

there it is...[edit]

(much of it is not translatable, actually..)--Speck-Made 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"GFDL if the PD release is invalidated"[edit]


What's that about? {{pd-self}} doesn't mention anything about the GFDL. Surely it should be something like "no restrictions", or just left out altogether. the wub "?!" 16:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Not done if the PD is invalid then GFDL takes over. For example in countries where PD is legally not allowed. --Steinninn ♨ 04:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we do what it says on {{pd-self}}: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which unlike GFDL, is functionally equivalent to the author's intentions. the wub "?!" 15:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please indent license selector to the left. Or shorten the length of longer entries[edit]

At the "my own work" upload page I can't read all the options in the dropdown license selector. Some of the options extend past the right side of the screen and there is no way to scroll to the right to read those options. My monitor resolution is currently at 1024 by 768 pixels.

Maybe the license selector can be indented to the left. Since it is also the most important part of the form it might help to make it stand out this way.

Or maybe the long entries in the list could be shortened. Please see also:

Or best of all maybe the menu could be made to drop down to the left instead of to the right as it does now. --Timeshifter 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has been resolved. The longer dropdown menu entries have been shortened. See the discussion here:
MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ownwork#License selector needs to be indented to the left --Timeshifter (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)