Template talk:GFDL

Discussion
I wrote out GFDL, because that's good practice.

The "see copyrights" I removed, because it's not a helpful link - it just says "uh, images can be under lots of licenses. Hope this helps!". Rather, we should say "see later on this page", where there'll be vital details, such as *what* version of the GFDL, if any, who owns the copyright, etc. Martin 21:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How did this get so bloated? I suggest we go back to this:


 * Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

The disclamer thing has been covered elsewhere, we dont have to reapeat it all the time. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:03, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

I would like the GFDL template to look exactly as the text above. I have no idea why does it now have unlinked GNU Free Documentation License text and another sentence with the only purpose of linking to FDL text. Everything is subject to disclaimers, yet only GFDL template seems to repeat it. See also pd message is unclear section on Image copyright tags talk page. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 21:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make the license text more visible by adding a frame to it? For instance I like the layout the German Wikipedia is using: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:GFDL -- mkrohn 23:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Do that, i like the german one, but skip the "Copyright ©" thing. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   10:26, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
 * I thought exactly the same about the "copyright" thing. Only problem with changing is that the template is - btw in contrast to the German one - protected, which is understandable. Any sysop around? :-) -- mkrohn 17:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well i am, just post the thing here and i'll update it ( i would unprotect it, but i do not know the specific reasons for it so i wont to not step on anyones toes, guess these copyright messages are protected now ) Make sure you get it right the first time though as obsoleting the proxy for everything that links to it will cause some DB load. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   17:50, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

-

O.k. let's see: this is the one from "de" (without adjusted links, that's why they are red atm):

this is the one from "en":


 * Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
 * A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License".
 * Subject to disclaimers.

and this is the new one for "en":

The original "en" source code additionally includes a category link, please don't miss that!!! I have not copied it to this page. -- mkrohn 19:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Updated it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   21:10, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

How's this? It's more in line with the cc by sa template.

--Jiang 08:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Doesnt look that good, first the logo is too wide and too small and it's not an official logo unlike the CC logos, if you look at the GFDL page you'll see that the official one is the GNU head. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   15:37, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Comments
I made a new version which uses a wikified link to the licence and removed the following text: "A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License"" -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   21:25, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Cool, I like it. It's more streamlined. --Sonjaaa 21:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC):Ia
 * I agree. -- mkrohn 12:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The white box bothers me. Can it be made transparent? --Farside 12:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category
I have removed the category from this template. The text was. This category is approaching an unmanagable size. --ssd 12:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Categories may one day have a use other than for listings in the category: namespace - this page was never going to be small, but you don't break the back-end of a system, just because the front-end is working. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  15:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could someone add a blank line to the top?
Otherwise it breaks code like: This is my summer photo.

-->

This is my summer photo.

And also Template:PD-USGov, Thanks, &mdash; Matt 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since User:Mfc opposes the use of on all his GFDL-licensed image description pages (because it is too obtrusive and too much legalese), I created a slimmed , which can be used in such cases. The template includes the GFDL images category. Discuss this on Template_talk:GFDL-small. &mdash; David Remahl 17:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for two different versions. Either the one or the other, but not both. If the smaller one is legally sufficent, which I can't judge, than it's fine with me to replace this template with the small one. Otherwise I object introducing a second one--what happens if another user wants another template for his images? Also it makes automatic classification of content more difficult. -- mkrohn 19:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Presumably, the checking of the GFDL box when submitting a work for which you hold copyright is legally sufficient, which is what User:Mfc argues. I also want to limit the number of copyright tags; however, if someone _definitely_ does not want the GFDL template on his/her image description page, then automatic classification becomes _impossible_. Personally, I find the verbose copyright status blobs informational, and I think that the image description pages should be used mostly for book-keeping. In contrast, Mfc thinks that they take up too much space and detract from the information about the images. &mdash; David Remahl 19:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I believe the category system should be the main way of extracting lists of images with certain licensing properties, not the tags in and by themselves. &mdash; David Remahl 20:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Modification of the GFDL is prohibited, so adding the disclaimers to the license invalidates the license. Fortunately, the license grant is really GFDL and it's just the template which is wrong, so it's not really a mass copyright infringment. But it's nice to accurately describe the license, as required by it. Alternatively, a new, non-GFDL (and inherently incompatible with the GFDL), license could be created which incorporates the disclaimers. Jamesday 03:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I should clarify this a little: Warranty disclaimers are fine in association with the GFDL. However, the Wikipedia site disclaimers which the GFDL notice currently links to appear to exceed a warranty disclaimer and hence appear to be an attempt to modify the GFDL. A GFDL-specific disclaimer, limited to only what fits in a warranty disclaimer, would be fine. Jamesday 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you please comment my reasoning at User talk:Rfl on the additional restrictions added to the GFDL (&ldquo;the author demands that his name be quoted under the image wherever it is posted&rdquo;) in the User:Halibutt/GFDL template? Can those images be included in the Category:GFDL images? Thanks. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 13:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably not what you expected.:) Here's the reply for him from the talk page for that template: You should probably modify this so that it makes what you're asking more clear in GFDL terms. I suggest:
 * That you use a copyright notice, which the GFDL says must be preserved and distributed with the work. A notice of the form (c in a circle character) 2004 (your name) would suffice in most countries. If you want a valid copyright notice in the two minor countries which require it for a valid copyright notice, also include "All rights reserved".
 * You may also use moral rights and require that in moral rights jurisdictions your name be associated with your work. In those jurisdictions that is a right distinct from copyright and does not interfere with the license.

''In general, it's also good on Wikipedia to identify photographers in a standard photo credit identifying the photographer. If you see an image for which we don't have the photographer properly credited, please add the appropriate credit.''

In addition, in a moral rights jurisdiction for text, I expect that all authors of any substantive part of an article may exert their moral rights to require that their name be associated with their work. Typo corrections aren't the sort of thing which is usually substantive. Jamesday 22:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To be precise, it was not a reply from me, but a comment from you ;) . Also, I agree with your ideas, but I still have no idea how to include them in the comment. Any suggestions as to the wording? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:16, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter now, I hadn't noticed that you inserted the remark in my tag. Thanks for your help! Halibutt 14:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sharp GNU Head
I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently:

old→ ←new

just have to be changed to  but I don’t have privileges to do it myself. Please see Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It has already been changed by Quadell. Thanks. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

is the better option as far as commons is concerned. I'm just wandering around replacing the other GNU heads with it right now. Janizary 02:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image and category removed
Acting as a developer I've removed both the image and category from this template until MediaWiki 1.4 is in service on this wiki. Their presence caused a denial of service attack warning and mass query kill on the main database server for the sites at a low traffic time. Mediawiki has some changes which should make it possible to add them back without DOSing the sites. Jamesday 11:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Things which *do* have invariant sections
I've noticed at least one image that had an invariant section on it, but was tagged with this template (Image:AsimovOnThrone.png). Since this template specifically says that there are no invariant sections or cover texts, I created a new template, Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants, which seemed more appropriate. This seemed like the best solution to me, but if there's another way that people want to handle this, I'm very open to suggestions. -- Creidieki 13:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Subject to disclaimers!?
I think is a nonsense to merge the GFDL license whit a note about diclaimers. The license must be alone, with no modification. Does the GFDL allow this think? I say NO.

Please remove this message from the template, the GFDL must be the same here, at Commons and all the Wikimedia projects.

See also: commons:MediaWiki_talk:Licenses

Thanks. --Sanbec 08:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the disclaimer should be removed. It's already on the bottom of every page. Superm401 | Talk 22:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed the disclaimer. The GFDL is not subject to Wikipedia's disclaimers, only users of Wikipedia are. Also removed from GFDL-self-Splash talk 17:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The GFDL specifically states
 * "The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License."

and that you must
 * "Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers."

I'm not sure, but I think that means you can't remove the silly disclaimers from this template. Life would be much simpler if that bit had never been added to this template, but it's too late to remove it now. dbenbenn | talk 22:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fairly persausive. You didn't to roll me back like a common vandal, though. An edit summary takes approximately 5 seconds. -Splash talk 22:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
No offense, but I think that the old version looked better. --Ixfd64 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

vi:Tiêu bản:GFDL

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -Splash talk 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Subject to disclaimers" leads to compability issues
The "subject to disclaimers" lead to compability issues when transferring images to other Wikipedia projects or to Commons. I thought all material on Wikipedia was released under GFDL, not under GFDL-en? Should other Wikipedia projects change their license to "GFDL-en " too? Can other Wikipedia projects also write their own "GFDL-en"? How do you treat works released on other Wikipedia projects without disclaimers when moved to Commons and used on English Wikipedia?

Fred-Chess 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-en redirection
Is an identical version and I propose that this page be redirected to it. This is a first step in gradual conversion of GFDL to GFDL-no-disclaimers. The disclaimer needs to be preserved as per GFDL, but any newer image does not have to have the license (and if it does there will be a template for it). -- Cat out 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to bs
Can someone add interwiki link to bs:Šablon:GFDL? --Emx 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

eu interwiki
Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:GDFL. Thanks. --81.39.61.206 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done --  Netsnipe  ►  12:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Interwiki
please add es:Plantilla:GFDL, thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -Splash - tk 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add the interwiki for Interlingua:

ia:Patrono:GFDL


 * Change made per your request. -- Renesis (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vetting
The images covered by this template need to be thoroughly vetted. I have noticed several images that are either copyrighted by corporations (and thus may be covered by promotional or fair use. However, the most common scenario I have found is that people are too lazy to tag U.S. government images properly, and so public domain images that belong in PD-USGov-Military-Navy (for example) are tagged with GFDL because someone didn't want to do the work. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki changes and fixes
I have a series of interwiki edits to propose: Jesse Viviano 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please move the Spanish interwiki (es:Plantilla:GFDL) and the Interlingua interwiki (ia:Patrono:GFDL) to Template:GFDL-no-disclaimers. The Spanish and Interlingua templates have no disclaimers on them, so Template:GFDL is the wrong place for them.
 * Please fix the Basque interwiki. It points to eu:Txantiloi:GDFL, which is a clear character transposition. It should be eu:Txantiloi:GFDL.
 * Add bs:Šablon:GFDL, as proposed above.
 * Add zh-min-nan:Template:GFDL. This one has disclaimers.
 * Done. Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like my first request was misinterpreted. I meant that the Spanish and the Interlingua interwikis should be removed from this template because they have no disclaimers, and should be placed on. Now, the interwikis go to nonexistent pages. Jesse Viviano 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've applied WP:DOC here. Please edit the doc page to adjust the interwikis. --Ligulem 13:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
Please add these interwikis. They have no disclaimers. Jesse Viviano 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * als:Vorlage:Bild-GFDL
 * cs:Šablona:GFDL
 * de:Vorlage:Bild-GFDL
 * fr:Modèle:GFDL
 * pt:Predefinição:CopyrightGFDL
 * sv:Mall:GFDL
 * Please edit the doc page to adjust the interwikis. --Ligulem 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please update to include more interwiki links like the ones included on the commons version of the template. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. — M ETS 501 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, I suppose it doesn't *really* matter but there are two instances of a spanish interwiki in the template and the link to he (hebrew wikipedia) is in the wrong place. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

✅ Done - Harryboyles 03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Icon Size
I couldn't help but notice that (at least in my browser) our friend Heckert's head is a little smaller on this template than on the others. I recommend fixing the icon size for consistency's sake. MithrandirMage 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What size are you suggesting? John Reaves (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed the image size from 48px to 64px, same as the images on GFDL and GFDL-with-disclaimers and all the others I could find. James086 Talk  09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fear there was a reason for that. For those of us with sufficiently wide screens that the text takes up two lines or fewer, the icon now pokes out of the bottom of the box. The best way to fix this is probably to add a "height" attribute to the div, rather than just making the icon smaller again – Qxz 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * editprotected The edit appears to already be made. This template has the same appearance as the other two GFDL templates. CMummert · talk 14:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. It wasn't a problem for me, the div box was just stretched to fit the image (the text only takes up 2 lines on my screen). I changed the min-height value to 64px so that it will never be shorter than the image, has it worked? see diff . James086 Talk 09:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Code updates
I've added the protection tag and changed the template to use tables instead of div's for stack-ability purposes. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Imbox standardization
Please change the template code to the following for purposes for Imbox standardization. Kelly hi! 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

GFDL 1.3
Because of some changes in GFDL 1.3 shouldn't this template be updated to warn about externally sourced GFDL images uploaded after Nov 1st 2008?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How to use without the CC-BY-SA box?
How do you use this template without showing the box below saying "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license."? It is redundant when there already is an additional template. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 *   --Denniss (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Images of non-free works
I've implemented a tweak in the sandbox version, namely instead of coding free media directly. Specfiying dw=yes will supress the categorisation in Category:All free media, for derivative works where the subject shown is non-free, and thus can't be moved to Commons.

It would be appreciated if this straightforward change was implemented in the main template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Please remember to update the docs as well. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dw param to migration code
Sandbox has updated version which needs review to ensure dw param passed to additional templates added by the migration code.Sfan00 IMG (talk)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This isn't necessary - all the dw parameter would do would be to add the free media template in the daughter template, and that is already done in this template with the present code. If you would like the dw parameter to have different functionality in the daughter template code in the future, I might understand, however. Feel free to reactivate the request if that is the case. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The dw param is passed to the daughter template (and down the template stack), otherwise the added cc-by-sa tag added by license migration complete won't know to suppress the relevant categorisation. That's why it was being passed down the template stack. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Deprecating GFDL
GFDL is not good for media per File:BD-propagande colour en.jpg and WMF decided in 2009 to stop using GFDL as a sole license. WMF did not forbid GFDL for media files but encourages people to use other licenses than GFDL.

English Wikipedia have removed GFDL from MediaWiki:Licenses and MediaWiki:Licenses/en-ownwork but it is still possible for users to add it manually.

WMF suggested that wikis restrict the use of GFDL and in september 2018 is was suggested to deprecate the GFDL license the same way Commons did. There was not concensus to forbid GFDL on English Wikipedia at that time.

As I understand it the 2 main arguments against was:
 * 1) If a website or a book is licensed GFDL then we can't copy it to Wikipedia
 * 2) We have a lot of non-free files so why should we not allow GFDL?

The counter arguments agains that was:
 * 1) Noone but Wikipedia uses GFDL so the GFDL files are only uploaded by wikipedians that uses the GFDL as a sort of non-commercial license
 * 2) 

Does anyone know a more recent discussion of the topic? --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you were very active in the discussion do you know any more recent discussion? I was thinking perhaps to try again in a modified version where there is an exception that allow GFDL if it is allready published as GFDL somewhere else (as a book or on an official website). That should meet the first argument against. --MGA73 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of other discussions about it. That exception was also included on Commons and should include (like on Commons) a deadline. On Commons that deadline was 15 October 2018. The reason for that is that otherwise a photographer could easily tag on a GFDL license to the photos on their own website or add a note to their Flickr profile. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. Yes I agree that there needs to be a deadline when/if a new proposal is made. I also know that users can try to get around it by first uploading it to a website. That could perhaps be prevented by the way the proposal is worded. I think if we want to change policy we need to take it in small steps to get concensus. --MGA73 (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

GFDL restriction have now been added to Image_use_policy as a result of the discussion/proposal. --MGA73 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)