Template talk:GFDL-1.2/Archive 1

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 05:43, 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 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please replace such an icon to the template. Thank you, adnghiem501 09:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

GNU head at all
Shouldn't there be a GNU head just like in the GFDL tag? Jonas Olson 21:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like this was the reason They put the image back in the GFDL tag, but they forgot about this one. *waves to get admin's attention* Phoenix-forgotten 19:26, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

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

vi:Tiêu bản:GFDL 1.2

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * An admin forgot to add this interwiki link to the template. -- ADNghiem501 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done.--Commander Keane 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No other versions
Do we really need to explicitly state "no other versions"? It's kind of obvious and it would look sleeker without it. Bromskloss 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Usually the license states "or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" So it helps to make it explicit. Pengo 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No because it is meaningless. Anyone attempting to use "version 1.2 and no other versions" is using version 1.2, which states that version 1.2 or any later version may be used, nullifying the prior restriction. There is no way to use version 1.2 which does not include an explicit permission to use version 1.3, because there is no such thing as "version 1.2 of the GFDL" which does not include such permission. If people had actually wanted to do that, they would have had to edit the text of version 1.2 to delete the permission to use a later version, and then state that their work is licensed under their modified fork of the GFDL. Nobody has done that that I know of, and if anyone has, we can remove or paraphrase their edits manually. I am repeating this for clarity below, since this thread is from 2006. NCC-8765 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does version 1.2 of the GFDL include a permission to use the work under any later version of GFDL? Section 10 gives it as an example of what a document may specify. --AVRS (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC) See also the thread below. --AVRS (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Image replacement
Please replace it with This one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.151.123 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC-8)


 * Done.--Commander Keane 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Imbox standardization
Please change the template code to the following for purposes for Imbox standardization. Kelly hi! 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deprecating this template for future use
I would like to propose that both this template and GFDL-1.2 (and any other GFDL-1.2-only templates on the English Wikipedia) be deprecated from further use, per the following reasons:


 * 1) GFDL-1.2-en does not follow the GFDL standardization that was undertaken back in 2007, i.e. the disclaimers problem is not obvious to anyone casually using the template.
 * 2) Because these templates are GFDL-1.2-only, the files licensed under them are not eligible for migration to Creative Commons (or automatic dual-licensing under GFDL and CC), per the relicensing terms of GFDL 1.3. Since all Wikipedia projects are in the process of migrating to CC as the preferred re-use license, files that use these templates will create unnecessary licensing conflicts and pitfalls. For example, articles that include images licensed under these templates will not be eligible for re-use under a CC license, even though all the rest of the content will be (assuming the relicensing proposal is enacted).
 * 3) As has been discussed elsewhere (for the past several years), the GFDL was never meant for images and is especially ill-suited for them as a free license (particularly the issues of full license reproduction and disclaimers). Rather than addressing these problems with the GFDL license update (as was originally planned), the FSF instead put in the relicensing clause so that Wikipedia content could be migrated away from the GFDL. These templates are a roadblock to that migration and leave these images saddled with all the original problems that the GFDL entails for media files and the articles that use them.
 * 4) In practice this template is often used as a "back-door" non-commercial license. Due to the extreme impracticality of reusing GFDL-1.2 media in a 100% legally compliant manner, many contributors who don't want their images reused commercially choose to use the GFDL-1.2-only templates. When those images are then reused by commercial websites, the photographers contact the sites, inform them of the onerous terms of the GFDL and then offer the sites commercial licenses for a fee. Thus they basically use Wikipedia as a commercial marketing tool for their photographs. This type of behavior goes against the mission and ideals of the project and creates a double standard for content re-use.
 * 5) The German Wikipedia has already deprecated GFDL-1.2-only licenses and it is possible that Commons will also do so at some point in the future: "It is possible that, at some future point, GFDL 1.2 media may be disallowed." - Erik Möller, Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
 * 6) Only 1 image is currently using GFDL-1.2 and only 30 images are using GFDL-1.2-en. These numbers are nice and low (considering all the problems mentioned above). By deprecating further use of these templates, we can prevent them from ballooning to unmanageable levels and hopefully work towards deleting these templates completely at some point in the future.
 * 7) If someone really wants to use a GFDL-1.2-only license, they can still do so on Commons, which is ostensibly where such images belong anyway. Kaldari (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please state whether you support or object to this proposal and why. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it makes sense to me that these tags should be deprecated while they are still rarely used. – Quadell (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup deprecate. Much the same way we dealt with NC images.Geni 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael Snow, speaking as a Board Member, said a few weeks ago that the Board of Trustees wants to make a final decision on relicensing by the end of April. I'd be opposed to making any firm committments on GFDL-1.2 before that.  Also, most of your objections to GFDL 1.2 also apply to GFDL 1.3, so it probably makes little difference (note that new GFDL 1.3 content uploaded after November 1, 2008 can't be automatically migrated to CC-BY-SA either).  Personally, I see little cause to deprecate 1.2 specifically, since the replacement is basically just as limiting.  More useful, in my opinion, would be a discussion about excluding GFDL images generally.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (...or whether the GFDL even applies to lone images, but that's a whole 'nuther bucket of worms.) – Quadell (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Waiting until April (or later) will just make things more difficult to deal with then. A few points I'd like to make here:
 * It's almost certain that we will be moving to Creative Commons licensing by August. The WMF gave up 3 years of work on revising the GFDL in exchange for this relicensing clause (notice how all of the important changes in GFDL 1.3 draft were removed in the final version of the GFDL 1.3 license). There's not much chance they're going to want to start over with the FSF from scratch. Nor should anyone hope that they have to.
 * Yes, my objections also apply to GFDL 1.3, but that won't be an issue after the relicensing is enacted. GFDL 1.2-only images, however, will either need to be relicensed by their uploaders before August 1, dual-licensed by their uploaders (at some point in the future), or more than likely they will eventually be deleted from the project entirely. The longer we wait to deprecate GFDL 1.2-only, the more problem images we're going to have to deal with.
 * I totally support the idea of eventually deprecating the GFDL for images entirely. This is a tentative first step in that direction. If GFDL 1.2-only is deprecated from the major Wikipedia projects, that will make it much easier to deprecate from Commons (since they won't have to worry about 1.2-only imports). Once everything else is dual licensed under Creative Commons, and the legacy 1.2-only images have been dealt with, it will then be possible to deprecate the GFDL license from Wikimedia entirely. Of course this is a hypothetical long-term process, but I hope you see how this is a useful first step in that direction.
 * Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL 1.2 is functionally identical to 1.3 in nearly every way. The only immediate difference is the migration clause, which would be a one-time event with a limited time table for execution.  If in the future we are going to allow GFDL images that are not dual CC-BY-SA (and statements by Erik Moller  suggest we probably will at least in the near term), then there is no reason to eliminate 1.2 since it is essentially just as free as 1.3 (or just as unfree, depending on your point of view).  You see this as a "first step" towards eliminating GFDL images, but that presumes a larger outcome.  Personally, I see the decision about what to do with 1.2 images as contingent upon the larger decision about whether non-dual licensed GFDL images will be acceptable in the future.  If yes, then there is no reason to prohibit 1.2-only images.  If no, then we should delete 1.2-only images (and not just deprecate new images).  In other words, I can't endorse the action you propose here until the larger issues have been addressed, including the future of GFDL licensing for images on Wikipedia.  I see little harm in waiting for greater clarity since the number of 1.2-only images is small and likely to remain so.
 * Personally, I think saying GFDL is not an acceptable image license is probably the right long-term position, but I am bothered by questions of whether CC-BY-SA is a strong copyleft or not. Dragons flight (talk)
 * I understand and agree with almost everything you're saying. I think the point you're missing, however, is that this proposal will do no harm if the CC proposal fails and a lot of good if the CC proposal passes, and how much good it does depends on how soon it is enacted. Between now and August 1 we have an opportunity that will never present itself again, that being the opportunity to mass migrate (through dual licensing) tens of thousands of images from GFDL to CC-by-sa (contingent on the proposal passing) without having to convince all the uploaders individually. We get to do that for every image in Wikimedia that is GFDL 1.3 before August 1st. The longer GFDL 1.2-only is allowed, the smaller that number will be. Even more importantly, because GFDL 1.2-only seems to be preferred by many of our professional-level photographers, we will get to migrate more of our best work. If the CC proposal fails to pass, so what, it just means that more images are GFDL 1.3 instead of GFDL 1.2, so basically no change. If the proposal does pass, however, deprecating 1.2-only now instead of 2 months from now means that a larger number of images will be saved from GFDL purgatory (including some of our best work). Personally, I think the soonest the WMF will actually adopt the CC proposal is May (at the rate the process in moving). If we wait until then to deprecate GFDL-1.2 it probably won't even be worth the trouble. And of course it would be completely pointless to deprecate 1.2-only after August. This is why the German Wikipedia deprecated 1.2-only immediately after GFDL 1.3 (and the license migration) were announced. The longer we wait, the more media we are going to loose. The question of whether CC-by-sa is a strong copyleft or not is a red herring, IMO. Regardless of whether it is or isn't, it still conforms to the goals of the Foundation a lot better that GFDL ever will. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I should point out that although 1.2-only isn't used that much on en.wiki, it is still being actively used a lot on Commons. But we can't even propose deprecating it on Commons until the major wikipedia projects (english and german) have deprecated it (due the continual flow of imports from those projects). Kaldari (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong comment!!! - D[ang] it! I was hoping to do this as a surprise and you ruined it! I've been spending the last month cleaning that category out. A month ago there were about 200 images (maybe more, I can't remember). All of the ones currently there are awaiting PUI, except for maybe two that are GFDL/fair use. In 1-2 weeks this category will be completely empty. So, Support, and User:Kaldari, you are a good-intentioned spoil-sport. :( ~  JohnnyMrNinja  01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the tag and categories should be out-right deleted once the category is empty. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested and speaks Arabic, I also emptied out their category ar:تصنيف:صور رخصة جنو 1.2, which should be deleted as well. And by "cleaned out" on AR and EN I mean I investigated all of the images, many of which were copies of GFDL images that incorrectly used GFDL 1.2 only, so I fixed those. I put any that had no sources or seemed shady up for deletion, and the rest were moved to Commons. Some were copied from IT or PL or DE or JP, so I went to those WPs and uploaded the original to Commons, the rest I uploaded from EN. So there. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's serious commitment, Johnny, I'm very impressed. I fully support this move.  If as mentioned GFDL1.2 is all-but-identical to GFDL1.3, which is also my understanding, then this move will be almost inconsequential if the license migration does not go ahead, and as noted will be of huge benefit if it does.  What do we have to lose? Happy‑melon 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, JohnnyMrNinja, I had no idea! I guess great minds think alike :) I hope we can make it a team effort. Thanks for all of your hard work so far! Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I was just hoping for a David Blaine-like "What GFDL 1.2 only pictures?" I was going to sell tickets.... The proposal is still a commendable one. User:Ram-Man still only uses this tag, and it makes sense to an extent. Luckily he's posting directly to Commons now, and I've moved the rest of his images there. I think EN is the only project besides Commons that still has any images with this tag, though if someone knows how to verify this it'd be awesome (AR still has the tag though).


 * My plan was this - Move all valid 1.2 only images to Commons, and delete the tags from all non-Commons projects. The CC dual-license proposal means these images won't be in danger for a while, and we can continue to try to coax the uploaders to re-tag the images from Commons. Then when Commons is moved to strictly CC, all GFDL 1.2 only images can be moved to a "repository". They could still be made available for download and use, but could not be wiki-linked on other WM projects. User:Ram-Man in particular has released a great number of high-quality images as GFDL 1.2 only, and has repeatedly stated that he does not like CC, and therefor does not like "or any later versions". I don't think we should fully delete these images, but they should also not be used with CC content, so this seems like a healthy compromise. But it is vital that this tag, and similar tags on other WPs, be deleted before any other images are uploaded to it. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought this whole migration clause thing was only going to apply to text. But support any notion to rid us of this template anytime soon. ViperSnake151 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Erik Moller, it will also be applied to images. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that images are outside the regular copyright of Wikipedia; they must either fit the specific non-free content policy, or be under a free license. GFDL 1.2 (and even GFDL 1.1) are free licenses by our definition. I see no reason why GFDL 1.2 only images should be any more problematic once we transfer to CC, than CC images were before GFDL 1.3 came out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not 100% that it will cause a problem, but it could cause a problem. GFDL is a pain for images as it is. WM is trying to move away from GFDL completely at some point... Speaking as someone who has just sifted through every one of these (around 200) images, pretty-much all of the users thought they were tagging an image with GFDL, and likely didn't notice the difference. The only exception was the creator of the tag, who is now uploading to Commons anyway. The distinction is not clear enough for the average person, and it is simply not worth the hassle. As this Category will be empty soon, is there a reason to keep it? ~  JohnnyMrNinja  08:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I would contend that GFDL (in the case of images specifically) is not a free license according to our definition: "having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and produce modified versions of and works derived from the content." GFDL was never meant to be applied to images and is, in practice, unworkable as an image license unless you ignore half the license requirements (which is what we've always done). You may ask then, why isn't the WMF working with the FSF to fix the license. That was actually the original plan. If you look at the draft version of the GFDL 1.3 that came out a couple years ago, you'll see that many of the most problematic aspects of the GFDL (for Wikipedia) were fixed in that version. However, all of these changes were removed in the final version of the GFDL 1.3, with the idea that Wikipedia would simply migrate all of their content to Creative Commons. The people who are insisting on using GFDL 1.2-only are thus defeating the whole purpose of the license upgrade and nullifying years of negotiation between the WMF and the FSF. Kaldari (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question - if the GFDL-1.2 template is deprecated, how will such files that are copied from Commons (e.g. for use on Main Page) be tagged? For the record, I use GFDL-1.2 as I'm naturally cynical, and do not trust "or any later version", until I know what the later version is. The Creative Commons have the same clause, but this is hidden away in the small print. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, images temporarily copied from Commons could still use the GFDL 1.2-only template as this would not be considered a "new" use. This proposal is just to deprecate using the template for images being newly added to Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, all of the images that were validly tagged 1.2 only on WP have been moved to Commons already. For now, if people insist on tagging as GFDL 1.2 only they can do so on Commons, which is where all free images should go anyways. Ideally, we should remove all free tags from WP (forcing people to upload directly to Commons), so that we don't have to constantly move images from one project to the other, but that's a separate issue. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I obviously completely misread that. The template can also be substed on Commons prior to the move, as they aren't on WP forever (right?). Aren't there other tags on Commons that aren't here? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  12:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. There are dozens of licensing tags on Commons that are not on en.wiki, so I think substing is the best solution as you said. Kaldari (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this proposal. Not granting "or any later version" is a common trick employed by some users to prevent use outside of Wikipedia, as GFDL 1.2 is very hard to obey for Wiki content or pictures, since it was written for software documentation. We need to ensure that we have a way to keep Wikipedia freely licensed. --rtc (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I still do not see what this is supposed to achieve. Even if Wikipedia does move to Creative Commons (and this is by no means certain), then there is no reason why articles cannot continue to use 1.2-only images from Commons. Any page with these images will therefore have to be dual licensed, regardless of whether the image is hosted on Wikipedia or Commons. As Commons has declared that 1.2-only is a valid free licence, there is no likelihood of it being removed from there. The sole reason for this seems to be that "some users abuse the licence." Maybe they do, but is that a reason to tar the rest of us with the same brush? Everyone has there own reasons for selecting a licence, and provided it allows free copies including derivatives, which 1.2-only does, what does it matter which one they choose? —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a decent chance, IMO, that GFDL will eventually be phased out as a media license on Commons as well. A couple recent quotes from Erik Moller (Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation) seem to support this idea:
 * "It is possible that, at some future point, GFDL 1.2 media may be disallowed." - January 8, 2009
 * "The community could phase out FDL for media files over time through community decisions... I agree with you of course that the FDL is unsuitable for media files." - March 6, 2009
 * Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't GFDL-1.2-en require that all images reproduced include the full history of that image, the text of the full GFDL license, and the full text of the Wikipedia (or Commons) disclaimer, to be included in every reuse? Migration or no, this tag is already unusable. Commons recently considered deleting the tag outright and eventually deleting all the media that uses it, and that was before we'd even heard of migration. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good news! - Category:GFDL 1.2 images is now completely empty!!! ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I copied Template:GFDL-1.3-only to Commons, as well as the images that were attached to it. Shall we add it to the debate? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Process
As there seems to be a generally favorable response to this idea, what, exactly, is the plan? Thinking on it more, we shouldn't completely delete it as some people might still try to use it, or move something from Commons, and simply recreate it. We could make this tag a form of nld. It could say that the tag is no longer valid for files hosted on WP, and recommend GFDL or CC or whatever. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just redirect it to . Happy‑melon 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will sit will with everyone. I would favor either:
 * Adding a deprecation notice to the template and directing people to the Commons (this is what the German Wikipedia did).
 * Deleting the template and salting the name
 * Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that csd template (and criterion) should be expanded to include GFDL-1.2 as an invalid license, but the principle is the same: the only situation now where this template is used is when a new image has been uploaded and GFDL-1.2 selected as the license. What are we going to do with that image? If we don't delete it, then we haven't really deprecated its use here at all, have we? If we're going to delete them, then we need to feed them into a CSD category for easy tracking. Happy‑melon 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Ideally, however, I would like to show them a notice that says they are using a "deprecated" license (and point them towards alternatives) rather stating that it is an "invalid" license and speedy deleting it. I think the later approach may cause confusion and conflict (at least until Wikipedia has actually begun migrating away from the GFDL). Why don't we try the deprecation notice first and then switch to once the licensing change is enacted? Kaldari (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But that still leaves the question of what we're going to do when a file is uploaded using this license tag. Do we delete it or not? If not, why is it "deprecated"? If so, how are we going to ensure that that happens in a sensible timeframe? Happy‑melon 16:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should delete them. Depreciated tags are only really useful if there are images grandfathered in. As it is, we have no such images any more. Also, I don't want to point them towards Commons, as they don't want these images there either. The only people who are even going to notice are people who actually know something about image tagging. If they really want to use this tag, it's pretty easy to figure out if Commons allows it or not. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about just redirecting the templates to GFDL (and protecting the redirect)? That seems to be the intention of most of the people using these templates anyway. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought but it's unworkable. People moving images from Commons would accidentally change the tag completely. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case wouldn't redirecting to be even more problematic than redirecting to GFDL? The only solution I can think of that would avoid that problem would be leaving the template, but adding a deprecation notice. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Depreciated templates are deletion templates, see Template:GFDL-presumed. Or are you saying we should keep images tagged with this license even though we don't allow it? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but what about the case you brought up a minute ago: people temporarily moving images from Commons. Does that matter or does it not matter? If it matters, we should either leave the template with a deprecation notice (ala GFDL-presumed) or delete it entirely. If it doesn't matter, redirecting to either GFDL or should be fine, in which case I would prefer redirecting to GFDL until GFDL 1.2-only is actually declared an invalid license (across Wikimedia). This is similar to how Copyrighted_free_use was deprecated. And FWIW, there are several templates on Commons that do not match the equivalently-named templates here. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the removal of images have begun after any voting process? Can we even do such moves, without violating the GDFL? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. Did you read the above text? All moves were within standard operating procedure. No free images belong on WP. Either they get moved to Commons, get deleted, or in some cases re-classified as non-free images. I just focused a lot of energy on one specific category, but there is nothing unusual in that. Or am I misunderstanding you? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this? What if we transclude GFDL onto GFDL 1.2 with a disclaimer at the top saying that if they are trying to use GFDL 1.2 only, it is no longer allowed on WP? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  13:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that idea a lot. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute - who says GFDL-1.2 is not allowed on Wikipedia? —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 22:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he meant GFDL 1.2-only on the English Wikipedia, and only for media files. Kaldari (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, here's the confusing thing. GFDL is "GFDL 1.2 and any future versions", which is the standard tag, this is what the actual WP text is. GFDL 1.2 is "GFDL 1.2 and no later versions". Speaking as someone who just dug through all of these images, almost all of the people who used the latter meant to use the former. As soon as this and a few other problem categories are removed from WP, I will begin the uphill battle of going through the 9,600 images at Commons:Category:GFDL-1.2 and attempting to locate the original uploaders, and getting them to change the license before it is disallowed on Wikimedia projects altogether. This probably at least a year if not more down the road, but 9,600 is a lot of images. This has been what this whole discussion has been about. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this?


 * This still doesn't answer the question: Where has it been decided that the use of GFDL-1.2 (only) has been banned on Wikipedia? This debate is purely about the use of this template. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 06:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this conversation has been a little confusing. Basically, it is about both. There are two GFDL 1.2 only templates on WP. This conversation is about depreciating or removing these templates completely, as a means of disallowing the license. On WP tags are licenses, or representations of them. I am unsure if there is another way to go about this other than what has been going on here, but if you've any suggestions please feel free. It would be awkward to use this license without the appropriate templates anyway.


 * Regardless of any re-use issues, all free images should be at Commons to begin with. There was only one person who was really using this template on EN intentionally (versus any other GFDL template), the creator User:Ram-Man, and he moved to posting directly to Commons some time ago. All local images have been moved to Commons, deleted, or the tags changed. As this template is now completely disused, it should be disused for local uploads completely. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is the opinion? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording needs playing with, but I fully approve of the principle. Good idea! <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 08:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm still strongly opposed to this. It does seem to smack of possible salami tactics to rid Wikipedia of GFDL, which is still a valid free licence (whether 1.2 only or 1.2+). I don't buy into the idea that users can upload all free content to Commons, as newbies will not necessarily be aware of this. It was only after I'd uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia that I discovered Commons, and even longer before I learned how to use it. Also I'm not convinced that all images uploaded to Wikipedia, even if free, are within the Commons Project Scope. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 09:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're considering the hypothetical user who knows enough about image licensing to know the difference between GFDL1.2+ and GFDL1.2only, and who knows enough about Wikimedia to know about the likely license migration, but who doesn't know about Commons? Those sets sound pretty mutually exclusive to me.
 * There is no requirement for Wikipedia to blindly and indiscriminately accept any and all free licenses, just as there is no requirement for us to accept any and all text contributions, no matter their encyclopedic merit. The GFDL is an almost unusable license for images without dual licensing, and this license tag is an explicit refusal of dual licensing.  As such, images uploaded using this license are inherently less useful to Wikipedia (and will quickly become largely useless) than images uploaded under GFDL1.2+.  Wikipedia is not an image repository: we hold only images that are useful to our project.  Commons is a media repository: they hold images that could be useful to anyone. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a second draft?

By putting the warning inside the GFDL license, instead of the other way around, we emphasise the license the uploader is actually using, which is most important. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Kaldari (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, it was mentioned at Commons that the GFDL 1.3 only tag is not legally possible, as you can prevent 1.3 relicensing to 1.4, but not CC. We should probably do something similar with that one. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  16:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence my need for a licence that specifies "no other versions" —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your need? Or the hypothetical users discussed above? If the former, perhaps you could explain the thought process behind deliberately preventing relicensing. If the latter, my question "do those users actually exist?" remains. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tivedshambo, you post to Commons, as do pretty much all of the people who deliberately upload under this license. This proposal is not to get rid of this tag on Commons, just on EN, as was done on DE. Again, the vast majority of these images on EN were not tagged as an attempt to prevent relicensing, but simply because the tagger didn't know the difference between this tag and GFDL. I can say with confidence that every single person that wants to use this tag currently uploads to Commons. This will not affect those people. Also, while this is a useful license for the photographer, I don't think it can be denied that this is the single most difficult license that is currently allowed in Wikimedia projects for the reuser. For this reason I don't think we should encourage its use, except by those who know what they're doing, and all of those people are uploading to Commons. And again, I am also trying to work towards a goal of having no free images on WP, instead posting all of these directly to Commons, but that is still a long ways off. I don't see that disallowing this license on local images will have any affect on the way you, or any other photographers, do things. Please feel free to debate that if you feel it is not true. PS, I just previewed this, and I have no idea why I used so many italics. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone flat-out oppose this move for EN WP (and EN WP only)? I'd rather not have to get together a straw poll, but I will if that's what makes everyone comfortable. Otherwise, I'd like to move forward, before any more images are added to the empty category. Two already were so far, but both were blatant copyvios. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  07:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go with this, albeit reluctantly, provided it is made clear that 1) This does not preclude the use of GFDL-1.2-only images (hosted elsewhere) within en-Wiki, and b) These arguments should not be used to justify removing the equivalent tag on Commons. My fear now is that someone on that project will say "It's been banned on German and English Wikis, therefore it should go here too." I would also suggest that (at least to start with), images using this tag should still be categorised into Category:GFDL 1.2 images, and anyone using it should be asked if they meant 1.2+ or 1.2-only (in which case they should have the opportunity to move their images to Commons before it is re-licenced). —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 07:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - as this consensus was built on the availability of the tag on Commons, and its relative disuse here, this should not be used as a precedent in any discussions on Commons. Happy-melon, how easy would it be to do a dated template+category that a bot automatically changes after 5 days or so? One bot could automatically tag the image and the user talk page, and then come back to change it in a few days, right? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be anything groundbreaking, but it's so low-traffic that it would probably be less hassle to do it manually. Unless you find a bot that does something similar elsewhere, and just get that category tagged on as an extra. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Deprecate because the restriction is self-contradictory
Anyone attempting to use "version 1.2 and no other versions" is using version 1.2, which states that version 1.2 or any later version may be used, nullifying the prior restriction. There is no way to use version 1.2 which does not include an explicit permission to use version 1.3, because there is no such thing as "version 1.2 of the GFDL" which does not include such permission. If people had actually wanted to do that, they would have had to edit the text of version 1.2 to delete the permission to use a later version (please note that the permission to use later versions is granted in Section 10 to "You" defined in Section 1 as "any member of the public ... a licensee" -- not the licensor), and then state that their work is licensed under their modified fork of the GFDL. Nobody has done that that I know of, and if anyone has, we can remove or paraphrase their edits manually. This template should be deprecated and Text of the GNU Free Documentation License should be updated to version 1.3. Please see GNU Free Documentation License for more information. NCC-8765 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any text to that effect in the 1.2 license. Could you point it out specifically? Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not correct: nowhere in the GFDL-1.2 license does it require you to allow the use of later versions; indeed the inclusion of the phrase "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version" very clearly implies that the opposite (that a document is published under only one version) is not only possible but is in fact the standard practice. The section at the bottom, "how to use this license for your documents", which includes a recommendation to license under "or any later versions", is clearly marked in the original publication of the GFDL-1.2 as an "addendum", and only reinforces the expectation that omitting the "or any later versions" clause results in licensing under a single version only. Saying that you license a document "under the GFDL" would have significant ambiguity, which is why that is not done anywhere on wikipedia AFAIK.  Licensing a document "under the GFDL version 1.2 or any later version" is absolutely clear and absolutely valid; licensing "under the GFDL version 1.2 only" is equally valid. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft 3
Draft 3. More general wording in warning to give us more flexibility...


 * I like it. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Documentation
Can I suggest adding something like the following to the documentation page, which summarises the above discussions:


 * Additional information
 * By general consensus, usage of this template (and the "GFDL-1.2 only" license) on English Wikipedia is deprecated since date. Any files tagged with this template are liable to be retagged using after five days, unless uploaded to Commons in the meantime (in which case the local file can be speedily deleted).


 * The deprecation of this template does not prevent the use of GFDL 1.2-only files on the English Wikipedia, nor should this consensus be used as a precedent in disussions on other projects.

Anyn thoughts? —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 11:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tweaked it a little, I'm happy with it. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That wording is a little confusing. Technically the file is actually licensed under "GFDL or any later version" as soon as they apply this template (once we implement one of the changes above). Maybe it should say that the "license tag is liable to be changed" after a period of time. Kaldari (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true. I've tweaked the wording a bit more; what do you think? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase "retagged" is more widely understood that "retemplated", but I may be wrong. Also do we need the clause "no less than"? It seems more straightforward to just say "after five days". Kaldari (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess; more modifications made (feel free to tweak them yourself, you know :D)... Good now? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is problematic. The tag is just a bit of text. The granting of a license requires the willful intention of the uploader (or at least some warning of the form that doing X implies agreeing to Y). If someone uploads an image with the expectation of licensing it as 1.2-only and gets an "or later versions" tag instead then that is unfair surprise, and they would have every right to assert that the "or later versions" license is invalid (and could do so at virtually any future date, which is real trouble). I have no problem asking people to relicense. However the correct path to deprecation is to delete newly uploaded content. Providing a tag other than what the uploader would immediately expect is not something I'd agree with. Dragons flight (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing what the uploader's intention by using this tag is. Indeed, from my experience (and others apparently) it seems that most people who use this tag actually intend to license it under the standard GFDL agreement. If the template were named, it would be a different matter. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the explanatory text in the license and documentation is the best we can do to address this problem, as we have no real idea of what the uploader expects by using this template. Indeed it seems there are two very different common expectations of what this template entails. Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be, but you can't reasonably assume the uploader's intent is or would be different than the long-established direct reading of these templates. In my opinion taking a template that has been established as carrying a particular legal meaning and changing it to mean something else is both morally and legally dubious, and should be avoided.  If the decision is to kill this, then it should really be killed, by deleting any new content that attempts to use it.


 * In addition, you are also creating a situation where this tag would have a different meaning from the tag with the same name on Commons. That is also a big no-no.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial idea was simply delete these images after a few days, it was all discussed above. I'm about to leave WP for a week, so FYI I Support any solution found here that depreciates this template. I don't care if it involves priests and rosaries, or genetically modified wombats, I support it. Good luck everyone! ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oi, you stole my post! My initial idea was also to delete the images, and I'm also off for a week.  And I also support any move to deprecate the template and license... as long as it doesn't involve priests and rosaries... wombats are ok... :D <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of license tags that don't match between Commons and en.wiki. I'm not aware of any guideline saying this should not be the case, although obviously it is better to avoid this situation when possible. Also, I don't think this template is used often enough on en.wiki to have any particular expected legal meaning. The use of this template is virtually nil as it is. That said, what would your suggestion be for the proper way to deprecate this template? Should it redirect to db-f3? In that case, wouldn't it be problematic for images temporarily copied from Commons? In that situation, I think the above solution is preferable. Or do you think the template should simply be deleted and salted (along with any potential alternate names)? Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to delete images; simply move them to Commons. Or if this tag is as little used as all that, just let them stay here as 1.2 only. I'm still not convinced there's any need to deprecate this tag. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine with attaching db-f3 (perhaps accompanied with an explanatory note). I am also happy attaching a move to Commons message as long as that option is viable.  Perhaps the best option is some sort of bright "Don't use this!" box telling people to adopt "or later versions" coupled with a Move to Commons tag for the people who don't fix it.  Deleting and salting also works, though I think that is probably a less effective solution.  I am also open to the wombats though I am concerned that the genetic modifications might make them unruly.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks at what the German Wikipedia is doing: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen_f%C3%BCr_Bilder. They have one small list of approved templates, and everything else is deprecated with a warning that the files will be deleted if they aren't licensed under one of the approved licenses. They are so clever over there! Kaldari (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I much prefer draft 3. It allows us to keep images that use the license while avoiding any fresh taggings. - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There aren't any images that use the tag on this project. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft 4
OK, what do you guys think of this one? Please note that this is a "1.2-only" template (not a GFDL transclusion), but it states that it can only be used for images temporarily transferred from Commons. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be an extension of WP:CSD, which would need to be agreed at that project page. I think there should be a minimum time stated (e.g. five days) before deleting, to give the uploader chance to move the image to Commons. Other than that, I would accept this as the best working solution. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've raised the issue Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and followed your advise to add a "five days" clause to the warning. Kaldari (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, why are we even complaining about this? Licensing it under GFDL 1.2 only doesn't make it any less free than 1.3. ViperSnake151 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the tag itself? Did you read any of the text of this page? Feel free. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when is it okay to suggest deletion of freely licensed images? CSD#F3 doesn't apply. The license isn't improper, just cumbersome to follow when you want to reuse it. Also, there is an alternative in just moving them to the commons straight away. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is much debate above about what the proper way to deprecate this template is. What solution would you suggest? Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this tag is not free when used correctly for media, and is less free than any "non-commercial" Creative Commons license, and we don't allow those. Can you imagine someone reusing an audio sample with this tag? Being forced to include the entire GFDL 1.2 license as well as Wikipedia's disclaimer in an audio file? That song would totally kick ass. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the reference to deletion under F3, as that applies to non-free media. Deprecation means that the tags are discouraged from further use, but no more. If you wish to delete all images tagged as GFDL 1.2 only, please gather a consensus to do so at an advertised discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
FYI, there is a discussion about speedy deletion of GFDL-1.2 images at WT:CSD. -- Amalthea 16:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

TFD
Please add {{subst:tfd}}. Also, why is the template fully protected? Less than 50 pages link to it. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)