Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Free licenses

cc-by-3.0
What about cc-by-3.0? Andy Mabbett 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Or cc-by-nc-sa-3.0.  EDIT: Went ahead and created it myself. Gitman00 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 is easy: noncommercial-use-only images are not permitted on Wikipedia. The BY, SA, and BY-SA 3.0 are trickier: by explicitly adding moral rights to the license, they may no longer be free-content licenses.  There's a discussion going on on Commons right now about this. --Carnildo 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots and software licenses
The copyright tag for "free screenshots" got me thinking... Do screenshots count as "derivative works" in terms of the GPL? So that eg. a screenshot of a GPLed program must also be released under the GPL (given GPL's viral qualities)? Or just how does the license of a software package affect the legalities of publishing screenshots of the package? I'm not very well versed in the intricacies of copyright law in the United States. I'd appreciate some comments from those who are. — Ksero 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Free means?
The first sentence of this article, and later in the article, the term "Free" is defined as "Freedom"... wtf? - Fluck 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It stands in contrast to free as in beer. --Carnildo 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
Attribution is not a free license. If the creator retains copyright, they can invoke usage restrictions at any time. This template is deprecated by other policy which requires that images be uploaded and released under a true free license. This template confilcts with other Wikipedia licenses. &mdash;M (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are sure in what you are saying then please delete this section. Otherwise people do really not know what is right or wrong. --Josha52 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WHAT TO USE?
How do you know which template to use for verifying the fair use of a file?? The descriptions for the various files are extremely vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scixx (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Scixx (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Matching BSD
Exactly what part of my edits were not constructive so that you had to revert them, E2eamon? Taric25 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I saw "Do What The Fuck You Want", and assumed it was vandalism.  I realize now that it was not.  Thanks for pointing out my mistake.  E♴ (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Royalty-free personal use
This is the license I have for some images:

Royalty-free personal use The owner ("Owner") of the copyrighted photograph being purchased (the "Work"), hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, and perpetual right to use, reproduce and distribute the copyrighted Work for personal non-profit purposes, and to incorporate the copyrighted Work, in whole or in part, into derivative works for non-profit distribution.

You are prohibited from using the Work for any other purpose, including: using, reproducing or distributing the Work and/or materials incorporating all or any part of the Work for profit; selling or distributing electronic copies of the Work as standalone files or as part of a product from which a person is able to extract the Work as a standalone file; distributing the Work in or as part of an electronic template (e.g., as an image available in a word processing or web page creation application) intended to be reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; or using the Work as part of a trademark, service mark or logo.

Owner retains all other rights in the Work and any derivative work, including without limitation, the right to use, copy, sell, license, and distribute copies of the Work in all markets and territories.

In consideration for the grant of this non-exclusive license, you agree to pay Owner the amount specified, due and payable immediately prior to your downloading a digital copy of the Work.

This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws designated by Owner, now or in the future.

I have an email from the photographer from whom I got the photos who confirmed I can use them on Wikipedia, IMBD, etc. as lon as it is non-profit, I am ok. So can I upload the image?Winniep32 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that doesn't qualify as a free license since it doesn't allow commercial reuse (even though Wikipedia is non-profit, part of our mission is spreading the information to others, even if they are for-profit operations). It may be usable as non-free content, but that would depend upon the specific images and how you'd like to use them. If you are interested in using the images in that fashion, I recommend that you ask about the particular cases at WP:Media copyright questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

CopyFree Licensing
I would like to propose that the CopyFree license OWL (Open Works License) be included in the list of acceptable licenses. Here is the current version text:

Open Works License

This is version 0.8 of the Open Works License.

Terms

Permission is hereby granted by the copyright holder(s), author(s), and contributor(s) of this work, to any person who obtains a copy of this work, in any form, to reproduce, modify, distribute, publish, sell, use, or otherwise deal in the licensed material without restriction, provided the following conditions are met:

Redistributions, modified or unmodified, in whole or in part, must retain the above license notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. Redistributions, modified or unmodified, in whole or in part, must retain any applicable notices of attribution and copyright.

No warranty or guarantee is implied by, or should be inferred from, this license or the act of distribution under the terms of this license. This license does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, product names, or other identifications used by the licensor except as required for reasonable and customary use in reproducing, and describing the origin or use of, the work.

This text can be found here. Being that this license puts no restrictions aside from the distribution of license text (I am of the mind that a link to it would suffice in most cases), there should be no reason that Wikipedia doesn't include it in its list of acceptable free licenses. Alex (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * May I get some feedback on this, please? It's been nearly two years and not only has it not been included there is no discussion I am aware of. I have another issue to discuss but will create a new area to discuss them in.Alex (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Free" Licenses
There seems to be no distinguishing of copyleft vs. copyfree, though this page is talking about "free" licenses and that is bothersome. Both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative have some very damaging restrictions on what can be called an opensource license, restrictions which by definition make the software only "free as in gratis" and not "free as in speech". For example, the OSI definition of "Open Source" requires that a properly (according to them) worded open source license require the redistribution of source. Such requirements are the antithesis of true freedom (unless you seek to redefine "freedom" from "doing as one wills" to "doing as one wills within the limits of someone's rules"). Such a requirement is preposterous in some specialized cases (such as someone distributing a binary in an embedded device) and could be seen as burdensome in more generalized cases (bandwidth caps are becoming more widespread so even the occasional upload of some larger volumes of source even as a one off adversely affects the ability of some developers to continue even using the Internet). If Wikipedia is intent on truly making its content freely available, with no restrictions, then the inclusion of licenses that are decidedly copyleft - whether or not the OSI defines them as "open source" (which should carry no weight when concerning text and images) - should be deprecated in favor of licenses that put no restrictions upon the data that the author licenses as such. There are plenty of such licenses and the list is growing (slowly but surely). Also, I find it hypocritical to have a discussion on "free" licenses when Wikipedia's own software contains the following text: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Neither of which constitutes a truly free license as it adds terms and restrictions which must be met. Whether or not they are burdensome, they are not in any sense "free". The terms of use linked to talks on how we "generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain)." yet there are no "free and open licenses" anywhere on this site with the exception of those certified CopyFree (to include various BSD licenses, not to include the MPL, APL, or GPL). I think its disingenuous to refer to copyleft licenses as being "free and open" when their own wording make certain to let you know that they are not. For what is worth, I release all my content under the OWL as it is (one of many) truly free and open licenses. Alex (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

PD
Shouldn't PD be here? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)