Wikipedia talk:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted

Better basis for banning
Try something like this: "'If you want to use this site, you must agree to the terms. One of the terms is a non-revocable GFDL license. If you attempt to renounce the license, (1) all prior contributions are still GFDL licensed, (2) because you say that you do not accept site terms, you may no longer edit, and (3) if you do make further edits, those edits are still GFDL licensed.  If you do not accept site terms, please do not edit." Don't talk about trust or feelings or liability or destruction of Wikipedia. This can be explained very simply in neutral terms. Have Godwin take a look at whatever you finally create, please. - Jehochman Talk 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit harsh, but a good idea in concept. I strongly suggest the addition of a clause that permits assuming good faith that someone does not know the terms of the GFDL, or knows the GFDL but doesn't think that what they're doing is a revocation thereof. Note, under certain conditions, we do grant "revocations": WP:CSD. In addition, I suggest changing "banned" to "banned until the user accepts the terms of the GFDL". This is only fair. Grace notes T § 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no way to prove that someone really has accepted the terms of the license though. Someone who has already attempted to revoke the GFDL once for a superfluous reason (like "I don't want my images on Commons") is likely to try revocation at some point in the future, regardless of whether they said they accepted the license or not.  -- Cyde Weys  16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To prove that an individual accepts the terms of the GFDL (after initially denying them), just have them to say so. That's all that's need for any license declaration. If they revoke it again (in the same context) something along the lines of WP:RBI may be put in place. I haven't noticed that someone who revokes once is likely to do it in the future, and why a policy should be made out of it just because it happens here or there. Grace notes T § 16:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The proposal of immediate bans is overkill, and I don't think it matches established practice. People who want to revoke the GFDL get politely told they can't, and that's it. Then, if they continue to make a fuss in practical terms, like edit-warring over deletion tags (or, in cases of admins, actually deleting), they get a short-term block for disruption, upon which they can cool down and come back (which they quite often do.) A ban comes into the picture only when they actually start talking about suing Wikipedia, and that's already covered by NLT of course.

Also, a page like this should contain some language acknowledging that people sometimes have a legitimate or at least understandable reason for wanting their stuff deleted, and that Wikipedia routinely fulfils their wishes in many cases on a voluntary basis. There should be a link to WP:CSD G7. It just needs to be pointed out that Wikipedia has no legal obligation to honour such a request, and that if somebody else thinks the content is beneficial it will most likely not be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

An immediate ban wasn't exactly what I was looking for, and if I worded it inappropriately, I guess it should be fixed. I'm not suggesting that we immediately indefinitely ban anyone who makes the naive comment wishing to revoke the license, but as soon as it is explained to them and they persist in denying their release under the GFDL, they need to be banned. Only further harm will come from letting them continue to edit while disagreeing with one of the fundamental tenets of the GFDL that makes Wikipedia possible. -- Cyde Weys 17:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

 * The GFDL is quite complex, and not many people understand it completely. If a new contributor mistakenly uploads an image under the GFDL, and tries to revoke this when the consequences of this are pointed out, I don't think banning the user is really necessary. In general, only a real revoke should result in a ban, not a correction of a license of a contribution that really never was GFDL'ed. (Of course, long-time Wikipedians should be familiar with our licensing rules, and we should be more strict with them. And that goes double for admins.)


 * Perhaps it should be made clear that you are allowed to relicense your own images, as long as the license is still acceptable for Wikipedia. Problems only arise when the relicensing is retroactive (which we state is impossible), or when the new license is not free. Eugène van der Pijll 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there aren't many choices. I guess they could switch over to Creative Commons BY-SA, or public domain.  CC-by-sa is pretty much functionally equivalent and PD is even more liberal on how the image can be used.  -- Cyde Weys  17:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation

 * We have no right to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, therefore I have changed "the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation" to "our opinion". If the Wikimedia Foundation would like to make an official statement on the matter, this can be referenced and re-added.  Eagergray 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation already has made an official statement regarding the non-revocability of the GFDL in their disclaimer. See the first text above in the "Better basis for banning" section. Anyone who disagrees with the GFDL cannot edit Wikipedia. This isn't just me saying it. -- Cyde Weys 17:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the official statement. Please provide a link. Eagergray 13:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

not needed
It seems to me that WP:NLT already covers this as any attempt to claim to revoke GFDL is a claim that we are violating their copyright which is a legal threat and should be handled like all other legal threats. WAS 4.250 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's a different issue. Not everyone trying to revoke the GFDL is making claims about violating their copyright. Neil, for instance, merely tried to do it because he didn't want the images on Commons. They still shouldn't be allowed to edit if they disagree with the GFDL, even if they aren't making legal threats presently. -- Cyde Weys 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL is a legal issue and should be handled by the same mechanisms all our legal issues are handled. Maybe they just need an explanation; maybe they are just griping about what they wish was the case; maybe they are claiming future edits are not under GFDL; maybe they think they have a valid copyright infringement case. Whatever. We have a system to deal with legal case. First explain on wiki if that's where they are talking; then block from wikipedia while a legal threat exists and engage via OTRS; then bump it up to our legal people if necessary. When there is no more legal threat they get unblocked. Someone who claims that their edits are not GFDL must be blocked for legal threat so long as they hold that position. Blocked editors contributions are routinely deleted. WAS 4.250 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think many people are going to understand why editors who claim their edits are no longer under the GFDL (or revoking it on past edits) are making a legal threat. This proposed policy is necessary for clarity's sake. -- Cyde Weys 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A claim of revocation of a GFDL license is not a legal threat unless a threat is made. I think we should just point to WP:NLT and explain that any threats regarding the GFDL license will result in a block. WP:NLT says that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"", so if the person is just confused, or even just disagrees with our interpretation of GFDL they should not be blocked unless they actually make a threat. If a user is disruptive in other ways(such as deleting their own GFDL images) then that can be addressed as disruption. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We redistribute our content. Anyone saying that they know we are going to redistribute their contributions and they will not allow it, is making a legal threat. Of course, they must be talked to first to make sure that that indeed is what they are claiming. WAS 4.250 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't think it is legal for you to do that" is not a legal threat. "If you keep doing that I am going to..." is a legal threat. So it really depends on how they express their disagreement, specifically if they use threats or not. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 18:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * However, I do agree with the rational at the top of the page that not being willing to except the licensing terms of Wikipedia is grounds for banning due to incompatibility with the project. No resentment, no bad faith needed, just not compatible with our goals. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your re-statement of what I was trying to say. That is exactly it.  It has nothing to do with legal threats or anything, it's just the simple incompatibility issue that we cannot have anyone who doesn't agree with the legitimacy of the GFDL editing Wikipedia.  For pragmatic reasons.  -- Cyde Weys  22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, instead of "banning" which is generally reserved for acts of bad faith, I think it would be better described as an indefinite block until the user is willing to accept the licensing required to allow them to contribute. If the user disagrees with our interpretation in a bad faith manner or makes legal threats that is another story, but simply disgreeing to the interpretation of the license is not neccesarily bad faith and should be given the option of changing their mind later and being unblock. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Text and images are different
This is text. It is not an image. Free content licences that work well with collaborative editing of a text document can encounter problems when being applied to images that generally are not collaboratively edited, but are usually revised, version by version as a whole. Anyway, the whole discussion is moot, because anyone who wants to "withdraw" their GFDL images can replace the GFDL tag with a copyright tag and add a notification that the original uploading under the GFDL was in error and that the pictures had always been "all rights reserved". What happens then? Delete the copyright images and ban the user for uploading the copyright pictures and tagging them as GFDL? Carcharoth 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with such a revocation is that articles frequently do use images as integral parts of them. The article as a whole is licensed under the GFDL, and contains different sub-parts that were also released under the GFDL that made it possible to combine them all together, whether those sub-parts were photographs, diagrams, text, etc.  Theoretically if someone uploads images that aren't re-used in any GFDL work, they can just take their ball and go home without doing any harm.  But once the images have been used in ways compliant with the GFDL, whether in articles or in subsequent modifications and mash-ups, it simply doesn't even make sense to say that the GFDL can be revoked.  In the extreme example, people who depended on the accuracy of that licensure grant and used the image in something important might go to court, saying that the original person who uploaded the image but then tried to revoke it after it was used according to its licensing terms was committing fraud.  Either way, something attempting to revoke the GFDL needs to be banned, not as punishment, but simply because we do not want their potentially troublesome contributions.  -- Cyde Weys  04:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The image's being used in the article, unlike in the collage or retouch, is not a derivative work, so your argument does not really apply. If the editor retagges his compliant cc-by-sa image as "cc-by-nc", the image has to be deleted, It won't affect the true derivative work based on the image though. --Irpen 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the part in the GFDL license that says the license can be retracted if the original has not been modified. By my reading, even an un-altered original is still under the license. A license can be made less restrictive, but a more restrictive license is not binding because the less restrictive license still applies. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick clarification
Whilst my concerns are probably going to met by taking on WP:CSD and getting it amended or removed (so I can keep a local copy on en.Wiki without fear of some jobsworth coming along and deleting them under I8 even if I ask for them not to be), I nevertheless did revoke GFDL (or attempt to, depending on your viewpoint). I trust this "banning" isn't going to be applied retroactively. Neil  ム  11:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So long as you now accept that anything you have contributed or will contribute is licensed under GFDL and accept that that means it can be redistributed and modified, then I see no problem. WAS 4.250 15:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What about people who claim contibutions can not be moved from one article to another?
What about people who claim contibutions can not be moved from one article to another? SlimVirgin is claiming this. WAS 4.250 15:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If she's claiming this, she's wrong. GFDL content can be used freely subject to all relevant attributions. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My practice is to note the name of the article the content came from in an edit summary. WAS 4.250 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the examples I'm talking about you didn't do that. You copied and pasted the material into new articles as though you were the author, which is plagiarism; examples below. I believe it may also be a GFDL violation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs).


 * That's pretty much the way to do it. We have to keep a history of contributors (but not necessarily a copy of every contribution!); if you leave a pointer to the earlier article, then so long as its history stays intact, we've met our obligations on that front. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My query was whether it's a violation to copy and paste material without attribution of any kind. The issue is that WAS has been copying other editors' writing and pasting it into new titles as POV forks. He doesn't merge the histories, he doesn't attribute the writing to the authors in the edit summaries, and he doesn't say which article he's taken the material from. In other words, he just pastes it in as though he wrote it, which is plagiarism. Two examples: My understanding is that this is a GFDL violation.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a clear violation of GFDL. One of the reasons we have such bureaucracy along the issues of merging and moving is precisely to respect edit histories and protect GFDL. --Cerejota 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's a violation, what is the appropriate administrative response? Do the histories need to be merged? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, I think the remedy is the removal of the offending content at the 'crat level (ie, full real deletion), and then leave the community process for WP:SUMMARY to happen. If a merger/move/fork happens under the current procedure, GFDL violations wouldn't happen. It is only when people use wikipedia mainspace as a sandbox for their ideas, or when procedures for merger/fork/moves are not followed that GFDL becomes an issue.


 * Contentions moves and mergers happen all the time, and this should not be allowed as tool to roadblock legitimate moves/mergers.


 * It might need a whole new category of meta-discussion, something like Requests for GFDL compliance? I hate being bureaucratic, but I have seen enough cases of this to think it warrants serious community engagement and procedure. Thoughts? Thanks!--Cerejota 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With a move/merge, there's no problem because the history remains intact. Even adding in an edit summary where you've taken the material from might be good enough. But when someone lifts an entire article and simply pastes back in under another title, it's not only a POV fork, it's intellectually dishonest (and these are separate issues), because he makes himself appear to be the author. The question is how to undo it. We can't go back and change the edit summaries. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My view is that as long as at least one of the subsequent edits has an edit summary saying "see talk page for the history of this article", plus a link to the originating article, and a full explanation is posted at the top of the talk page, with diffs, page logs, etc. Plus creating a new subpage with the full preceding history in it (ie. shout about the real history all over the article page history and talk page), then the message gets through. Not ideal, but it works. For an example of where I kicked up a big fuss when an unattributed split took place, see Talk:History of Greek and Roman Egypt, Talk:Ægyptus, and Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt for examples. In case anyone can't be bothered to follow the links, the messages I used are given below. Carcharoth 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very helpful, Carcharoth. Thank you. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of attribution failure warnings
Copied from Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt by Carcharoth 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (note that this is also a form of attribution, this time of my talk page edit which is a copy-paste from another talk page).


 * I am putting the first one in the Template space, and working on the second one (more technically complicated). These are very necessary templates. It is a great contribution. I am also creating Category:Possible GFDL violations, so that they would be auto-added when placed. I am not sure if these should be talk page templates only, although I understand why: they re about fixing a technical editor error, not specific content. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I contributed a little bit to Template:Notice-history-incomplete. You really need to put that template in a category, and advertise it, otherwise it will never catch on. Really, it should also include parameters allowing people to link to the other locations where the edit history may be located. Should really be restricted to major imports and exports of text, not for copying a sentence or two here and there. Oh, and you failed to attribute the idea to me in the initial edit summary... :-) (I confess, I cut and paste the layout from somewhere, I forget where, but the wording was mine). Carcharoth 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I attributed in the talk page, I realized this!!! HAHAHAHA!!! Ironic, no? Now I am implementing the changes you suggest. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

When copying text from one page to another, simply use the url in the "Permanent link" on the left tool bar as the edit summary. This satisfies GFDL. If another user copies your text without doing this, make a dummy edit stating that revision (whatever revision was not attributed) is attributed to (url to the version copied from). Then leave them a note explaining. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This definitely the way to do it, but sometimes one needs to warn WikiGnomes rather than do it oneself because of time issues. As we said it is not meant for a sentence here or there -which might even fall under fair use- but wholesale copy/paste.


 * In other related discussions, it seems to me it is technically (as in wikicode) impossible to add a main page to a category from a talk page template. So I am suggesting the first template as an editor warning, and the second template (to which I haven't gotten to yet) as a talkpage warning. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish
How would this work with users who have released photos of themselves under the GFDL but now want to vanish? Also, how would it affect other issues where we are usually apt to err on the side of deleting an image? IronGargoyle 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly fine to delete images if we want to delete images, including situations like the right to vanish where we assure people beforehand that we'll help them leave if they want to. What this essay is saying is that, firstly, the project has an irrevocable license to use contributions, so it's our choice whether we delete them; and, secondly, that disrupting the project by attempting to interfere with licensed contributions that you earlier made in good faith is a legal threat and can be treated as such. In the meantime, we're never obligated to keep problematic content if we don't want to, apart from some requirements to retain the article history. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The right to vanish is poorly named, it is not a right, but a courtesy. We can delete the image, but that does not change its GFDL status, if another person wants to keep using it, it is still GFDL. We generally would not delete an image for the right to vanish unless the image was a) identifying in nature, and b) was not encyclopedic in nature. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 22:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Modifying article
I support the case that this should be policy. I am re-writing the article to reflect how a policy should look and give it more "teeth".


 * I also suggest the Foundation be notified, if it hasn't. I offer this is why we have a General Counsel, so his opinion on this matter should provide a lot weight to the policy.


 * This might be an issue for Meta, not just English wikipedia. It might be also interesting to find out what policies if any other language wikipedias have.


 * GFDL violations around mergers, forks, and misuse of non-text media should also be clarified but I am not sure if it is within the proposed policy.

Thanks!--Cerejota 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! I also implemented some concerns on banning etc. Now it is clear people have a chance, however, multiple violations should be harshly dealt with.--Cerejota 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what is meant in the end of the "Community imposed sanctions" section, "Being banned is not being alienated from their rights over previously contributed content under the GFDL. Editors do have the right to get the fork out of here. Ironically, this right is given to them by the GFDL."
 * Did you mean, "Banned editors are not alienated from their rights over previously contributed content under the GFDL. Editors do have the right to vanish. Ironically, this right is given to them by the GFDL."?
 * Could you please clarify. Thanks, Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the right to vanish is not part of a discussion covered by GFDL, in my opinion. Editors who invoke WP:VANISH essentially give their contributions to Wikimedia Foundation, an disappear from the community - they do not have the right to delete their contributions to the encyclopedia, period. TO do so violates GFDL, which cannot be revoked.


 * My argument is a somewhat related legal one: A user cannot request deletion of content out of wikipedia once it has been donated. Period. A user does have the right to WP:FORK this content, under the GFDL.


 * This is to cover for the, to my knowledge hypothetical, case of an editor who is banned and alleges that this is violation of GFDL under Section 9, and hereby wishes to revoke the license under the only possible criteria.


 * Access to the community of editors is not the same as access to GFDL content. In other words, a banned editor has the ability to fork all the content, regardless if he or she did it, to a different editor community, and can hereby have free access to this information, as long as any subsequent edits to this fork retain attributions. If all actions in wikipedia were covered by GFDL, then having sysops, bureaucrats, etc would be a violation of license, as they would have privileged access to information the GFDL makes available to anyone.


 * I might be wrong, but this is my view and the view I suggest we take, pending being overridden by WP:OFFICE.--Cerejota 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was the "get the fork out of here" part. I didn't think the right to vanish was part of GFDL (and why would it be?). I'll link Fork. Flyguy649 talk contribs 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:FORK isn't appropriate; nor really is WP:CFORK. Probably Summary style is what you meant. I have to run, so I haven't made the change after all. Flyguy649 talk contribs 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I am referring to WP:FORK. I have no idea why you think I am referring to WP:CFORK. This is about how to leave wikipedia altogether.--Cerejota 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pardon my obtuseness. WP:Cooking dinner and input on policy are mutually exclusive, apparently. I'll write that up as a new guideline ;) -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but
While I obviously agree with the ideas expressed on this page, does this really occur often enough to warrant a lengthy and wholly new policy page? I think we could just as easily address this with a single paragraph on e.g. the blocking and banning policies.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so. Something does not need to happen often when it happening at all is a major problem. Wikipedia should have been founded with this policy, people need to know that can't take back their contributions the moment they disagree with what is being done with them. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Total bleeding mess
This has gone from being succinct and accurate to being a total bleeding mess in the last day or so. It has become full of legalisms that are wrong, apparently internal new 'laws' and all kinds of editorial points. This is a policy - it describes the status quo, and does not need to thunder and blunder on about philosophy and blah blah. I am going to make it sensical again. Splash - tk 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also
 * Please write in sentences because:
 * They are easier to read.
 * And that is precisely why this shouldn't be on a new page - that'll only encourage more ill-conceived editorializing.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is that, too. The original impetus for this was a deep misunderstanding at I believe WP:ANI. Splash - tk 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole on idiot editors! More Hyperbole on idiot editors! Even More Hyperbole on idiot editors! (Hyperbole on idiot editors). :)Now, calm down. Yes, it might be full of legalisms, but this is a legal matter. This is not a normal, regular, run of the mill content dispute policy. It is the stated defense of a legal contract. Now, you mightink it doesn't warrant this language, but I beg to differ. While it needs work, it does need to be better structured and explained, precisely because of the legal aspects around GFDL. This is why I suggested Godwin be contacted. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not even written in proper English. And using rollback-like tools on non-vandals is a sure-fire way to look really angry, when I'm sure you can't have objected to me writing in sentences and things like that. Splash - tk 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure your explanations on the talk-page are conducive to constructive dialog, and to assumption of in-depth, constructive edits. Likewise mocking someone's English instead of fixing it - and explaining you did and why- might be a better idea than responding in hyperboles. Have some coffee, calm down and then edit. I mean, you even missed your signature the first time around... :D Thanks!--Cerejota 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I further would appreciate if you pointed out what English is bad, I did a once over and I seem not to find any grammar or wording errors, so if you would be so kind? Thanks!--Cerejota 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But I did fix it, and you then reverted the changes. I'll try again. The changes I made the first time around did fix them; you can see what they were in more detail by looking through the diff. Splash - tk 13:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the diff and saw no real difference, only simple rewording, which didn't make the original "not even English". Please do not edit before explaining, or, you will be reverted. Simply having a difference on how something is worded is not enough to claim something is "not even written in English". If you are a Richard, don't get upset when people call you Dick. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation
Even though I think you're being very pernicious about this, here's a summary of my changes. (Incidentally, do note that one is invited to edit everything, as your userpage does correctly state, and that there's no reason to summarily revert when someone does that). I hope that makes it clear. I'll boldly edit the page in a moment. Splash - tk 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 1st sentence: Poor grammar to say "done under". Improvement suggested.
 * 2) 2nd sentence: Definite article missing. Added.
 * 3) "Non-revocability" section: No such word as "non-revocability". Correct word is "irrevocable".
 * 4) "Section 9 describes": Poor phrasing. Improvement suggested.
 * 5) "If you would like to challenge the GFDL...": Misunderstands how WP:NLT works. Removed as irreparably incorrect, and as implying future courses of action the Foundation/project might take.
 * 6) "Community imposed sanctions" section, "are to be subject to be": clearly wrong. Fixed. Also, these things needn't go to Arbitration in general, the community can fix them. As far as I recall, there's not been an Arb case on the topic.
 * 7) The paragraph goes on to legislate courses of action. Policy doesn't work like that, it describes what is, and how things are. Re-written accordingly.
 * 8) Section on admin privs is legislation again. Fiction. No evidence for this in the current situation. Could be added later, if this turns out to be the case.
 * 9) The WP:MOS deprecates writing in bullet points. Sentences are better when it's prose that's being written. I've reformatted this section correspondingly.
 * 10) Policies as central as this do not have to justify their existence with a very personal editorial view of things. I've tidied this up to stick to the facts of the matter, and to clean out some repetition.
 * 11) The sentences about "forking off", are very difficult to read. In any case, they appear to be saying that you keep your rights under the GFDL even while banned. This is a re-statement of the whole message of this page, and is redundant.
 * 12) It is extremely rude to allude to telling people "fuck off", even humorously. Such attitudes are not appropriate for policy documents. Removed. Similarly questionable statements of 'irony'.
 * 13) Retroactivity is meaningless and again is legislatory. There is no need for retroactivity since any editors currently in this position are already banned. Removed.
 * 14) "Multilicensing". "all content" is factually incorrect, since thousands of images are licensed in other ways. Changed to read "text", per the footer of every page.
 * 15) Section on official position of the WMF. MOS deprecates single-sentence sections, so merged into the "Community..." section.


 * Regarding point 7, many policies suggest specific courses of actions, see WP:NLT, and WP:3RR. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the difference is that those policies describe(d) what was already being done (with the possible exception of 3RR, but that's an usual case, which followed a vote, etc.). The paragraphs in question tried to create, ab initio, new courses of action. As re-written they correctly describe what is already being done. Splash - tk 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the community coming to a consensus about specific remedies to specific problems. Policy does not need to reflect what is being done, but can also reflect what the community wishes to be done. What is more, in the past this sort of thing has been handled in the way described. Oh, and I don't see how "Someone who intends to mount a legal challenge against Wikipedia's use of GFDL is not invited to edit Wikipedia while they do so" is a sentence fragment, but either version is fine, just seems to run on a bit when you join the sentences with a comma. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive criticism and edits, Splash. For a "total bloody mess", the bulk of the content actually remained the same. Thank you also for the few minor language checks, "non-revocability" in particular - however I have seen the word used before. I do disagree with some (not all) of the substantive issues you raise:


 * This is not a regular policy, it is a clear offensive against this issue. There seems to be a loosely organized effort to get wikipedia to abandon GFDL for some other types of licenses. Some of them are ideological motivations, others are about control and the ability to leave the project with one's content in the bags. We must harshly deal with this in order to nip it at the bud. I am normally a softhearted guy, but there are a few things I think we are too wimpy on. One is understanding and compliance with GFDL, which is the only real right we have around here.
 * Humor is used in many policy documents, as is irony. You might disagree with it, but it offers a light-hearted contrast to the more serious and harsh parts. What made me transition from a reader (I have been reading since 2002) to an editor was precisely the consistent existence of humor and lightheartness even among editors who deeply disagree. It might be bad humor, but then its so bad its good.
 * That there is no ArbCom precedent is irrelevant: a policy can state that things be speedied up there. This might be a very good idea if the editors in question are admins: the Essjay situation shows that the community can err based on personal relationships rather that the survivability of the entire project. If a policy explictly states that arbcom must speedily handle these cases, then policy states that. If you have an opposition to this, please state it in a positive form: an procedural objection is not a very convincing arguement against inclusion.
 * No one is being told to "fuck off" and thats why humor is put in. They are being told they have only one right in wikipedia: the right to WP:FORK, I think you are overreacting. And no, this is no covered anywhere else in this policy, but is covered by the GFDL. A reminder is not out of order (many other polices do this).
 * Appealing to MoS in a document hat by definition is work in progress I would offer is a bit premature. This policy would be incomplete without a formal position on the part of WP:OFFICE, preferably from the General Consel. Preparing a section for that is a good idea. As to the bullet points, this is a matter of taste, however I have no opposition to paragraph form.
 * It is always a good idea, when stating positions around legal matters, to point out the remedies available explicitly. You eliminate the sections that do this, citing wikireasons. I think we do have respect our traditions, but we must also cover our asses. I am as snobish for our community as the next wikipedian, but I know enough to not ignore the realities of a legal technicality.
 * Lastly, this policy cannot be a light one and must be comprehensive. If it is longer, so be it. Trying to cut it down is to treat this issue lightly.

I think I will implement some of my changes now. But by the Holy Appendage, don't be so bity!--Cerejota 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are further errors in the "Rights" section as follows:
 * The Foundation never comes to own the contributions of any editor unless they hand over the copyright to the Foundation. It does not matter that they leave - their contributions remain licensed to the Foundation, and everyone else, under the GFDL, but the copyright still rests with the now-left editor. For example, the Foundation could not re-license a departed editor's contributions under some other license, which they could do if they came to own the copyright to the work. The editor(s) themselves still can, however. I've removed this incorrect 'de facto' claim as a result.
 * Wikipedia does not grant any rights - it is a website, it cannot. The so-called 'right to leave' exists because humans have free will and volition. The 'right to fork' exists because the GFDL allows it as the current text psuedo-correctly sort-of says. However, it does not play any part in the act of leaving, as implied by the disgusting phrase "get the fuck out of here" (which again is not permissible in what you claim is a policy of such gravitas). Furthermore, including vague in-'jokes' merely jargonises something that can be expressed with far greater clarity and simplicity. I've compressed the phrasing as a result. Again, the policy describes what already is, rather than theories of what simply cannot be.
 * Splash - tk 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Further explication of multi-licencing
I've recently been coming across Flikr pics where people upload them here (or at Commons) under a CC licence, but then later you come across a note saying that the uploader at Flickr has changed the terms of the licence to be more restrictive. Can someone please explain how CC licences can be changed like this, but GFDL (and I suppose PD) can't be changed like this. I agree that this is the right way to put it (GFDL can't be revoked), but wanted clarification with regard to revocation (or changing) of CC licences. That potentially creates the same problems as attempted revocation of GFDL, and would lead to the same conclusion: "we don't want contributions from people who are going to change their minds later". Note that you can't stop people changing their minds, you just have to be clear what can and cannot be changed. That's what really needs to be made clear here. Carcharoth 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * CC cannot be revoked. If flickr lets their users change their license that does not invalidate the license they already released it under. CC licenses cannot be made more restrictive once released, that is the whole point of them. Since Flickr is not trying to create free(as in freedom) content for the world to mirror, then allowing users to cease advertising a CC license does them no harm, but it does not invalidate the CC declaration given to everyone, everywhere, forever. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So why are people suggesting that Wikipedia and Commons images "need to go", based on changing licences at Flikr? I'll find an example. Carcharoth 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I confused two images, but I did track down Commons:Template:Flickr-change-of-license. Over 1,000 Commons pictures link to that, and Commons rightly say that the licences are irrevocable, but it shows how they approach this sort of thing. Carcharoth 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It cannot be revoked, however there may be an issue with the inability to confirm that it was released under CC originally if the declaration is taken off the source. It is still CC, but it may be hard to convince the foundation of that if the proof is gone. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Challenging the basis of the project
I've removed the sentence "Editors must be aware that they do not have a right to challenge the entire basis of the project and continue participating in it at the same time," since I don't think it's necessarily true. If I wish to challenge the utility of NPOV, I shouldn't be banned for it. And we're not about to start banning everyone who challenges the premise of allowing anyone to edit. Similarly, if I wish to challenge use of the GFDL, that should be fine, so long as I'm not being disruptive and removing all my edits. -Amarkov moo! 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a completely different issue than any other policy. We can remove NPOV, and the project would significantly change (in my opinion for the worse), but it would still be viable. The GFDL on the other hand is what guarantees, under US law, both the freedom to edit, and the free availability of content, without the loss of copyright and attribution. There are other licenses that could arguably fill this role (in fact, we use CC licenses for media content), and debate around that should not be sanctioned. However, I fail to see how a debate on what license might be better to use as the basis for the project can be construed as challenging the project itself. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we should consider actually removing the GFDL, which as you say would be legally impossible. But that doesn't mean that we should be sanctioning people just for saying that we should. -Amarkov moo! 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For instance, if someone (yes, me), said that the GFDL is a poor licence to use for images, and that other free licences should be used instead, am I attacking the entire basis of the project? Jumping on criticism is the wrong way to go. Making crystal-clear statements of our position, and encouraging discussion is the right way to go. Carcharoth 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to make this about someone challenging our sacred beliefs. I think it is enough to say that if you don't agree to our interpretation of GFDL you are not compatible with the project. No need to create a good guy bad guy situation, just people and groups with different goals which are not compatible. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Me likes...
...the current version. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not permitted, or not possible?
I had not read the GFDL from end to end before. It is very badly drafted. Who chose it? Whether it is irrevocable or not, and whether its terms set out the whole licence (or conversely whether terms can be implied) would be an interesting question for a class of law students; and the answer may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the assertion that this page makes, it is not at all clear (to me, at least) that the GFDL is irrevocable - that is, that a person who chooses to license text (or images, whatever) under the GFDL cannot later choose to withdraw that licence. That is not to say that Wikipedia cannot require contributors to waive any right that they may have to revoke the licence in respect of their contributions. If we have not done so to date, then it may be worth doing that going forwards.

This page starts uncontroversially, with a first sentence stating that all contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (although some are dual licensed, of course).

But it then it seems to lose its way. It says that "Revocation of the GFDL is not permitted" because that would make it difficult (or impossible) to create a "freely-editable, freely-available, encyclopedia". Not permitted? That implies (to me, at least) that revocation may possible, but there is a rule somewhere (if so, where?) that prohibits revocation.

This page then goes on to claim that "The GFDL is irrevocable". This is a pretty strong claim. I see nothing in the bare words of the licence that says explicitly that the licence cannot be withdrawn or revoked. Sure, the preamble (section 0) to the text of the GNU Free Documentation License v.1.2 (November 2002) says the purpose of the licence is to make documents " "free" in the sense of freedom", and the section on applicability and definitions (section 1) says that the licence grants a "world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration".

But, first, "freedom" is not an unconstrained thing in any organised society - "free" citizens can be sent to prison if they break the law; my freedom may conflict with your freedom, and someone will need to decide whose freedom takes priority. And second, the "world-wide, royalty-free license" is subject to the conditions of the licence itself. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is am implied term that the licence can be withdrawn or revoked by the licensor (at least where no-one has relied upon the licence to make a copy or a derivative version); on the other hand, you could perhaps imply a term that the licence can only be terminated under section 9 (Termination). But there is nothing that says explicitly that the licence is incapable of being revoked. -- !! ?? 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If somebody wants to challenge our interpretation of GFDL they will need to do so in court, and stop editing Wikipedia while such legal action occurs. Otherwise they need to accept our interpretation or lose their privilege to contribute. It is true that if Wikipedia violated the GFDL license that the owner can revoke the license from us, but only if we violate the license first and only to us. The media is still GFDL. It is basically a guarantee and it explicitly says it is a life time license and very clearly lays out the conditions of termination. You may find this post interesting. Since there is an explicit set of terms for termination, it seems a bit contrary to assume there is an "implied" term that directly contradicts what is stated. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "It is basically a guarantee". A copyright licence is nothing like a guarantee.

It is by no means a certainty that granting a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free copyright licence (subject to certain conditions, which can be terminated in certain circumstances) means that the licensor is incapable of revoking or withdrawing the licence. I think you (we!) might want to take some legal advice. I'll read what our esteemed counsel has to say. -- !! ?? 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote that might be relevant, from Eugene Volokh by way of wired in relation to the cphack case (where revocation of the GPL was at issue): "Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable. Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack copyright. It is unfortunately not quite as solid a case for the good guys as the GNU license theory would have at first led us to believe."  - Ehheh 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need to be certain. We are allowed to interpret the license in a reasonable manner until a court interprets it differently. We are also allowed to limit access to our project to people that respect our interpretation. Of course a license is a guarantee, it is a set of text that makes promises and gives permission. Even a verbal agreement is a contract. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Contracts generally require consideration, I believe. Hence the 'for free' in the above quote. - Ehheh 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, concepts like promissory estoppel (or detrimental reliance) may be relevant: my core point is that I do not understand why we are so certain that the GFDL is irrevocable (other than being frightened that the sky will start falling down if is it not). -- !! ?? 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, 1==2, you are using legal terminology in a way that does not make much sense to me. Can you explain in what way you think a licence is a kind of guarantee? Yes, they both have terms - but terms can be express (oral or written) or implied, you know. Perhaps you might like to read our articles on relevant concepts - contract and contractual term would be a good places to start.

That we can have this argument indicates that the case is not as completely open and shut as it ought to be. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. Perhaps we don't need to be certain to carry on, but it would be a substantial problem if a court of law later decides that the interpretation we have been using is wrong. As I indicate above, one way to make things a bit clearer would be to require editors and uploaders to agree to waive any rights that they may have to revoke or withdraw their GFDL licence when they make a contribution. -- !! ?? 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They do have to agree, it is stated very clearly on every edit window "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL", and GFDL makes it very clear under what circumstances GFDL may be terminated. I think it is not revocable because the license states it is unlimited in duration and can only be revoked if the license is violated. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors and uploaders agree to license their contributions under the GFDL; they do not agree to waive any rights that they may have to revoke or withdraw the licence (not as far as I can see, anyway, as I write this). It is clear that you think there is no issue; well, I hope so. That the licence explicitly sets out certain circumstances under which it will automatically be terminated does not necessarily mean there are no circumstances under which it can be withdrawn or revoked by the original licensor. With the greatest of respect, we seem to be placing a rather heavy reliance on what you think. -- !! ?? 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * !!: This might or might not be true. However, Wikipedia is taking a clear position: if you attempt to revoke the license 1) You cannot continue being a member of the community 2) Your only remedy is to take us to court.


 * In this policy the community is expressing their opinion on this matter.


 * The Wikimedia Foundation can at their option: 1)Remain silent 2) Support the community 3) Overule the community. Until that point the community consensus is clear: attempted revocation is null and reason for banning, and we will not oversight content for reasons of GFDL revocation until it is ordered by a court of law.


 * And you are wrong in theory: non-exclusive licenses over copyrighted material cannot be revoked freely, they must meet clear criteria:


 * 1) the process the license provides for such revocation (if any)
 * 2) by mutual consent of the parties
 * 3) by a court order


 * Licenses basically are permission to use copyrighted material under the conditions of the license. The GFDL doesn't provide for revocation. And in the way GFDL is written, mutual consent of the parties is pretty damn near impossible (it would require permission from everyone who publishes the material in any way shape or form). Even if wikipedia agreed to remove content, other GFDL publishers might not.So to the courts it is. It is really quite simple. The GFDL is not badly written, it is simply completely unconventional and unique, and hence to the learned eye might seem strange.


 * Thanks! --Cerejota 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand the position we are taking - try to take your ball away (the ball that you graciously said that anyone could play with) and we will (a) keep your ball, and (b) refuse to let you play with us in future. We certainly can do (b); the question is whether we are on strong legal ground regarding (a).


 * As I said above, the ability to withdraw or revoke a licence will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'm not sure how strongly a court would feel about holding a copyright holder to a perpetual, gratuitous, world-wide non-exclusive licence, particularly if there was no detrimental reliance by a licensee (in the form of derivative works, say) and reasonable notice of the revocation was given. -- !! ?? 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia frequently violates the GFDL when selective page history deletions are carried out, or attribution is lost through cut and paste moves. Would that be grounds for the contributors to revoke their GFDL license? Carcharoth 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Under section 9, the licence is automatically terminated if its terms are broken (for example, if material is copied or modified without proper attribution). There is no need for the licensor to revoke it.  -- !! ?? 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a highly novel intepretation of licensing in general and GFDL Section 9 in the specific. Without getting to the legalese, this is a logical fallacy: if licenses became invalid in general due to specific violations, the entire concept of copyright would crumble the minute the first pirate came along...


 * First "Termination" and "revocation" are two different terms in licensing: One refers to the rights given to the user over the copyrighted material, the other is an excersice on the part of the copyright holder revoking a license. The terms apply to two distinct parties in the intellectual property process.


 * That said, a user who violates a license that terminates upon violation (like GFDL) is only terminating the license as it applies to him or herself in the context that violates the license. The user is not terminating the license as it applies to other content or as it applies to other instances of the copyrighted material. Amen.


 * However, wikipenia is not a moot court. We are not being asked to provide a legal opinion, but an opinion on a legal matter that has affected the functioning of wikipedia. Our opinion might be technically incorrect, but we are entitled to it. As the policy states, legal arguments belong in the court room. You don't like the intepretation we make of the GFDL? Sue us!--Cerejota 18:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, you're missing an important distinction. The license is not terminated when it is violated.  Merely the rights to use the work under that license are lost by the one who violated it.  If some third party site copies material over from Wikipedia without attribution, they are violating the terms of the license, thus terminating their right to lose it, and the original author would be in the right to sue them in court.  That would not, however, terminate the license the work was licensed under, and Wikipedia could continue to use that work so long as we remained compliant with the license.  -- Cyde Weys  13:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cyde, I obviously was not clear, because I meant to say what you just said: That said, a user who violates a license that terminates upon violation (like GFDL) is only terminating the license as it applies to him or herself in the context that violates the license. The user is not terminating the license as it applies to other content or as it applies to other instances of the copyrighted material.. Thanks!--Cerejota 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, TELL THE WIKITRUTH. This policy was only created to make another banhammer excuse. If GFDL is fundamentally irrevokable, then any editor making an on-wiki revocation declaration is making a self nullifying statement. Therefore, this policy, as an excuse to permanently ban, is not necessary. 198.203.175.175 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is not just that someone says "I want to revoke the license on my contributions". The problem is that such a claim is often accompanied by either saying "You are breaking the law by not removing all my contributions!" or going around and slapping a db-g7 on everything you've contributed to. The former clearly violates WP:LEGAL, of course, but the latter doesn't really violate any current policy, but it's still disruptive. -Amarkov moo! 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notification of copyright infringement is an exception to the no legal threats policy. Nowhere in the GFDL is there anything that says the license is irrevokable. The terms of use disclaimer at the bottom of every edit page says nothing about irrevocability or that by clicking submit you give the WMF a perpetual license to use your works. The section in GFDL that says that the license is unlimited in duration is akin to the provisions of copyright laws that allow for items to fall into the public domain after a period of time. But since GFDL permits free use with attribution then such time limits are irrelevant and naturally the license would have an unlimited duration. But revocation is not imposing a time limit; it is amending and revising a license which copyright is dominant over. If no derivitave works have been created then there is no reason for the WMF to not honor the original author's rights and remove the content. This is the reason we have devices like db-g7.


 * If Wikipedia wants to have the view that GFDL is irrevocable then fine, that's something that can be debated in a court of law. But for the mean time, at least give authors the ability to request that their works that have not been substantively edited be removed. This does not "destroy" the project. 198.203.175.175 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would not destroy the project but it will make it so we cannot depend on the content we have. Thus, it is is our best interests not to let people revoke the license. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the terms of use disclaimer on all edit and uploads pages should be amended to include the statement that any author submitting works gives the WMF permision to perpetually host said works. Otherwise, revocation is still an option. This policy makes a legal argument that is tenuous. The purpose of policy is not to make a legal argument that exists outside the scope of the project. 198.203.175.175 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" at the bottom of every edit window. That is enough. GFDL is very clear about being permanent and only revocable under specific circumstances. As has already been said, if we can use GFDL after the original contributor has revoked it is something to be challenged in court if at all. In the meantime we have the right to refuse editing to anyone, and in this case that includes those that seek to revoke GFDL. This is not a legal argument, but a condition to editing this site, any legal arguments belong off wiki. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of the GFDL do you find that uses the term of art "irrevocable license?" 198.203.175.175 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein". Unlimited in duration. The conditions for termination are very clearly laid out in those conditions. This policy takes those conditions for termination into account. And as I already said, if this interpretation is to be challenged, the wiki is not the place to do it. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlimited in duration might merely mean that without revocation, the license has unlimited duration. In a restricted sense you are right that this wiki is not the place to change an interpretation - that would be up to a court - but as one of the largest collection of GFDL documents on the planet, it is quite likely to be the topic - especially since Wikipedia is the place which is asserting its non-revokability most strongly. GreenReaper (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page here?
I don't see why this page is necessary. It just restates things already in WP:CSD (i.e. that you can't take it back once you've written it) and WP:NLT (i.e. don't threaten to sue anyone over this). Any claims made as to what GDFL means is just commentary that does not have the force of policy and belongs in an essay or at best a "rationale" section for explaining why we have a rule. We have too many policy pages as it is and they're proliferating. Why can't we just merge this one into WP:CSD? Wikidemo 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this has much to share with speedy deletion criteria. -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CSD addresses whether an author can summarily delete his/her articles [contributions], and under what circumstance. It's not permitted if the deletion is out of frustration or some other act of bad faith...we just added mention of this page, that a license revocation is not permitted.Wikidemo 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it relates to CSD is really not the point. The issue is that this page was in effect (somewhat hastily) written to deal with a once-occuring problem, and is really not needed as policy pages go since all it does is restate what is already there. With the aim of keeping the number of policy documents low, I really fail to see the need for this.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was created and deemed policy two days later as a means to permanently ban people who question the legal interpretation of a few people. 198.203.175.175 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we already had No legal threats for that. J- ſtan TalkContribs 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"once-occuring problem"? - for the record it has happened again, this time with PD images. See below. Carcharoth 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A twice-occurring problem, then. If we made a policy out of everything that happens twice on Wikipedia we would have more policies than articles.Wikidemo 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Terms of service rather than policy
This seems to be a term of service rather than a policy. As such it likely should be linked in the disclaimer on edit pages. Policies like WP:NLT already cover remedies in the event that someone attempts to revoke GFDL. Therefore I suggest relabeling this as perhaps an essay or guideline. 198.203.175.175 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Revocation of Public Domain images
Can someone clarify what happens if someone tries to revoke their release of images into the public domain? Carcharoth 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, there isn't a good legal standard or system for an individual to abandon a copyright to the public domain. The attempts to do so recite a lot of stuff but it's not clear they really effect it or that it's even possible to do so.  It's all boilerplate legalese that nobody bothers to read.  Someone could make the argument that the language is ineffective.  However, if it were effective, once something is in the public domain it's impossible for anyone to take it back.  The copyright is extinguished for good.  The GDFL assignment seems a lot more solid because it's a license, something you definitely can accomplish by clicking things online.  However, it too is vulnerable (for text too) in a lot of ways and has not been litigated enough to see how well it might hold up.  I think we have to take the position that neither can be revoked, and though I don't think this policy is important enough to get its own policy page, I think we have to be strict in enforcing a ban on users who attempt to take back their contributions - either by claiming to revoke the copyright grant or simply deleting all their work.  That severely undermines things.Wikidemo 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

History deletion & GFDL
If a user's contribution history on a particular article is deleted, how does that effect the GFDL status of any of their contributions still in the article? Is it enough that deleted revisions are available for review by Oversights, or does GFDL require a publicly-accessible history? I'm concerned that, especially in BLP situations, history deletion may end up forcing complete blanking of the article, in order to avoid a situation where a user could claim we were violating GFDL. I may be overthinking this, however, but it's a point I've heard raised previously, and I don't feel like I have a clear answer about how to comply with GFDL while simultaneously deleting troublesome revisions from the edit history. --Ssbohio (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If an entire contribution is deleted along with the history of it, there's no problem. Each contribution of a user is a separate entity, so deleting one has no effect on any other. Now, if the history line were deleted while the actual contribution was kept, that might be a problem. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's where I see a problem arising. If the final revision of an article is kept, and in incorporates content from one or more deleted revisions, then what's our obligation under GFDL?  If we don't keep a publicly available revision history, do we create a situation where a disgruntled user could demand content removal on the grounds that we "broke" the GFDL? --Ssbohio 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that situation is created. The history doesn't necessarily have to be undeleted, but at a minimum somebody needs to credit the authors. I've seen this done in a few places by cut and pasting the deleted article history onto the talk page. - Ehheh 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also seen that done. Now, I'm not sure that it does the trick, considering some of what I've read here.  If the list of contributors isn't tied in some fashion to each's particular contribution, does it satisfy GFDL?  And, if not, does it give the editor an "out" to revoke/deny/etc the GFDL?  --Ssbohio (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the only requirement is the author and the date of publication be listed - a copy of their specific version isn't required. Remember, the GFDL is supposed to license software manuals being reproduced in print. They wouldn't have space to publish every revision in such a format. - Ehheh (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a Category called Wikimedia no licensing permissions. I'm confused about whether that means that these Wikipedians are dissenting from the GFDL, or something else. It seems like it would be something else, given the number of people in the category. I'm just at a loss as to what the category represents and whether it ties into the discussion here. --Ssbohio (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks to be one of a series stating whether the Wikimedia Foundation may release the user's contributions under a license other than the GFDL, see Userboxes/Large/Licencing. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so it's licenses other than GFDL that the category members demure from. Makes sense. --Ssbohio 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change
The name change was necessary, but I don't like the "almost impossible" wording. It challenges people to try to find a way to do it.

We should go back to "not permitted", which is the real point anyway, because we'll block anyone who tries to for legal threats. rspεεr (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The new wording is too long and seems pointy. Titles should describe the content of the article, not its thesis or conclusion.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rspeer - getting this page moved was on my list of things to do, but the current title is not so great. The "prohibited" wording was better and clearer. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Essay?
Wouldn't Infopage be a better fit for this page? Or even Supplement to WP:NLT or WP:CC-BY-SA? -- &oelig; &trade; 05:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Entire Page Based on a Lie
Nothing in this page quotes any valid law. In fact, it directly refutes the law. Whether revoking a license would "challenge the basis" of the Wikipedia project means nothing. The fact is that a license such as this is not a contract. A contract requires consideration to flow from both parties. A licensor is not receiving any consideration and therefore cannot be bound by any contractual terms. This license can be revoked at any time because there is no consideration to make it binding. Learn what law is. I find it extremely discouraging to see such misinformation spread around here. I would hope it is just out of ignorance, but apparently it appears to be stemming from a mean-spirited desire to prevent people taking their work with them. Leecharleswalker (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a contract. But estoppel applies to promises and representations of fact. Would you care to offer your legal opinion on those topics? (I realize this is a late reply...but I figure that it's making the point for the sake of discussion.) TheFeds 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh...
"In the United States, however, copyright law makes the permanent grant of license to reuse a work impossible. There are provisions in the statute (most notably section 203(a), which governs all transfers and licenses executed since 1978) that permit the creators of copyrighted works to rescind any licenses they previously granted."

Skomorokh  13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

CCL's can be "revoked" (Terminated)
The point of this essay is misleading, at least in regards to CCL's. A lot of editors link to What if I change my Mind? to back it up but do not read the full "answer" given. The second sentence states, in full, "This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license." What is important to understand is what "using the work according to that license" actually means. To understand what it mean one also needs to read the What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work? section of the same FAQ. The very first sentence is "A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms".

The more correct, and accurate, wording throughout this essay would be that the Creative Commons license itself is not revocable, but an end users license can be terminated. Wikipedia is considered an end user, or, in the wording of the license "You." As it is laid out the "Licensor" is allowing "You" to "Publicly Perform" and "Reproduce" the "Work" provided the terms of the "License Grant" are met. Failure by "You" to do so can result in the "License and the rights granted hereunder" to "terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of this essay is that revocation of our licensing is not permitted (you agree to let us redistribute any contributions under CC-BY-SA-3, and that agreement is not revocable). For the purpose of the essay, we don't care about any other reusers. Also, for the purpose of this essay, revocation means unilateral termination of the license by the grantor, and CC licenses do not allow that option. Irrelevant details don't belong in this essay, the point of which is that if you contribute work to Wikipedia under the terms on the edit screen, and we rely on your acceptance of those terms, you lose the ability to come back later after we've made use of our rights and revoke the grant of rights that we are making use of. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. A CCL is *not* "your" license, it is the author/copyright holders license. If someone creates something and offers Wikipedia a license to use it than the "You" in the license *is* Wikipedia. Period. The "agreement" is the CCL and when "You" accept the material for use under the terms of the CCL it is a valid, legally enforceable, document. If Wikipedia is not using the material per the license requirements than Wikipedia's license can be terminated ("revoked"). Keep in mind that Wikipedia has the right to say "no thank you" to any material, even if it is under Wikipedia acceptable license. As of December 2010 Wikipedia itself does not offer any license, it only *accepts* other licenses. There is difference. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The agreement on the editing screen is also a valid, legally enforceable document. Anyone who submits an edit to Wikipedia does so under those terms, which allow us to redistribute the edit under our CC licensing. That means that we do not only have the rights under the CC license, but also the rights granted to us under the agreement on the edit screen (please do go read it). And, again, CC licenses do not allow for unilateral termination (it's not true that they "can be terminated (revoked)"); rather, the license automatically terminates under some conditions. If you don't quite understand the distinction, I would take that up with the Foundation; this isn't a useful place for legal theories. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Wikipedia is allowing others to use material found on Wikipedia under a CCL, yes, but not "our" CCL. What Wikipedia is allowing people to use is either an "Adaptation" or "Collection" and the license terms are not laid out by Wikipedia first, but by the "Licensor"/"Original Author" of any included material. To be clear - if person "A" uploads an image and says that "copyright 2010 by 'A'" must appear with the image Wikipedia in required to follow that attribution requirement. If Wikipedia is offering a version made from the original Wikipedia must take "reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work." Again, this is *not* a Wikipedia "source" license.
 * 1. Copyright holder distributes material via an accepted CCL.
 * 2. Wikipedia uses that material in an article.
 * 3. Someone takes that material and uses it. Provided Wikipedia has done it's "job" the new end user has all the needed information in order to keep the original license valid.
 * 4. If number 1 looks at number 3's version and it does not follow the terms of the license given by number 1 for use of their material than the rights to use number 1's material "terminate automatically upon any breach by You (number 3) of the terms of this License."
 * 5. If number 1 looks at number 2 and sees that number 2 is not following the licensing terms for their material than number 2's right to use number 1's material "terminate automatically upon any breach by You (number 2) of the terms of this License."
 * 6. And remember - number 2 has the same rights so if number 2 looks at number 3's version and it does not follow the terms of the license given by number 2 than the rights to use some or all of the material obtained from number 2 "terminate automatically upon any breach by You (number 3) of the terms of this License."


 * Further the wording of the license is implicit that the terms of the license can not be changed unless "otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor." To follow your logic above one has to assume that, first, a random person lifting an image from, say, Flickr, and who uploads it here is acting as an agent for the original copyright holder and, second, that random person understands the license and conditions of use. Show me where, for example, on Upload/Flickr it states that the copyright holders licensing terms are to be ignored? Show me where in Uploading a file from someone else it says Wikipedia policy nulls any valid license? You can't because it doesn't. If you don't quite understand the distinction between a website policy and a license granted to that website you can take that up elsewhere. My point is that this essay is a broad sweep based on an overall wording. One license does not fit all but is specific regards to CCL's a true factual statement is that a Creative Commons license can not be revoked once it is released, but that individual licenses can be "terminated." Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ternination rights
I just added a section on termination rights to the essay, pointing out that US law (specifically 17 USC 203, which I footnote) reserves to the author(s) the right to terminate any and all grants (which include licenses) during the period from 35-40 years after publication (or after creation). This right cannot be waived or contracted away. To excersize it requires giving notice two to ten years in advance. This means it is unlikley to be used often, but it remains legally possible, and nothing in the license terms, or in any TOU provision or in anything agreed to as a condition of editing can waive this right of authorship. Only works made for hire are exempt. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I see this was noted more than 9 years ago in the section above but not responded to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)