Why exactly is this template on the Commons? Obviously, it is an attempt to make commercial use as difficult as possible. Arguably it does that, and the image ultimately is freely licensed so there is no issue with it being on the Commons.
However, this style of template is contrary to the goal of free content. Any non-commercial user who uses an image to make a derivative is almost certainly going to pick the non-commercial CC license instead of the GFDL (as its easier to use); it will be rare that they will care about the free content mission enough to choose the "nasty" GFDL. This means that any derivatives will not be free content and furthermore due to the SA term any further derivatives will be locked in a non-commercial state.
If people have qualms about the commercial use of their image, then they should not be uploading it as "free" content. I think any images tagged with this template should be moved to GFDL-only licensing, Commons should not allow ever non-free licensing even as part of a dual license
Nilfanion
On 8/4/07, Nilfanion nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
Commons should not allow ever non-free licensing even as part of a dual license
Should we disallow PD or minimal licenses which allow later versions to be made non-free?
I don't see how this is any worse.
I suppose you could make an argument that -nc looks more okay than it is... and as such this is more of a problem normal licenses which allow a work to be made non-free.
Of course, the other issue is CC licenses are confusing enough as it is. This seems to suggest that Commons endorses the non-commercial license in some sense.
This license combination seems to be created solely to make commercial use as hard as possible whilst salving the uploader's conscience that it is still "free" (as it is technically...). If we just retag them to GFDL and move on would there be an issue?
On 04/08/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/4/07, Nilfanion nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
Commons should not allow ever non-free licensing even as part of a dual license
Should we disallow PD or minimal licenses which allow later versions to be made non-free?
I don't see how this is any worse.
I suppose you could make an argument that -nc looks more okay than it is... and as such this is more of a problem normal licenses which allow a work to be made non-free.
On 8/4/07, Nilfanion nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote:
Of course, the other issue is CC licenses are confusing enough as it is. This seems to suggest that Commons endorses the non-commercial license in some sense.
This license combination seems to be created solely to make commercial use as hard as possible whilst salving the uploader's conscience that it is still "free" (as it is technically...). If we just retag them to GFDL and move on would there be an issue?
Yes it could potentially be a violation of the terms of the GFDL (preserve all copyright notices).
Trying to get the FSF to fix the GFDL or the GSFDL
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gsfdl-draft-1.html
Would probably be a better aproach if you think there is a reasonable chance they might do so.
On 8/4/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to get the FSF to fix the GFDL or the GSFDL
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gsfdl-draft-1.html
Would probably be a better aproach if you think there is a reasonable chance they might do so.
That draft is fairly old now.. a better place to send people is:
On 04/08/07, Nilfanion nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote:
Why exactly is this template on the Commons? Obviously, it is an attempt to make commercial use as difficult as possible. Arguably it does that, and the image ultimately is freely licensed so there is no issue with it being on the Commons.
However, this style of template is contrary to the goal of free content. Any non-commercial user who uses an image to make a derivative is almost certainly going to pick the non-commercial CC license instead of the GFDL (as its easier to use); it will be rare that they will care about the free content mission enough to choose the "nasty" GFDL. This means that any derivatives will not be free content and furthermore due to the SA term any further derivatives will be locked in a non-commercial state.
If people have qualms about the commercial use of their image, then they should not be uploading it as "free" content. I think any images tagged with this template should be moved to GFDL-only licensing, Commons should not allow ever non-free licensing even as part of a dual license
Something I've seen on enwp, and I suspect it's probably around quietly on Commons as well - people licensing their images and then adding (pre-emptively) a note saying "by the way, if you want to use it for X or Y, go ahead with no strings attached, don't feel the need to ask me permission".
That's a clearly nonfree license - should we prevent people doing this as well? If not, where do we draw a line?
There are also the edge cases of "licenses that may not be completely free" - witness the CC 3.0 debate, and there will no doub be similar undetermined cases in the future. It seems vaguely sensible to allow people to dual-license with these whilst we figure out the details...
I do feel it's helpful to our reusers - Commons serving to provide free content to the wider community as well as WMF - to list all the possible criteria under which an image can be used, to give them flexibility. Perhaps what we need to consider here is *emphasising* the free license[s] - the one we use it under - and having a clearly secondary "other reuse licenses" line?
On 05/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Something I've seen on enwp, and I suspect it's probably around quietly on Commons as well - people licensing their images and then adding (pre-emptively) a note saying "by the way, if you want to use it for X or Y, go ahead with no strings attached, don't feel the need to ask me permission".
That's a clearly nonfree license - should we prevent people doing this as well? If not, where do we draw a line?
I don't quite understand what the problem here is? Is it the implication that others should ask for permission first? Because it's only an implication - not a fact.
I do feel it's helpful to our reusers - Commons serving to provide free content to the wider community as well as WMF - to list all the possible criteria under which an image can be used, to give them flexibility. Perhaps what we need to consider here is *emphasising* the free license[s] - the one we use it under - and having a clearly secondary "other reuse licenses" line?
I don't quite know what you mean -- all the criteria under which an image can be used? Commons accepts the Freedom Defined definition of "free-content license" which lists what freedoms must be allowed for a license to be considered a "free" one.
I agree that we should actively discourage people from doing this kind of tricky thing, just as we should actively encourage people to upload hi-res originals, and not just be content with people uploading thumbnails or watermarked images. We should try and push the free-content line, but I don't think that means we need to refuse freely-licensed (but trickily managed) works when people do things like this.
What we really need to do is find out why they think this is necessary, and badger them into understanding it's not that cool. Maybe their goals won't align with ours and they won't change their mind. That's OK, we can still take their work and move on. ;)
So in line with that I think we should continue to allow 2nd or 3rd licenses to be non-free, but we should not allow any template for this situation. Keep the situation that people have to manually write the non-free licenses. Apparently templates do funny things to people's brains :)
cheers Brianna
Maybe we should subst out any use of these templates, and then delete the templates themselves. We certainly should make it as hard as possible to for new users *find* these licenses and discourage the uptake of them in preference to ones more compatible with the goals of Commons.
I just feel uneasy about Commons saying "here's an image: you can use it under either of these licenses", when one is non-free. If contributors want to offer non-free licenses they can, but ideally it should not feel like Commons endorses it - "Contact me for alternative licenses" as opposed to a NC-license on the image page.
On 8/5/07, Nilfanion nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe we should subst out any use of these templates, and then delete the templates themselves. We certainly should make it as hard as possible to for new users *find* these licenses and discourage the uptake of them in preference to ones more compatible with the goals of Commons.
I just feel uneasy about Commons saying "here's an image: you can use it under either of these licenses", when one is non-free. If contributors want to offer non-free licenses they can, but ideally it should not feel like Commons endorses it - "Contact me for alternative licenses" as opposed to a NC-license on the image page.
I agree with this reasoning.
I've long invited people to contact me for alternative terms, and I think thats the best way to go.
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 08:11 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/5/07, Nilfanion nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote:
I just feel uneasy about Commons saying "here's an image: you can use it under either of these licenses", when one is non-free. If contributors want to offer non-free licenses they can, but ideally it should not feel like Commons endorses it - "Contact me for alternative licenses" as opposed to a NC-license on the image page.
I agree with this reasoning.
I've long invited people to contact me for alternative terms, and I think thats the best way to go.
I agree. Although I love seeing CC BY and BY-SA used here, I don't see any point in noting the availability of a work under any license that is unacceptable to the Commons, nor if the unacceptable license is a CC license as it is in this discussion, can I see how that would encourage the use of acceptable CC licenses in the long term.