{{GFDL-1.2}} was nominated for deletion on the grounds it is not actually that free. I'm not trying to express an opinion on whether it is worth keeping or not, but feel that COM:DEL should not be used as the primary discussion venue for the validity of a template.
I've closed the debate (though I may end up getting overturned), and moved the discussion to the (previously empty) talk page - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:GFDL-1.2
This post is just to notify of the discussion and to see if this approach (establish validity and determine strategy on the template's talk as opposed to COM:DEL) is more appropriate than on a deletion discussion - which with high-use templates tends to generate badly.
Hi Nilfanion,
On Thu, March 13, 2008 5:43 pm, Nilfanion wrote:
{{GFDL-1.2}} was nominated for deletion on the grounds it is not actually that free. I'm not trying to express an opinion on whether it is worth keeping or not, but feel that COM:DEL should not be used as the primary discussion venue for the validity of a template.
I've closed the debate (though I may end up getting overturned), and moved the discussion to the (previously empty) talk page - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:GFDL-1.2
This post is just to notify of the discussion and to see if this approach (establish validity and determine strategy on the template's talk as opposed to COM:DEL) is more appropriate than on a deletion discussion - which with high-use templates tends to generate badly.
While not criticizing your decision itself, I just wonder why you did not take the actual use of this template into account. We are currently having some problems with User:Steschke [1] illustrating the current typical usage of this license. AFAIK Gmaxwell is the only contributor broadly releasing files as GFDL-1.2 who did not retract GFDL-self.
Regards, Adrian / Codeispoetry
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steschke/licence&dif... and following diffs (the ip is steschke itself while blocked)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Codeispoetry codeispoetry@adrianlang.de wrote:
Hi Nilfanion,
On Thu, March 13, 2008 5:43 pm, Nilfanion wrote:
{{GFDL-1.2}} was nominated for deletion on the grounds it is not actually that free. I'm not trying to express an opinion on whether it is worth keeping or not, but feel that COM:DEL should not be used as the primary discussion venue for the validity of a template.
I've closed the debate (though I may end up getting overturned), and moved the discussion to the (previously empty) talk page - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:GFDL-1.2
This post is just to notify of the discussion and to see if this approach (establish validity and determine strategy on the template's talk as opposed to COM:DEL) is more appropriate than on a deletion discussion - which with high-use templates tends to generate badly.
While not criticizing your decision itself, I just wonder why you did not take the actual use of this template into account. We are currently having some problems with User:Steschke [1] illustrating the current typical usage of this license. AFAIK Gmaxwell is the only contributor broadly releasing files as GFDL-1.2 who did not retract GFDL-self.
Regards, Adrian / Codeispoetry
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steschke/licence&dif... and following diffs (the ip is steschke itself while blocked)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Because people misuse a template should not be a reason to delete the template.
I believe there are some regular FP contributors who use this template. Deleting it many images.
Bryan
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting it many images.
That should have said "Deleting it implies deleting 3867 images".
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:14 pm, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting it many images.
That should have said "Deleting it implies deleting 3867 images".
That’s not correct since many of these files are double licensed. And in fact a template which is mainly used to disrupt the project is not really useful.
Regards Adrian / Codeispoetry
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Codeispoetry codeispoetry@adrianlang.de wrote:
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:14 pm, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting it many images.
That should have said "Deleting it implies deleting 3867 images".
That's not correct since many of these files are double licensed. And in fact a template which is mainly used to disrupt the project is not really useful.
Regards Adrian / Codeispoetry
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I agree that the template is being misued. However there are also users who are not misusing this template. The correct course of action would be applying the banhammer to people misusing this template.
Bryan
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:27 pm, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Codeispoetry codeispoetry@adrianlang.de wrote:
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:14 pm, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting it many images.
That should have said "Deleting it implies deleting 3867 images".
That's not correct since many of these files are double licensed. And in fact a template which is mainly used to disrupt the project is not really useful.
Regards Adrian / Codeispoetry
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I agree that the template is being misued. However there are also users who are not misusing this template. The correct course of action would be applying the banhammer to people misusing this template.
Bryan
A simple revert would do well, actually. I still can't see a point in using this template, but well.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Codeispoetry codeispoetry@adrianlang.de wrote:
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:14 pm, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting it many images.
That should have said "Deleting it implies deleting 3867 images".
That's not correct since many of these files are double licensed. And in fact a template which is mainly used to disrupt the project is not really useful.
Could you elaborate on what you are refering to? It is hard for me to imagine how the presense of absense of "or later versions" could really be a significant disruption to the project, given that there isn't even a later version to refer to.
-Robert A. Rohde
PS. Along with Gmaxwell, I am one of those people who uses GFDL-1.2 rather than simply GFDL because as a matter of principle I prefer not to agree to new licenses until I've at least had a chance to review them.
than simply GFDL because as a matter of principle I prefer not to agree to new licenses until I've at least had a chance to review them.
GFDL(-and-later-versions) isn't the only alternative to GFDL-1.2. What's wrong with CC-BY-SA (any version you like)?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
than simply GFDL because as a matter of principle I prefer not to agree
to
new licenses until I've at least had a chance to review them.
GFDL(-and-later-versions) isn't the only alternative to GFDL-1.2. What's wrong with CC-BY-SA (any version you like)?
I do use CC licenses (and dual-license at times). Relevant to this discussion, it is worth noting that "or later versions" is required, rather than optional, with the current CC-SA licenses. However, clauses that allow legally binding documents to be unilaterally changed by third parties are always going to make me uncomfortable no matter how many phrases about "similar in spirit" one includes in the text, or how respected the license writers may be.
-Robert Rohde
I'm not sure where the thoughts on the de WP that GFDL-1.2 is not free came from specifically, but I suspect that they are thinking solely in terms of print reuse - not that significant. The most important downstream use of Commons materiel is electronic anyway, so GFDL-1.2 is as free as Wikipedia at the present.
As for my rationale, I tried to avoid weighing up the template itself heavily (apart from to see that there are good reasons on both sides). I've given a more detailed rationale to my decision at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Disputes_noticeboard&... and I think I'm right in saying that most contributors to this thread who had not participated on COM:DEL, only became aware of it due to my initial post.
I agree with Bryan's initial post here: misuse of a template should be dealt with by resolving issues with the users not the template. The help of de.wp admins to determine what images have been made less free through this would be beneficial, but that exploit is no reason to delete in of and as of itself imo.
help of de.wp admins to determine what images have been made less free through this would be beneficial, but that exploit is no reason to delete in of and as of itself imo.
?! The misuse cases are not the reason for the abolition of GFDL-1.2(-only). And "that exploit is no reason to delete" thus is (most likely unintentional) a strawmanish argument.
Invalid license revocation transcends the GFDL-1.2 problem and we don't really have to discuss it here. I think it's pretty clear that such actions (if committed in bad faith) warrant a block.
On Thu, March 13, 2008 9:33 pm, Robert Rohde wrote:
Could you elaborate on what you are refering to? It is hard for me to imagine how the presense of absense of "or later versions" could really be a significant disruption to the project, given that there isn't even a later version to refer to.
-Robert A. Rohde
PS. Along with Gmaxwell, I am one of those people who uses GFDL-1.2 rather than simply GFDL because as a matter of principle I prefer not to agree to new licenses until I've at least had a chance to review them.
As far as I know there are current efforts to greatly enhance compatibility between GFDL and CC-by-sa, this of course would need a new GFDL version. There is a common practice of some de users to use GFDL as sort of noncommercial license since GFDL basically does not allow any commercial use for practical reasons, and they want to keep it that way with limiting there files to 1.2. This winter there were even mass edits relicensing CC files to GFDL and later hiding the old version and licensing via commons transfer. These activities clearly were not performed with the idea of free content in mind and thus against one of our major guidelines. I'm sorry for associating you with such efforts, that was not my intention ;-)
Regards, Adrian / Codeispoetry