Brianna Laugher wrote:
3. In order to
grant their obvious wish to release these images under a
free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images
4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license
information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he
should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly
That's not a bad idea actually. As long as we leave {{OwnWork}}.
With all our bots running around now there should be far fewer cases.
Probably I would just make it {{GFDL}} though. I think it'd be
stretching it to put a CC license, just because we like them. :)
Whereas it's much more likely they're aware that Wikipedia is GFDL.
At the moment {{own work}} actually says it is depreciated to NLD. :|
I rather disagree with this but I understand the need for it. These
OwnWorks just hang around forever...
Brianna
At the German Wikipedia a similar template
({{Bild-wahrscheinlich-GFDL}}, "Image likely to be GFDL") has been
deleted recently because it was not clear in some cases whether the user
really wanted to release it under this license. de:User:Historiograf
stated that one should not simply assume a license under which a picture
is released, especially it a user did not understand the "legal
technicalities".
The whole discusson can be found at
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen&…
Matt
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Historiograf>