Hi Peter,
This has nothing to do with GLAM's any more so moving over to Commons-l.
Please direct any further replies in this thread to that (public)
mailing list.
Op 15-1-2012 11:16, Peter Weis schreef:
4. Is the community willing to delete files that do not comply to
compatibility (given the rightholders can't change them)?
I'll give you an example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-CC-triple
This "licence template" is invalid since licencing a work by CC-BY-SA
Unported 3.0 and CC-BY-ND Generic 2.5 is not possible (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_derive_or_adapt_a_work_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_apply_to_the_resulting_work.3F )
I've not checked all the combinations throughout the Commons. Yet this
example is one of those licence templates that has to be deleted ASAP
(yes I'm aware of it nomination for deletion).
My question is whether we as a community are willing to delete files
that obiviously don't comply to the compatibility issues. Or if this
will end in a "licence migration" which already happened for GFDL (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GFDL_1.3_relicensing_criteria ).
You made a logical mistake here. I, the author can license a file under
the cc-nc-sa-3.0 and the cc-by-sa-2.5 and the GFDL and whatever more
license I want.
You, as a reuser, can choose under which license you want. So you can
choose to use it under the cc-nc-sa-3.0 or the cc-by-sa-2.5 or the GFDL.
I don't like this template, but it's perfectly acceptable for Commons.
Maarten
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
