On 2/20/10 10:46 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Ray Saintonge, 20/02/2010 03:03: >> That's stupid!!!! When these logos were submitted these rules to >> appease small bureaucratic minds did not exist. Anyone making a >> submission simply agreed that his submissions were under GFDL. > > This is explicit since 2005: http://meta.wikimedia.org/?oldid=125186 > And, Meta is not Commons. > > Nemo
yeah, and the logo contest was done before 2005, and at that time, if my memory is correct, there was a little text under the SAVE button that stated something such as "your modifications are under GFDL". So, in reality, any edit made at that time followed the rules of modifications of the website, and were gfdl. Unfortunately, later, the rules changed and the obligation is now to put a tag ON the description page. That does not mean that all the content put on meta before 2005 suddenly became copyrighted because the rules changed. IF these images are considered copyrighted, then the entirety of meta content written between 2001 and 2005 is copyrighted and it is probably best to entirely delete it. To be honnest, I am tempted to be bold and to add a tag "GFDL" on all image description page. THAT WAS THE EDITING RULE at that time. Ant > >> Another way to look at it: If someone uploads something today in full >> compliance with today's rules the likelihood remains that new rules will >> develop in the next five years, and the problems will start all over >> again then in circumstances where the only person capable of compliance >> is no longer available. This kind of situation puts all history at risk. >> Putting history at risk threatens reliability when rules only permit us >> to express half-truths. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
