MediaWiki talk:Licenses

Placeholder text to enable uploading after 136520.

Please put license options here as explained on MediaWiki.org (see Commons as an example).

Using only UploadWizard for uploads
Hello! It was noted that on this wiki upload is not fully functional for users, who will experience a very difficult and/or illegal uploading. In fact, the licenses/copyright tags dropdown is empty, making it hard or impossible to comply with copyright requirements during upload itself.

Presumably, you don't have interest nor energies to have hundreds templates with the now required HTML, even less a local EDP. I propose to have so that you can avoid local maintenance and all users can have a functioning, easy upload interface in their own language. All registered users can upload on Commons and existing files will not be affected.
 * local "" restricted to the "" group (for emergency uploads) and
 * the sidebar point to commons:Special:UploadWizard,

All this will get done around 2014-07-03.
 * 1) If you disagree with the proposal, just remove your wiki from the list. Remember also to create MediaWiki:Licenses locally with any content (see a simple example), or uploads will be soon disabled anyway by MediaWiki itself (starting in version 1.24wmf11).
 * 2) To make the UploadWizard even better, please tell your experience and ideas on commons:Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.

Nemo 13:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove GFDL opinions or not?
Like what did elsewhere (cf. m:User:MGA73/Media per wiki), I guess these opinion entries: can go out from this page. GFDL is an old-sunshine license that are more and more problematic for re-users, it requires a full copy of license text body for each re-using. Since Commons, English and Japanese Wikipedias are decided to highly restricted their use of GFDL(-only) tags (generally, unless a new file is related to GFDL-licensed documentation(s) of software and/or its screenshots/logos, GFDL is no longer an opinion for new files), and many other Wikipedias and Wikisources are even fully stopped further use of GFDL tags, I wonder why can't en.wikisource be one too?!
 * self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all|migration=redundant|Own work, copyleft, attribution required (Multi-license GFDL, CC-BY-SA all versions)
 * self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant|Own work, copyleft, attribution required (GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0)
 * self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0|migration=redundant|Own work, attribution required (GFDL, CC-BY 3.0)

Pinging past editors of this: and other IAs (Xover and  as nowadays only both are able to edit here). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Liuxinyu970226: Wikisource is somewhat different from other projects in ways that are relevant to the GFDL issue. For one thing, almost all our content is a text (a book, say) where the inclusion of the text of the GFDL is not necessarily a problem. And almost all our content is also either straight up public domain (i.e. irrelevant to GFDL) or its copyright and licensing is from a third party (we're only reproducing it under whatever license it is under). Unlike, say, Wikipedia where almost all content is produced by the editors themselves and thus subject to their copyright (and the ToS-provided mandatory license), or Commons that mainly hosts multimedia objects (images, video) where the inclusion of a long license text is not feasible.That being said, our treatment of licensing in general is a bit laissez-faire, and we have not really looked into the GFDL issue(s) and their consequence for enWS in any detail. I would personally like to get rid of it completely for several reasons, but I don't really have any marshalled arguments for why we need to get rid of it (or restrict it beyond some commonsensical ones).In any case, a discussion of our licensing policy would need to happen at our Village Pump. Xover (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Liuxinyu970226 that GFDL is a bad license. But if it is combined with cc-by-sa-3.0 for example then its not as bad as if it was GFDL only. But the ping made me look for files and I raised a question on Scriptorium. If possible I think the files should be uploaded to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)