Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-03

=Kept=

Template Review
{{closed|1=Kept as they do not seem to inhibit commercial or derivative uses.--Jusjih (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)|text= In light of the Open Government License, the following template should ideally be reviewed, and the works tagged with them migrated.


 * Template:UK-Crown-waiver
 * Template:PD-UK-EdictGov

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Migrated to where, and why? Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Migrated to {{tl|OGL}} because that's what appears to now cover material that was under the OPSI/FOIA waiver on public sector information. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved from Scriptorium, Jeepday (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * These aren't Copyright violations :) OGL is compatible with Creative Commons style licenses. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that we would be more likely to review the licensing that we have for each work, check it against the original, and updating as necessary. When the templates are unused, then we look at the process to manage.  UK's licensing is not absolute from my understanding and we would still need to licence appropriately. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of works are automatically now under the OGL -- that would include material under the two above licenses, I think. It's not a blanket permission for all government work -- several departments have the right to control their own works -- but a fair bit is now automatically under that license.  I don't like the wording of the PD-UK-EdictGov, since such works are not necessarily PD there (has to wait for Crown Copyright to expire), but those are now basically mentioned as automatically being under the OGL license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So it sounds like everything in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-UK-EdictGov and in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:UK-Crown-waiver (about 50 works total) needs to be individually considered for licensing with {{tl|OGL}}. When the everything has been re-licensed (or not), come back here for consideration on what is left, and disposition of {{tl|PD-UK-EdictGov}} & {{tl|UK-Crown-waiver}}. Jeepday (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Updated the legislation items Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The residue seems to be Cabinet papers relating to Malaya, and extracts from Hansard (which would be under Open Parliamentary Livense I think.)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t see anything claimimg PD with only this license, so there are no possible licensing (copyright status) issues for works related solely to this license. See below seeking community consensus on the fate of the license. Jeepday (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep or delete
Should this license by kept or deleted? }}

Index:Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 - Exposure Draft.pdf‎
=Deleted=

2012 Presidential campaign works
=Other=