Jump to content

User talk:Ram-Man: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Dcoetzee (talk | contribs)
Response to comment on my talk page re multilicense under public domain
Nevilley (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 282: Line 282:
I will not release my work with less than GFDL. I'm not getting paid for the stuff I write, and I don't want someone else to profit from it while claiming they wrote it. I also don't want people to restrict the rights of the downstream users of the content.
I will not release my work with less than GFDL. I'm not getting paid for the stuff I write, and I don't want someone else to profit from it while claiming they wrote it. I also don't want people to restrict the rights of the downstream users of the content.
I do appreciate the work you have done, but I wonder why you contributed it without understanding the implications of the GFDL. [[User:Christopher Mahan|Christopher Mahan]] 19:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do appreciate the work you have done, but I wonder why you contributed it without understanding the implications of the GFDL. [[User:Christopher Mahan|Christopher Mahan]] 19:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for the note. I have done the <nowiki>{{MultiLicensePD}}</nowiki> option. I am no longer here, so I am keen for people to have the best possible access. Regards, [[User:Nevilley|Nevilley]] 21:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:11, 9 December 2004

archive1 - archive2 - archive3 - archive4    [perform archive]

Notes

Contributions made from this account are multi-licensed. See Ram-Man for detailed licensing information.

Bot Information

See User:rambot and the FAQ for current bot running information such as tasks and IP address. Before notifying me about any problems, please see the list of known problems on that page. Feel free to post any other important bugs and information below.

Multi-Licensing FAQ

Q: What are you trying to do in a nutshell?
A: Wikipedia's articles can be shared with any other GFDL projects but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.
Q: Is there a Wikipedia namespace article dealing with multi-licensing?
A: Yes, at the Guide to Multi-licensing. See also the Free the Rambot Articles Project page.
Q: If the GFDL is free and open, then why can't other people use our articles?
A: Because while the GFDL is "free and open", it is only free and open in the sense that the terms of the GFDL are followed. Put simply: It is absolutely restricted to only those projects that use the exact same license. If the average person wants to use our articles, it must release whatever it is working on under the GFDL. Imagine that I was running a project similar to Wikipedia, but it had a different license. I may have a million articles, but I can't add ANY of them to Wikipedia because the license doesn't match. Both may be "free and open", but they are not the same license. The terms "free" and "open" are somewhat misleading. The only "free" and "open" license is the public domain, where no copyright is asserted; however, any modifications made to public domain information can be placed in a more restrictive license, which is what these "open and free" licenses try to prevent. In order to enforce copyleft you have to be restricted to a particular license. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Q: So how do we get around these problems?
A: You can't get around all of the problems, but you can agree to multi-license your original personal contributions for which you own the copyright. Ideally, if you multi-license your contributions under every "open and free" license, then ANYONE can truly use your stuff and it will always be protected by copyleft.
Q: What's the catch?
A: Since you offer the choice of multiple licenses, someone can take your work and choose which license to use, make a modification under one license and not release it under all of the licenses. Thus it is possible that modifications made to Wikipedia articles could be shared with others but they may choose not to share back with us. There is no way around this. It is idealistic and assumes that others are as altruistic as you are. Of course there are times when someone has to do this, for instance, in a document that is already licensed under an alternative license that can't be changed. You have to decide whether being truly "open and free" is most important or if instead being somewhat open and free but mostly protecting your own interests is most important.
Q: Should I use the public domain?
A: If you are willing to give up your copyright to your changes and you accept that other people may make modifications to your stuff and place it under a more restrictive license (other places, not here at Wikipedia where it will be open always), then maybe this is right for you. Many people choose this because they don't care about the above problems and if you license into the public domain, then it is compatible with EVERY license and you never have to think about multi-licensing again. Once and done.
Q: Where can I put a copyright message other than my personal user page?
A: Create a [[User:YOUR_USERNAME/Copyrights]] page and place the proper templates there. This will set up the proper categories to allow us to automatically track the users who do this. If it is not a big deal, you can also add a small link from your user page to the subpage to allow the average user to find it easily, but this is not required.
Q: I wrote it, but now so many people edited it that I hardly recognize my text. What if no one else releases it? Is the article unusable?
A: If you authored a text but only you multi-licensed it, then only those old versions of the article are multi-licensed. The rest of the editors must be asked to release their changes or the newer versions are unusable. Luckily, as more and more people multi-license, the number of articles are growing that have been edited totally by people who have multi-licensed. Also a large number of the most active Wikipedians have agreed to multi-license, so the users who are not as active don't make as big of a dent against multi-licensing.
Q: What about small edits/vandals/reverts?
A: Certain minor edits, such as fixing typos, are not considered to be copyrightable under U.S. copyright law because such edits are too trivial to be a copyrightable creative expression. When we perform a revert or fix to vandalism, we are essentially going back to a previous version that may have been multi-licensed. It is in essence removing the non-multi-licensed portion of the article. So vandalism is not a problem.
Q: Can you summarize the public domain, GFDL, and CC-by-sa license and the implications of using them?
A:
  • The public domain is not really a license, instead, it is a statement that you will choose to release all claims to copyright for what you would have otherwise owned the copyright to. This allows anyone and everyone to use your contributions for any purpose. The tradeoff is that it is possible that someone can modify your contributions and release the modified version under a more restrictive license so that not even you could use it for free. They will own the copyright for the derivative work.
  • The GFDL is a copyleft license that requires that any copy must also be released under the GFDL. Documents under the GFDL can be sold commercially with a few restrictions. Unique to the GFDL are "invariant sections" which cannot be removed or modified and not permitting Digital rights management. The former has caused a number of problems here at Wikipedia. The GFDL is incompatible with the popular GPL. The GFDL requires that credit be given for work. See the GFDL article for additional information on the problems with the GFDL.
  • The CC-by-sa is a newer copyleft license similar to the GFDL, with a few additional differences. The CC-by-sa license requires that every editor of a document be properly attributed if the document is copied, thus making sure you always receive credit for your work. It is a bit more specific on how this should be done than the GFDL. It also does not require you to give pages and pages of legal text with each document, but only a URL to the license document, as opposed to the GFDL which makes you include the entire text with each copy.

Talk

Article licensing

I have dual licensed my own material under CC-BY-SA. I see no need to do that for Robbot, since its changes are all so trivial that I do not consider them copyrightable, and thus being in the public domain by default. - Andre Engels 14:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added CC-by-SA to my user page. - UtherSRG 17:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is probably going to sound terribly anal. :) I'd like to license my text contributions as PD, but I would like photographs I've taken myself and uploaded to be CC-by-SA. How would I go about wording that? - Hephaestos|§ 18:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You give me way too much credit, man. I don't understand hardly a word of what you're asking me to do. Dumb it down, way down. Everyking 19:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, well, if I had any objections to people freely using my work I wouldn't be here, so I put the message on my user page. Everyking 22:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have dual licensed my contributions and placed a notice on my user page. olderwiser 21:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I used to have a notice on my user page saying that all my text is in the public domain (and whatever I write still is), but what with one thing and another it kept getting lost. It might be an idea to maintain a central list of multiply-licensed contributions rather than putting it on separate user pages... 62.254.128.4 22:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Kate, not logged in)

Hey Ram-Man, I think the only work I have ever done on US city articles is adding a tiny sentence to Lakeland, Florida. So you can do whatever you want with that... Adam Bishop 01:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with licensing my edits in whatever way you want to do it. RickK 05:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've put the licence on my user page. jimfbleak 07:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider it, but for whatever reason my brain just doesn't seem to grok it all just at the moment. (I'm tempted to blame Effexor.) I'll read up a bit more on it when my synapses are firing properly. Bearcat 00:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've taken your suggestion and multi-licensed my edits into the public domain. Hope this is helpful to you, and thanks for the fine work on the Rambot articles; it's nice to be able to type "So and so was born in [[Small Town, Iowa]]..." with confidence it'll be there. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. I've often complained that the GFDL is clunky, and have been chewing on the idea of releasing my edits under a more general license (what you called multi-licensing). I just haven't thought it through to the point of deciding on a license and doing it. I should do so now. VeryVerily 09:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you check my comments on the Talk page for Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual? Thanks. RickK 07:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I basically know nothing about licensing, so I asked my brother, who does, and he said it was a good idea, so I added the dual license template to my user page. And I very much agree with Meelar about how convenient the consistent naming is--not having to check every time. Niteowlneils 00:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS should I change the tags on the handful of city-related pics and maps I've contributed? Niteowlneils 02:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to dual-license my contributions, and I've put the suggested template on my user page. I note that I've been invited because I'm in the top 1000 sexiest/richest/most active wikipedians, I hope this doesn't mean I'll get lots of requests for donations / offers of marriage / missives from Nigerians needing help to transfer encyclopedia articles out of their country. -gadfium 19:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will release any edits to articles started by Rambot into the public domain. If there are any other types of licensing that would help you let me know. I don't want to release everything into the public domain, but I'm quite willing to grant licenses to people who need them. anthony 警告 22:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ram-man - thanks for the note; I don't have a clue what all these various different gfdls and ccbycs and pds and so on mean, they're all written in jargonese that I don't understand (I just stick 'gfdl' on my pics because everyone else does), but I'm happy for anyone to use what I put on wikipedia freely however they wish (which is what I thought wikipedia was all about!) . . . does that help at all? What do you think is the most appropriate one to use then? - MPF 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have basically the same thing to say as MPF - I don't have any idea what you're talking about or what you want me to do :) But I will stick the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on my page, I guess. Adam Bishop 20:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Does that help to explain it?" - not really! But I'm happy to change to whichever is best! - MPF 22:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'll dual license. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a clarification. I certainly don't want to release my work into the public domain: Wikipedia mirrors are bad enough, I don't want to encourage an uncredited equivalent. I'm open to pretty much any use that gives attribution. Is there a particular combination that amounts to that? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I just dual-licensed my contributions under cc-by-sa. --Magnus Manske 09:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

My works here are placed in the public domain, and I have put the requisite template stuff on my user page. —Morven 18:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I just dual-licensed all my state, county, and city contributions, and added the appropriate template to my user page. Rlquall

I've added Option 1 to my User-Page. Reubenbarton 19:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You asked me a question, I answered yes -- connect the dots... Lirath Q. Pynnor

I've chosen PD. I agree with Everyking. Dumb it down in the future. -- user:zanimum

Ive hardly ever contributed to city articles on Wikipedia - its just not my thing, so it doesnt really make much sense to deal with that. Ive left a comment under the vote section for you though. Otherwise I wish you luck. -SV 21:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • "I would like for more than just the rambot articles to be multi-licensed, it is just that I want to focus my attention on the first goal while always striving for the second."

I would suggest a concurrent drive to list users who want to pd license all of their contributions... in the end it may not matter. Keep in mind that the point of a open license is to "protect" the open use of material from being claimed as property. PD does not carry this kind of protection, and hence it may fly in the face of WP goals, which desires to keep its material under the protection of the GFDL. I may not be entirely clear about that part, but in anycase if you are completely forthright about your intentions it can help your cause. "The fact is that about 90% or so of those people who multi-license their state/county/city articles ALSO multi-license ALL of their main namespace edits." Then IMHO it definitely would be a Good Thing to open a more general drive, and to keep the distinctions between the contexts as firm as contract. Regards -SV 22:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, on the User:rambot page all of those who specifically restrict their license to just the state/county/city articles are listed with an "*". I am fully aware of the problems with Public Domain, the problem is that a good number of people choose it, even though I warn them of it and suggest in all the examples that they use the CC license. In the end people can do what they want with their copyright. I personally don't use PD for my contributions (except certain minor edits). Wikipedia cannot stop people from releasing their own copyrighted material into the PD, even if it goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Any multi-licensing at all is controversial to a number of people, so they opt out, which is fully within their rights. I've found that some people are just plain uncomfortable with licensing all of their edits, but they don't have a problem licensing the state/county/city articles. Opening a general drive runs the risk of stepping on too many toes too soon. If we had 95% of users multi-licensed, then it would make sense to discuss an open drive to multi-license all of Wikipedia, but even that has major problems. In the end, I state my case for why I want the rambot articles multi-licensed. If they feel comfortable giving more than that, fine. I don't see a need for a more concentrated effort to multi-license all of Wikipedia's edits, but nothing is stopping other people from attempting this. You should note that this is JUST the english Wikipedia, so it will be next to impossible to ever change Wikipedia to a different license. -- Ram-Man 22:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. IMHO, its important to (at least in your own mind) keep that firewall between the two—maybe that will help you in the first goal —regardless of your eye toward the second. It should also keep your wikistress level down. :) I hope my comments have not added any, and may help you refine your approach. (The mailer you sent out was way too long...) Regards -==SV 19:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've now done this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think the GFDL is sufficient. Anything else is overcomplication, and I think will not work. Dunc| 23:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to my user page. Will a bot update my contributions or do I have to do it? Also, you should do this at the Commons, too. Lots of GFDL and PD images are added to the commons now. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything. Multi-licensing is somewhat passive on your part in that it is up to the person wanting to use your contributions to figure out what is eligible. -- Ram-Man 01:40, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ram-Man. I've been thinking about this carefully, and for now I am going to stick with the GFDL for all my contributions. Basically my hopes are on an improved version of the GFDL that fits our needs more closely, and I want to hold out for that for a while longer. I'll be happy to reconsider at a later date. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem. If the project gets far enough I'll ask again, but not before.--Ram-Man 20:32, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who contributes to Wikipedia can possibly object to re-use of their work, but all this intellectual property stuff makes my head hurt. I can't quite understand how I can give away something I have no claim to in the first place. It seems to me the right answer is to merge GFDL with Creative Commons, but I don't see how one-by-one "freeing" my many contributions to Rambot articles (Did you forget that I was the one who dubbed it the Rambot?) or the thousands of other articles I have added something to (maybe only a comma or an em-dash) will help with the general goal of aligning Wikipedia with the rest of the the "open" world.

I don't want to participate ever again in the sort of messes I got involved in in Talk:Oregon City, Oregon and Talk:Hitler has only got one ball. I guess I'm disinclined to "license" anything if I don't understand what I'm doing. Add me to the list like Sannse just above, get back to me when it's a little clearer. Best regards, Ortolan88 02:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual to my user pages. Sometime I'll go thru all my images & licence them in the same way, although I guess I consider that they are now so licenced, it's just a case of removing the previous GFDL from them. best wishes & good luck to you --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for the compliment about being in the top 1000 conbtributors. I've added both Public Domain licenses to my User page as requested. I've always operated under this impression anyway. I presume that this is sufficient for Wikitravel? If so, perhaps you need to add Wikitravel-compatible to the Public Domain entries. CC and SA mean nothing to me nor to the legal system where I operate. Ian Cairns 14:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't even think I've written any geographics related article. If you find anything of use, please let me know and I'll think about it again. // Liftarn

I agree to multi-license... WhisperToMe 23:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a short sentence on the page. Is this what you were thinking of? WhisperToMe 05:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. First, congratulations on your patience to sacrifice your time for the good of the wiki-community. I thought all we did was for everybody to use and abuse, thats what i like about wikipedia, but apparently not. Can you be kind enough to explain who can not use our stuff? In plain english please because i have no clue what a creative commons license is. Thanks, muriel@pt 14:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your explanation. I will of course multi-license the whole thing. Best regards, muriel@pt 15:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why? -Joseph (Talk) 15:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

All my stuff is public domain; do whatever the fuck you want with it. --SPUI 18:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put all of my contributions (except User pages) into the public domain. If I've contributed anything more substantial than italics and em-dashes, they're fair game. :) —tregoweth 19:35, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like just my main-namespace edits CC-by-SA. What should I do? --yan! | Talk 00:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree to multi-license. - Evil saltine 01:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add me to the Public Domain users, see my user page, Lou I 10:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I recieved your request @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Article_Licensing. Unfortunately I don't understand the legal ramifications well enough to do anything at this time. I recomend you create a wikipedia namespace page, or better yet a meta-wiki page to explain the situation, and the ramifications of the various options. If I were better informed I would probably agree to doing something, but until I am, I intend to hold off. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Sam on this one. What is the difference? If GFDL is free and open, then the Travel group cannot use because...it is commercial? - Marshman 17:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got your spam message as well. I'd like to dual license, but I'd rather not put a big message about it on my user page (which I try to keep short). Are you going to be parsing user pages, or can I put this message (or sign my name) elsewhere? Dori | Talk 18:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

One more question, I'd like to dual license the text in the uniform manner as specified, but I usually do the media on a case by case basis. As far as I can tell, adding this message would dual license everything. If it's changed to just the text and permanently protected so that no one could change how I can license just by changing the template, I'll add it (or I'll do it via subst or use my custom message, but it won't be as easy to parse). I might even add that changing the message might invalidate it as it's not the user himself/herself who's agreeing to it. Dori | Talk 18:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. You know the templates are really supposed to be for textual contributions only. When images are uploaded, it is Wikipedia policy to always add a licensing tag to every image, thus they must be done on a case-by-case basis. I will work on the templates to make them more specific to NOT include media files. Many people explicitly state which namespaces apply, which eliminates this problem (e.g. in Option #1 and #2 of the spam message). I've modified the templates to clarify them. I am never ADDING anything to the templates. At worst I would not be including their full wishes, but this is not a serious problem I think. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
BTW you should add exclusions and narrowly specify exactly what you want before the template itself. All these templates are protected so only someone with sysop access can edit them. So far I have been editing them a number of times, but the licensing goal should not have changed, only been clarified. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 19:02, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've added User:Dori/Copyrights Dori | Talk 07:20, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

What a PITA, I always prefer CC-BY-SA over GFDL actually. Modifications done on my user page. Joseph | Talk 20:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

All photos taken by me are posted cc-sa with the exception of performance photos, which are cc-nc. I have also posted other's work (with permission) as cc-by-sa. I noticed that other commercial encyclopedia sites do not post images if the images are marked with "Wikipedia License cc-sa" or similar. It appears that they are attempting to hide the source of their materials. These sites usually look terrible as they post the large image version only, or only the thumb, with no click through. I may post some personal artwork with cc-by-sa. So am I already covering your request? Leonard G. 20:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suppose all but one person working on an article releases their contributions under the CC license, does that spoil the article so it can't be reused under that license? It seems like it could be a mess. - Evil saltine 01:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All my own contribs are multi-licensed; CC-by-sa as well sa GFDL.... some of them are moreover PD. +sj.+ 13:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: your posting on my talk: See my talk (User talk:Leonard G.) for my last words on the subject, at least until it is addressed at a higher level. Leonard G. 20:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Ram-man: I've already thought over the issue of licensing many times, and it gives me a headache. Sorry that I can't be more enthusiastic about this initiative, but I'm going to stick with the GFDL for now. Sewing - talk 15:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on my talk page. I hadn't known about the provision of the template that you refer to. Nevertheless, the "unless otherwise stated" language is a little too vague for my taste. My version makes clear that I might limit a multi-license by "so stating in the edit summary and/or on the appropriate talk page and/or here." That rules out a claim by someone that s/he looked in one or two of those places and didn't see anything that "otherwise stated". Therefore, in the (unlikely) event that I want to restrict multi-licensing, I can do it wherever the whim moves me. I assume this works for your purposes of getting licensing for anything I've contributed to the Ram-bot articles. Incidentally, it was when I noticed one of your messages to someone else about multi-licensing that I finally got around to looking at the subject myself, so thanks for the impetus! JamesMLane 19:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So if I MultiLicensePD then Wikitravel cannot use it? Leonard G. 20:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, public domain releases your copyright and says that anyone can do anything with your contributions and release it under any license. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 20:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding multi-licensing, I'd just like to let you know that I'm not ignoring your query: I simply haven't decided yet. For now, I think I'll stick with the GFDL only, but I'll continue to consider it carefully. At any rate, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour. -- Hadal 09:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have multi-licensed my contributions, except for user pages and images with CC-by-SA 2.0. --timc | Talk 03:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have multi-licensed my text contributions, except for user pages with CC-by-SA. --Big_Iron 11:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Derek, I another question(s) for you. I've been thinking about this during the weekend and got confused again. I understand the use of licensing images i created, but what good will it do if i release *my* written contributions? They are not mine! See War elephant, for example. I wrote it, but now so many people edited it that i hardly recognize my text. What if user B does not release it, either for stubborness or ignorance? Is the article unusable? Which licensing will prevail? The initial writer? The small editor? The vandal that edited and was reverted but is still in the edit history? Does this make any sense? muriel@pt 13:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks again! muriel@pt 14:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message -- I've been thinking about this, but since you reduced the work to do it literally to zero, I jumped on the multi-bandwagon. I now dual-lic all of my contributions. -- Sverdrup

Being a Wikitraveler, I'm going to dual-license, but does that affect images too? In particular Ropey the Cornish Rex is not mine, he belongs to a friend of mine, I just uploaded the picture. -phma 02:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can i request that the template for PD be changed to look more like the template for CC, because it just looks freaking ugly at the moment, and i feel ashamed to have it on my userpage. CC even has a buton that can be used for PD that says no rights reserved on it. The bellman 02:31, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Feel free to make a mockup of a replacement or suggest something on the template's talk page. I couldn't possibly know exactly what you'd like! -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 03:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have chosen not to release my contributions under any license other than the GFDL. Gentgeen 15:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have multi-licensed my contributions, except for user pages and images with CC-by-SA Dual. --[[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'll stick with the GDFL, thanks. -khaosworks 18:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't care about attribution for my work. But I don't like the idea of (slightly) derivative works being copyrighted so that I can't even use them. So I am going to go with the dual GFDL and CC license. Does this sound right according to my concerns? - Omegatron 19:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. But in reality so long as only some people use public domain, the risk of a Wikipedia fork is relatively non-existant because most articles will be edited by at least one person using CC-by-sa (or the GFDL only). Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 20:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I hate licensing issues and like to keep them off my doorstep, 'cause they only take away time I need for creative work. That said, in the high hopes that CC + GFDL will kill off a few lawyers, I have dual-licensed all of my articles. Nixdorf 19:59, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

I concur. - Omegatron 21:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have multilicensed my contributions to geographic articles using the template you provided in your message to me. I'm uncertain about releasing all contributions, and will need to take time and learn more about this. I find this a bit confusing, I admit. Jwrosenzweig 20:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to my user page. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've done the same. ugen64 21:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Me too. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I added {{NoMultiLicense}} to my userpage I must not have been thinking straight! A government job will do that to you sometimes... :-) --David Iberri | Talk 23:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a tag I can use to put my changes to Rambot pages into the public domain? These are insubstantive enough that I don't feel any need to retain ownership of them. In fact, I'd really like to place all my changes that aren't linked from my user page into the public domain. I don't think this is legally sound though, because removing a link from that page would amount to pulling the changes out of the public domain, which is not possible. What's your advice? Thanks. Deco 00:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your advice, but it seems to be that the entire idea of multi-licensing under GFDL and public domain is outright silly. Once I have released something into the public domain, I hold no rights or control over it; put another way, multi-licensing under two licenses imposes only the restrictions imposed by both, and PD imposes none. Also, the {{MultiLicensePDMinor}} template doesn't exist. Should I take this complaint to some project page? Thanks. Deco 21:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ram Man. Thank you for your note on my page. It was nice of you to consider me on this thing yo-u have in mind.

I prefer to stay under GFDL, because I like the fact that everyone can enjoy my articles, and hopefully someone could translate them into other languages soon too.

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Margaritas and Senoritas Martin"

I'm going with {{MultiLicensePD}}. Filiocht 14:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I've read your proposal and I don't think it applies to my way of licencing photos. So far I've put (very approx) 1200 pics on WP and about 95 percent of those are taken with my own camera so I simply put the {{PD}} template on the Image Description Page and make them all PD. Of the remaining five percent most are from US Government sources so those are PD as well. So are your proposals relevant to me? Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 14:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further to what I've written above I've now read the FAQ and am quite happy to take the risk of other sites or individuals re-licencing my PD pics. So, unless you can persuade me otherwise, I'll keep my PD tag. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 14:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is non-trivial. I would like a combination of things.

  1. No wholesale [commercial use|hijacking] of the Wikipedia.
  2. Credit directly or indirectly through wikihistory.
  3. No real restriction on information which has been digested by sentients.
  4. Er... thats it.

I think GFDL covers it? Rich Farmbrough 14:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I chose Option 2. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is surprisingly complicated in its implications, but I decided to dual-license, and decided against plain-jane public-domain. Thanks for taking this on. Antandrus 16:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chose option 1 - CC is a great licensing scheme. --Zappaz 16:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chose option 2. --Zigger 18:51, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

I understand your reason for adding the various multi-licensing categories to my user page, but I think that barrage of category links at the top looks a little distracting. Is there a way to retain the categorizations but not have them displayed, or to move them to the bottom? If not, I can live with them the way they are now. JamesMLane 18:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I should've thought of that. All the licensing stuff has now been appropriately ghettoized to User:JamesMLane/Licensing, with a brief reference and link on my main user page. JamesMLane 18:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider anything I do on wikipedia to be my own private property, so if your proposal is just about making it available more broadly I can't object! Slrubenstein 18:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More Licensing Talk

I took option 1. Sortior 18:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still confused about the difference between the three. Can you make a short summary of PD, GFDL, and CC and put them in this FAQ. I'm thinking of PD, but I don't really understand the implications. - Omegatron 18:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have dual-licensed all my contributions, per your request. Good luck with your drive, and feel free to delete this message. Nohat 18:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ram-Man, would you kindly hop over to User:Arpingstone and see if I've done the PD licencing for text correctly. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hereby agree to {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}. I put the notice on my user page.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:52, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I prefer using PD because I do not want to place any restrictions on further use. --AlainV 19:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's PD no one else can copyright it, right? - Omegatron 19:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Not exactly. If someone, such as myself, takes your contribution in the public domain and I want to use it somewhere else (like WikiTravel), then when I copy it into a new location and possibly make some changes to it, I have made a derivative work, which I would then own the copyright to and would release it under the CC-by-sa (which is required by WikiTravel). On the other hand, nothing is stopping me from ALSO releasing that change into the public domain if I choose, and then I would not own the copyright, but that becomes my choice. This is, of course, the biggest tradeoff with using the public domain. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 19:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I will not release my work with less than GFDL. I'm not getting paid for the stuff I write, and I don't want someone else to profit from it while claiming they wrote it. I also don't want people to restrict the rights of the downstream users of the content. I do appreciate the work you have done, but I wonder why you contributed it without understanding the implications of the GFDL. Christopher Mahan 19:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for the note. I have done the {{MultiLicensePD}} option. I am no longer here, so I am keen for people to have the best possible access. Regards, Nevilley 21:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)