Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Rprpr

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of Rprpr

[edit]

Incompatible licensing with derivative screenshots of GPL'd software (e.g. GNOME) being licensed under CC BY-SA licenses by author (photographer / uploader). See Commons:Screenshots. In other words, these files are copyvios as derivative works.

(Kind of bugs me too that these are claimed to be own work when I believe they should be self-photographed.)

(It would take me too much effort to tag each of these files with both {{Free screenshot}} and confirm for the appropriate license, only to find it to be {{Incompatible license}} and different copyvio notices on the user's talk page individually. Thus, this mass delete.) --80.221.159.67 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the colors, File:Firefox10 on Ubuntu11.10.png seems to contain only Tango icons and Wikinews images, so no problem with software, but could be with photos, unless they are de-minimis. --AVRS (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Firefox 6 on Ubuntu.png: everything is either CC BY-SA, or public domain, or very small (maybe the Home button is Tango). --AVRS (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rprpr: I see that you have added permission notices to the files now, for most of which I didn't do personally. However, the copyleft licenses are still incompatible for most part with your choice of CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Would you like to resolve this issue and avoid possible deletion by relicensing your screenshots with a compatible license? Assuming you are the copyright holder of these screenshots, that is. 80.221.159.67 05:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) (edited: 05:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]


Kept: all files seem to have correct license information. More than one license can be involved in one image. E.g. GPL for a software, GFDL for a depicted picture and CC-BY-SA for the arrangement. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]