Commons:Deletion requests/Fir0002

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Fir0002|year=2025|month=January|day=02}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Fir0002|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Fir0002}} at the end of today's log.

Fir0002

[edit]

The list is huge (his WP page says he has 2.500), because the user used to be an admin. But an example is like this:

All the pictures have a licence GNU 1.2 ONLY, wich actually has Copyright. Not only the pics must be linked and atributtion of the creator is needed, but derivative works are also banned. Even more, the author says "If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms." And all the pics have got a link to his website. It doesn´t look that this agree to the Commons procedures and licenses. The author write in his user page that he retires from Commons, and the discussion in his archive make me believe this was related with this problem. Also he was deadminship for inactivity, but all the files still remains. There was a similar DR about this point 9 months ago but the file was kept because it "wasn´t the proper place to propose", but no resolution above the other pictures were taking neither. --Andrea (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep GNU is not a license, and the GFDL 1.2 is an acceptable license for Commons last time I checked. (There's been discussion about it before, and probably will be again, but here's not the place.) It is also acceptable to offer alternate licensing to people who want it. I see nothing by Fir0002 that says that derivative works are banned. Everything seems to be inline with Common's policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, tell me where´s the place, as this discussion as I already says happend before, I think It´s better to close it at one in the right way. And, as is perfectly legal, it means I can add this license to my work from now, with a request to put my name as close as I can near the photo. --Andrea (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still accept media under the GFDL 1.2 but discourage its use. However, I believe that Fir0002's statement "attribution of this image to "Fir0002/Flagstaffotos" is required in a prominent location near to the image" steps beyond the boundaries of what the GFDL requires, and should be removed. The GFDL 1.2 would not prohibit including attribution in an appendix, linked website, or other out-of-the-way location. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep GFDL is a valid license, and is "free". We discourage it for new uploads, but particularly for already-existing files we should keep them. Derivative works are not banned; I think you are misreading something. As Dcoatzee says, the requirement that it be "near" may be a bit outside the GFDL bounds (if the typical image credit placement is elsewhere, in the context which it is used, such as on a separate image page like wikipedias do it), but everything else is perfectly fine, and doesn't come anywhere near being a reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. GFDL 1.2 is still accepted here as a free license, even if discouraged. By the way, I think files Fir0002 uploaded before 30 January 2009 were actually licensed under GFDL 1.2 or any later version (see e.g. [1] and [2]), and this cannot be revoked, but the difference is essentially academic now. --Avenue (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: No valid reason to delete given. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These images were not uploaded with the intention of freely licensing them. Fir0002 used the GFDL 1.2 to effectively retain commercial control of the images. Once it was made clear that this was not kosher, Fir0002 left the project, but his images are still here under the GFDL 1.2-only licensing. Since the status of whether or not these images are actually freely licensed has been left uncertain (per Fir0002's intentions), I think it would be best just to delete them and move on. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you support deleting all these files, too?? --Leyo 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The tag User:Fir0002/20D has been modified by User:Kaldari to address any concerns about it stepping beyond the letter of the GFDL 1.2 license. The GFDL is explicitly permitted by Commons:Licensing, with no restrictions on version, regardless of the uploader's intentions. The place to discuss changing that is on Commons talk:Licensing, not in a deletion request, and consensus is clearly in favour of retaining the present policy at the present time. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fir0002&oldid=48540416"