Commons:Deletion requests/Michail Fedin
Author of photo don't understand what is CC. On source page no jurisdiction and version of license therefore no legal license document therefore 3.0 inappropriate therefore no permission and therefore copyvio. )) See also talk in Russian here. -- TarzanASG +1 09:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to determine whether this deletion request is valid, I've started an English-language discussion about whether works under a "Creative Commons" license with no version information and no way to determine the precise license text can be uploaded to Commons. --Tetromino (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I had closed this as delete as there are no keep votes, but M5 requested I reopen it because the CC permission is valid. I'll do that, but any comments on why to keep should be brought soon. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The claim that "author of photo don't understand what is CC" is misleading, the author clearly published his works cc-by-sa, moreover he has provided explanation of the basic terms of license (see author page autotranslated). The only problem is the lack of version number. This problem has been discussed on Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 26#Creative Commons license without any version information and prevailing opinion was that CC licenses without version number are acceptable. Only nominator was against the acceptance, but even he did finally admit that the arguments of his opponent are surely logical, but he still have some reservations (unfortunately, that line in the discussion timestamped 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) was not translated from Russian). --M5 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, Creative Commons licenses without version number are discouraged, but perfectly valid. Kameraad Pjotr 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
