Commons:License Migration Task Force

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:LM


This page is to facilitate planning and implementation of the GFDL license migration on Commons. Any constructive input is welcome. Please note, however, that this is not a venue for discussion of the merits of the migration or licensing issues in general.

Summary

[edit]

In accordance with the Licensing update and associated WMF Board Resolution, Wikimedia exercised its rights under GFDL 1.3 to dual license existing GFDL content — text and images — under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0) starting June 15th, 2009.

The primary purpose of this page is to figure out how to accomplish that for the large collection of GFDL images on Commons.

Images affected

[edit]
  • Any image correctly licensed GFDL 1.3, or any earlier GFDL version with an "or later versions" clause, provided that:
    • The copyright holder first published the image under the GFDL at a WMF site,
    • OR the image was first published under the GFDL elsewhere and was incorporated into a WMF site before November 1, 2008.


GFDL Category Tree

Images where adding CC-BY-SA-3.0 would be redundant

[edit]
Existing CC-BY-SA-3.0 images

Participants

[edit]

What needs to be done

[edit]

What to do with GFDL 1.2-only images

[edit]

The least intrusive way is to encourage the uploaders to migrate by changing their license from {{GFDL-1.2}} to {{GFDL-1.3}} and/or {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}. Details can be found at Commons:License Migration Task Force/Licensing change by uploader.

Issues that need to be resolved

[edit]

Is opting-out of the migration an option?

[edit]
  • [moved from below] ...yes, absolutely, I feel that authors can opt out. I would leave {{GFDL-1.2}} images alone, or allow authors to switch license tags back. GFDL alone should certainly still be allowed as a license; it meets the freedomdefined.org definition just as much as it used to. It will cause no more problems than allowing CC-BY-SA alone has done previously -- they are all still usable on wiki articles. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing." The foundation has decided to relicense.Geni (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [copied from listserv] ...in the interest of stemming criticism and respecting our valued contributors, we may want to consider allowing some people to opt-out some content. Dragons flight
This results in a messy copyright situation which is one of the things the switch to CC should be working towards fixing.Geni (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only messy if it is open-ended. See below. As a practical matter, I would suggest that anyone wanting to opt-out would be required to retag their images as GFDL 1.2-only before some predetermined date (such as whenever an update bot starts running). Dragons flight (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea since such a tag would be inaccurate.Geni (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging GFDL 1.2-or-later as GFDL 1.2-only isn't inaccurate. GFDL 1.2 is still a valid license for the work. At best it is incomplete. We can choose to be incomplete, if that is something the community would prefer out of deference to certain contributors. Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree with an opt out system. It is important for the community to respect the decision of uploaders who choose to license under GFDL. Where someone has deliberately chosen not to dual license, they don't expect it to be forced down their throat... and its morally wrong to do so. It's damaging for the photographer and it's damaging for the commons (annoyed and disillusioned contributors = good reason to cease contributing) --Fir0002 www 14:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with an opt-out system. Don't forget, our mission is to create a free media database and _not_ to please uploaders. If some people are disillusioned by this, then so be it. The WMF has chosen to dual-license all content according to the GFDL 1.3. Just because some people think it's a bad idea, we can't turn against this decision. About the moral part: It is morally wrong to upload images to a free repository, that explicitly allows and encourages commercial reuse, and then choose a license that is especially inconvenient for commercial reusers. Those people use the Commons as advertisement for their images so they can then hand out individual licenses for commercial reusers (for cash, of course): Everyone uploading images here has agreed that these immages can be used commercially. If people don't agree to commercial use, they (and we) are better served when they leave the Commons. Shouting it is morally wrong to actually make commercial reuse possible (what everyone has agreed on when uploading) is ridiculous. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, should be offered in any case. Let's be honest. Most here will know, that it was (not so uncommon) practice in cases that we needed an important image but couldn't anymore shoot it by ourself to recommend/offer the somewhat unwilling photographer or rights holder to release the image under GFDL as this would make the image fully usable for all Wikimedia projects (the main purpose of Commons), but less usable to print it on a mug or a T-shirt. If these images were now re-released under CC-BY-SA without the explicit consent of the rights holder, they would feel betrayed or even abused. --Túrelio (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly agree with an opt out system and a reverse of bot added license tags. Nearly all of my images before June 2008 are licensed under GFDL 1.2+ and CC-by-sa 2.5 anyway, so there's no reason to add another license arbitrarily which I haven't agreed to. --Eva K. is evil 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we handle people who want to opt out?

[edit]
  • Tell them they can't.Geni (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [copied from listserv] ...the WMF could say: "Relicensing applies to all media files validly tagged as GFDL 1.2 or later versions as of 12:01 AM on June 15th, 2009". With the stipulation that anyone who doesn't want to participate has between now and June 15th to change a "1.2 or later versions" tag on their own work to a "1.2-only" tag. That has the advantage of being final and legally binding. The alternative, to let communities set their own rules, could also work though I think it is more likely to drag the process out. It also risks the creation of fragmentary rules (what if Commons has different rules than EN?) and leading to fights where someone other than the author reuploads a work claiming they are just exercising their rights, etc. Dragons flight
  • The right to leave has always been an important silent backbone of the community. In this case I think anyone who feels strongly that their work should not be made available under a different license should have their views respected, so long as this does not significantly disrupt the project. Asking authors to explicitly change the current license to opt out makes sense to me. +sj + 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that tagging them differently is a good way to go. Some people have already used {{GFDL-1.2}} in anticipation of this. I also wouldn't fight authors reverting their own images after the automated migration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say a big thanks for to the above users for being so considerate :) An opt-out system is an excellent idea --Fir0002 www 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Geni, tell them they can't. Licenses cannot be revoked; reconsidering is not an option. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will GFDL only uploads be allowed after August 1?

[edit]
  • Doing so creates more problems that oppertunities.Geni (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license still meets the freedomdefined definition, so of course we should. It would be inconsistent to block it. Images are still just as usable on wikipedias as they are now. It shouldn't be recommended of course, and probably not an option in the main dropdowns, but if that is the only license someone wants to use to upload a work, I'd rather have the work uploaded. Image licenses do not restrict the projects in nearly the same way as textual contributions to wikipedia; they are completely different in nature.Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly advocate to keep GFDL licences : (1) GFDL is indeed impractical for pictures to be reused in a profit-making context, and this may be precisely what the right holder wants. It's not really a "non-commercial-use-only" license, but it is definitely an obstacle to profit-making or concurrential usages. If I can freely use a GFDL picture in a "free" publication this is all I want ; if a GFDL picture can't be conveniently used in a "luxury" publication, because this would import the GFDL licence in the publication (print it on a T-shirt?) - so be it. (2) That "trick" has been accepted in the past, there is no reason to change just because the GFDL version changed. If GFDL1.2-only files can be used in the projects, they can be used whatever the upload date ; if they can't, all GFDL1.2-only are out of the project scope and should be mass-deleted - end of problem. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just be aware that the impractical-for-commercial-use nature isn't really a goal of the FSF; it is just a side effect of using a license designed for documentation (where the requirement of including the full license isn't onerous at all) for images. This is evident by them allowing works to be dual-licensed with cc-by-sa, albeit under limited circumstances. If they ever make a version (or another license) more geared to images it would not surprise me if they would drop that requirement (and allow GFDL-licensed images to be migrated, for an "or later version" licenses). If something like that happens, I could see maybe a few years down the line GFDL1.2-only licenses being deemed unacceptable given that they practicably limit lots and lots of potential uses (even in non-commercial contexts), but I definitely wouldn't make an abrupt change like that, as we have been allowing it ever since the project was started. We should deprecate and discourage it, but it is still better than a "fair use only" license, and I'd rather have works under that license than not have them at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly. Some people were / still are against the transition after it’s been made possible/announced. Many GFDL works are still not in Wikimedia projects, and reusing content between them would suddenly be made impossible. There may also be related works, some of which can be relicensed and others cannot, suddenly making completing a collection at Commons impossible, despite the GFDL (without invariant sections etc) being about as free for images as the GPL and till now the primary free license of the projects. Fat books (like encyclopedias) and large and small websites are still popular, so it is not completely unusable. Strongly discouraging the use of GFDL as the only license for newly created non-text files seems reasonable though. In case such use is prohibited completely, people will probably switch to a license like a GNU GPL or the Design Science License (disclaimer: I haven’t read the whole DSL). --AVRS (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the foundation proposal, they will be, but the individual communities (us) can, of course, decide not to allow them anymore. I'd recommend stopping GFDL uploads, removing it from the upload form is neccessary. However, I don't object to allowing it for a limited time (say, a year or so) and so give people the time to add other free lice. You are right, GFDL media can be used in GFDL encyclopedias as those always need the GFDL text printed with them anyway. However, we are a free image library, focusing on providing educational images suitable for commercial reuse. If the wikipedias decide to continue allowing GFDL uploads, that's fine, but I think Commons should not do it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per COM:L, GFDL <1.3 still are "free" licenses in the sense we have always understood it, so there is no reason why we should forbid uploads under those licenses. It seems sensible, however, to remove them from the dropdown list of the standard upload form, since the foundation (and "we") think it is not so suitable for commercial reuse, and we know it is not so suitable for media. --Eusebius (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we migrating to GFDL 1.2+/CC-BY-SA or GFDL 1.3+/CC-BY-SA?

[edit]
  • [moved from below] ...there isn't really much difference is there? Though obviously we are using the language in the 1.3 version, which should be noted. But if it was originally licensed under 1.2, may as well note that as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part a mix of GFDL 1.2 and later and CC-BY-SA-3.0.Geni (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was under the impression that 1.3 was the same as 1.2 with the time-limited migration clause added. Once that window closes, is there really a difference anymore? I would keep the same version with which they are currently licensed, though -- I'm not sure we have the right to change that. Even if it makes little difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't change the license the uploader mentioned, anyway. The only thing is, a CC-BY-SA licence can be added to all files licensed under GFDL1.x-or-later and to GFDL1.3, because that is what the original license implies, and that may be explicited. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are migrating to GFDL [version mentioned on the image page] and CC-BY-SA, if the image is released under 1.3 (or 1.x and any later version). We are not changing 1.2+ to 1.3+. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to files uploaded between June 15 and August 1?

[edit]
  • Here's one issue I couldn't determine an answer for: will user-created files uploaded to Wikimedia projects between June 15 and August 1, 2009, under a GFDL 1.3 license be in effect immediately relicensed, or will they stay GFDL-only? According to a literal reading of the GFDL 1.3, section 11, it seems this would essentially be up to WMF, but their resolution doesn't really make this explicit. (I suspect they may not have considered this issue at all, given that it only applies to media files, not page text.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think that we would relicense them, as I imagine our bot (if that is the solution we go with) will be running pretty much continuously until August 1. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL and CC-BY

[edit]

There are some cases, when files licensed under both GFDL and CC-BY-#.# (not CC-BY-SA). Is it needed to relicense GFDL to GFDL+CC-BY-SA-3.0, or it is possible to remove GFDL, because CC-BY is no-copyleft (no share-alike) and more free license? Alex Spade (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion on the talk page about whether the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is redundant in such cases. I would tend to argue that, at least for files multilicensed under CC-BY-3.0 (Unported), it is: the CC-BY licenses are intended to be strictly more permissive than their CC-BY-SA counterparts, and I do not believe there is any case where a work multilicensed under CC-BY-x.y and CC-BY-SA-x.y could be used, distributed or modified in some way under the latter license but not under the former. However, for works licensed only under older versions of the CC-BY license, there could be small differences. While the CC-BY licensed to allow one to distribute modified versions ("adaptations") under any license, the attribution and other requirements of the original license still apply, and these requirements might not exactly match those of CC-BY-SA-3.0.
In the end, it does seem a lot like splitting hairs. Perhaps one solution would be to create a separate, small and unobtrusive license template, similar to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}, saying something like "Per the GFDL licensing update, this file is also licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. However, you may prefer to use it under one of the other, more permissive licensing options listed on this page." —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because GFDL and CC-BY are incompatible (containing contradictory requirements). Catastrophe of Nature (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation ideas

[edit]
  1. Add a language-appropriate cc-by-sa tag to each of the GFDL language templates.
  2. Add a check to the {{Autotranslate}} template where if "GFDL" is the base parameter, also include the language-appropriate cc-by-sa tag in the output.
  3. Write a bot to add the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} tag to all GFDL 1.2+ images that don't already have it.
  4. Write a bot to replace the GFDL tag with a separate GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license tag.

Discussion of implementation ideas

[edit]

[originally posted on Template talk:GFDL] I strongly feel that the meaning of a tag should not be surprising. So I disagree with simply rewriting {{Gfdl}} to equal {{Gfdl}} + {{Cc-by-sa}}, since then one gets more than they expect when they add {{Gfdl}}. (A related question is whether {{Gfdl}} should actually be retired.) Plus you get into duplication problems if the image is already tagged GFDL + CC-BY-SA add you add an additional CC-BY-SA tag. I know enwiki has had bot runs that retagged >100,000 images at a time, and I think doing this the right way would be to carefully define the parameters of the migration and commission a bot for that task. Dragons flight (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably make a GFDL-CC-BY-SA-migrated tag, and have a bot do the changes. Obviously it would not be needed on anything which is already dual-licensed with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA 2.0+. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a bot would be ideal, although I'm worried about the feasibility. We would have to get the bot written, tested, tweaked, and then run on over a million files within two months. Is it doable? Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The switich is automatic we don't technicaly need to document it on the image file pages before the deadline.Geni (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try explaining that to 5,000 armchair lawyers :P I really think it would minimize confusion and conflict to have the migration documented on the file pages before August 1. Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world yes but not leathal if we don't get it done before that date.Geni (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could rename the GFDL tag. Are there existing bots to rename templates? I just think it would be best to have something in the edit history of the image pages that this action was taken, and that way we could re-create the GFDL tag so we can treat it separately than any migrated images. We would still have to go through and change any pages which were already licensed CC-BY-SA or CC-BY, but that is also the case with changing the GFDL template directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could just state that a file that is licensed as GFDL 1.2 or later is by that also CC-BY-SA because.... and add the CC-by-sa template. I would recommend changing the template and while the million pages update, a bot runs to look for dual licensed files and removes the cc-by-sa tag. That's as simple as it gets and the fastest way to do it. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding a small note to {{GFDL}} and related templates saying something like:
"If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license."
with a link to a page explaining the eligibility criteria. That way we should be able to take the time to do the bot run (and the subsequent manual filtering of the remaining cases) properly without having to worry about deadlines and armchair lawyers. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the natural thing to do initially. The drawback I see is that if the markup is embedded in {{GFDL}} then we'd have to replace or otherwise alter the tag as the bot and/or human reviewers goes through to mark which ones had been looked at. Dragons flight (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the reasonable thing to do in any case. Most of the files will be eligible for relicensing, and so need to be retagged anyway. For those that are not, we could either create a new template (perhaps {{GFDL-only}} or {{GFDL-not-relicensable}}) or add an optional parameter to the existing GFDL template(s) to replace the message with one saying that the file has been reviewed and found not to be eligible for relicensing. I might be inclined to favor the new template, since it could also be used for new uploads of GFDL content after August 1. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the GFDL template is probably a good idea, at least temporarily. I still would prefer something in each image's edit history noting the cross-licensing, which would probably involve changing to a separate template which notes the cross-licensing. Once that is done, we can remove the text from the GFDL template, as that (while probably deprecated) will continue to be used for uploads I'm sure, and the ability to re-license is time-limited. We already have {{GFDL-1.2}}, which people can use to avoid relicensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've started a draft explanation page at Commons:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria, to be linked from {{GFDL}}. Improvements are welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I won't be around on the 15th, and since I'd rather work out any kinks before the actual relicensing date, I've gone ahead and added the notice to {{GFDL/en}}. I'll go post an announcement and a translation request at the Village pump now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Images {{Self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} should be converted to {{Self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, not added a new license box just for 3.0. 2.5 allow automatically upgrading the license, so perhaps it should be added to {{License migration is redundant}}. -- Platonides (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all instances of {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} can be converted to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} we can simply redirect the first template to the second. Are you sure {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} can automaticly be upgraded? Is this also the case for {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, {{Cc-by-2.5}} & {{Cc-by-2.0}}? Some redirect magic would make everything a lot easier. Multichill (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template and category scheme

[edit]

I hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but I've gone ahead and implemented a template and category scheme for tracking and performing the updates. It is somewhat complex in implementation, but should be easy in user interaction.

The heart of it is a meta-template: {{License migration}} (designed to be blank until the 15th). It is intended to be appended at the end of existing {{GFDL}} templates, and is controlled by being given a keyword that would be passed through its host template.

For example, one adds {{license migration|{{{migration|}}} }} to the end of the {{GFDL}}, then one can control its license update state by altering the {{GFDL}} call to {{GFDL|migration=keyword}} at the image page.

Five keywords (plus the blank state) control it's behavior:

  • empty string: display an announcement notice similar to but more prominent than the one proposed by Ilmari above, and invite the user to help sort images that are eligible for relicensing.
  • relicense: adds a CC-BY-SA-3.0 tag immediately below the GFDL tag.
  • redundant: removes the notice and categorizes the image as not needing an update because it was already dual licensed CC-BY-SA by its copyright holder.
  • not-eligible: removes the notice and categorizes the image as not meeting the update criteria.
  • needs-review: marks the image as needing careful review to determine if it meets the update criteria. Once a bot is operational, this will probably be the default categorization for materials the bot can't sort.
  • opt-out: For use by copyright holders that want to opt-out of the licensing effort.

This scheme has the advantage of allowing relicensing to be tracked by modifying a single keyword on the image page. Similarly it avoids the need for every GFDL template to be cloned into a relicensed and not eligible version.

I suspect this will ultimately be a temporary measure. Once everything is sorted (all 1.7M!) I would anticipate having a bot go through and permanently affix CC-BY-SA templates where necessary (rather than build them through transclusion), but I think this a workable starting condition.

I would appreciate the help of other people to flesh out these templates and their documentation. I also think we should have a Commons:License migration with additional documentation and explanation for Commons' contributors. (In preparing these templates/categories, I linked to licensing update a lot, but that is not the best explanation for Commons' folk.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an excellent plan. Kaldari (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official notice that I have opted out (duplicate notice)

[edit]

I, Infrogmation, hereby "opt out" of the involuntary "license migration". Notes: The vast majority of my uploads I would happily agree to add cc-by-sa-3.0 to the listed license option (if that license is not one of the listed options already) IF I am ASKED. I do NOT consent to any change license of any of my copyrighted works that I have not personally authorized. I have NOT authorized any party other than myself to change licensing of any of my works without my explicit permission. Infrogmation (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this elsewhere, but have yet to figure out the best place for getting official notice; pardon to those who've seen this more than once. The place for puting such notices should be made more obvious (I've failed to find it, and I'm no newbie); or if there isn't such a place yet, such should be established. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just add |migraton=opt-out into the GFDL tags of the images, or see if a bot can do it if there are too many. --Drilnoth (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded thousands of images. I suggest there be some sort of opt-out list which contributors can add their name to, and if some notice really considered necessary on each and every single one of their images, a bot could take care of it after they add their name. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a list would be really helpful --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your “official permission” is your acceptance of the GFDL and its “later versions”. ;) →Diti the penguin — 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 1st about to hit

[edit]

I suppose that any of the 128000 images still in Category:License migration candidates that are still there in a couple of days time, will no longer be eligable for license updated? (what time zone does the 1 August deadline pertain to?) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going by FAQ "...this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009.", and files in this category are not yet licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0. A few images that one might want to bother with are: 70 FPs, 287 QIs and 7 VIs.
The other approach is to just modify the {{License migration}} to put them into cc-by-sa-3.0 and revert the problem files later. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those files are already tagged with {{License migration announcement}}, which says they're available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if eligible. Also, the foundation resolution itself took effect on June 15 — we're just documenting its effects now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there discussions about this both here and on the talk page? --Drilnoth (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Improperly "migrated" images on Commons - request for fix

[edit]

I just noticed a few of my images inappropriately and fraudulently "migrated" against my very specific and repeated opting out. I thought this was taken care of years ago, but clearly not. Could we please get a bot to fix any such images where "Infrogmation" is the author (and any other users who have opted out that might have false "migrated" license claims added to their images? Very upset, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force&oldid=902960871"