Template talk:GFDL-1.2

Copy from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL-1.2

I think we should not accept this kind of license that restricts the user to the choice of the GFDL 1.2, while the normal template {{GFDL}} gives users permission to chose any later versions as well, at their option. It is clear that the practical restrictions that the GFDL 1.2 imposes on pictures (you have to print the full license) were not intended; the license was written with other purposes in mind where this is not a problem (computer manuals); and it has been announced that the FSF is going to fix that in the next GFDL version by making it compatible to some of the Creative Commons licenses. The practical restrictions are now abused a lot to upload pictures as GFDL1.2-only to make them de facto non-free and to knowingly prevent almost any common commercial usage in print. There is no way to make these pictures really free later when the FSF fixes the problem; hence the pictures are not really free. I think we should give the owners of the respective pictures time to switch to some other license (as deletion requests will take long on commons, there should be more than enough time); then radically delete this template and the rest of the images and ban GFDL-1.2 completely as a de facto non-free license. --rtc 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep Diese Lizenz ist nunmal von der Community erlaubt worden und eine Löschung wäre ein rein politisches Exempel, das rtc hier statuieren will. GFDL-1.2 Bilder sind genauso frei wie die Bilder unter anderen Lizenzen auch. Dann sollten wir auch gleich alle Inhalte der Wikipedia löschen und einfach neu unter einer Lizenz anfangen, die für den Zweck der Erstellung einer Enzyklopädie geschrieben wurde. Was rtc hier fordert ist absurd und sollte keine weitere Beachtung finden, denn er stellt inzident den Bestand des kompletten Projekts in Frage. --ST ○ 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep I am not sure this is the appropriate forum to discuss such a radical deletion (a much wider discussion is needed). I also see no reason to ban a license which is indeed free - a link is all that is necessary for online publication, for printed publications adding the license is really only a problem when the publication is very small (eg a postcard), in which case a small booklet would perhaps be appropriate :-). Banning the license would effectively result in the deletion of many free images where the uploader was no longer active on commons, and could not update the license. Just mark this one as superceded and encourage the use of the new one. --Tony Wills 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not an argument for, but an argument against the tag. These people have knowingly chosen a tag that gives users no choice to update, and that especially causes problems once they are no longer active. --rtc 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, it is a argument against removal of the tag :-). They have licensed their work to make it freely available with a viral license that ensures all subsequent usage is also freely available - the whole point of these licenses is that you grant it and people can't modify the terms. If you can't meet the terms of the license, then don't use the image :-) --Tony Wills 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is very much an argument for removal of the tag. I am not speaking about users modifying the license, which they can't, regardless of whether it's licensed as 1.2only or 1.2-or-any-later, but about the Free Software Foundation modifying it to stop abuse of the license for purposes it was not intended for; namely the purpose of making pictures de facto non-free. If you don't want to make your pictures free, don't upload them to commons. :-) --rtc 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Delete The possibility of using a later GFDL version is probably the only way out of the nightmarish situation the GFDL 1.2 creates for print publication. The GFDL 1.2 is mainly intended and very well suited for complete books but hampers using our content in newspapers etc. seriously. If not deleted, it should at least be made impossible to use GFDL-1.2-only in the future in some way. The current requirement of including the full GFDL in a print publication makes it impossible to use a Wikipedia/Commons article or image in a newspaper or magazine without violating the licence (because no newspaper/magazine is going to waste space for printing the full GFDL). Every newspaper using content from Wikipedia or Commons nevertheless (without printing the GFDL and version history alongside) is currently a licence violator and could be sued. Specifically in Germany this could be a real problem, because even an uninvolved third party can issue a so-called "Abmahnung" (see en:Abmahnung in English or more in detail de:Abmahnung in German), charging money for their time and effort issuing a warning for perceived wrongdoings to someone else. Some attorneys in Germany make a living from this. So, I think, in Germany things like this could happen: A prints content from Commons in his newspaper, let's call the image's creator B. Enter attorney C sending A an "Abmahnung" telling him that he did wrong to B, charging lots of money for his time and effort (entirely on his own, without any request from B). Sounds absurd, but such things are real in Germany. A later version of the GFDL no longer requiring all this cumbersome stuff in a print publication would solve the issue, but it solves it only if content is uploaded under "GFDL 1.2 or any later version". Therefore I think we should no longer accept GFDL 1.2-only. Gestumblindi 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep As long as there is no newer version of GFDL, no reason to delete it. It should be possible to stick to certain version of gfdl and not to sign a blanco cheque. On the other hand, if finally a 1.3 or a 2.0 is released, i would consider to disallow new uploads under 1.2-GFDL ---jha- 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If we wish to further free content and knowledge in the Wikipedia spirit, we should already only allow "GFDL 1.2 or any later version" uploads as the GFDL 1.2 was never really appropriate for our purposes, we eagerly await a more fitting version, and "GFDL 1.2 only" is against the spirit of this project, as the only reason to insist on this certain version can be the intention to make free reuse more difficult. Gestumblindi 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"or any later version" is not a blanco cheque. Section 10 of the license says "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." (my emphasis). It is, however, a blanco cheque for the FSF to stop abuse of the license where it is used to make something de facto non-free. --rtc 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep The license GDFL 1.2 only is as free as the whole wikipedia and many other pictures are at the moment. The status quo. Why should this license be not accepted any longer? This doesnt make sense. GFDL 1.2 only is a free license. --Jodo 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, "[t]he license GDFL 1.2 only is" not "as free as the whole wikipedia and many other pictures are at the moment". "the whole wikipedia and many other pictures" give users permission to chose any later version of the license; GFDL 1.2-only does not. --rtc 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I wanted to say that because there is no "any later version" of the GDFL at the moment, the GDFL 1.2 is the license which a external user has to follow. --Jodo 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The use of the GFDL was an interim solution, because it was the only free content license at that time. It has always been planned that the license will be updated to cope with the problems it does not yet solve. Soon, there will be a new version, and it will be compatible to the CC-BY-SA. The only reason to license anything as 1.2-only is to exploit the idiosyncracies of 1.2 which make it de facto non-free if applied to about anything except manuals for computer programs. --rtc 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep per above —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.232.216.220 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (TOR exit node)

•  Delete. Yes, at the moment there's little difference between GFDL and GFDL1.2only. But the FSF, Creative Commons and Wikimedia Foundation are currently working on the next version of the GFDL and making it compatible with CC-by (or CC-by-sa?). So in the near future there will be a huge difference between those licenses that could have quite an impact on how people can re-use Wikipedia content. Several people used GFDL because they knew it makes the use of these images in magazines, newspapers, etc.. almost impossible due to the requirment of printing the whole license text. Now that this is about to change, GFDL1.2only is nothing but a bad way to further prevent commercial usage of their images in the future.

Wikipedia, and Commons in particular, are projects to create and publish _free_ content that can be used by anyone for whatever purpose. Artificially trying to limit the reuse of some of the content is IMHO against the goal of this project. Furthermore, if you look at the license text of the GFDL, it only mentions the possibilities of licensing your works as "GFDL" (without any version)leaving it to re-users to choose any version of the license when using the licensed works, or using "GFDL version X or any later versions". So either no version at all, or Version X including all later and future versions. There's no mention of allowing to use only one single version of the license. I'd say deprecate the license template and delete all images that are uploaded after a certain date. Then ask uploaders if they're willing to relicense their images under the standard GFDL or other licenses. --Kam Solusar 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep That is a good licence and valid. --Heckenreuter 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a very short discussion on COM:L concerning the 1.2-only issue: Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9#Individual_licence_templates.--Wiggum 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment I can understand deprecating the use of GFDL1.2 when a more appropriate version comes along, but I can't see the argument that requires removal of images that are freely licensed just because some print media can't be bothered printing the GFDL. At some future point are we going to look at attribution-required licenses and say that because in some situations attribution is too difficult (eg printing the image on a postage-stamp, where there is not enough room or proper attribution), that attribution-required licenses are restrictive and therefore not free?

Ultimately I expect print media would like to make money from free images without paying anything for them, without printing licenses, without attributing their source and without acknowledging the concept of free licenses (after all copyright is their stock and trade) - they would just love to bludge off freely licensed material without giving anything back let alone acknowledging the existence of copy-left and the spirit of free licensing. Insisting media print the license is a great way to spread the concept of free licenses :-). If one is unwilling to conform to the license requirements, well, here's a suggestion - don't use the images ;-).

By all means look into specific conditions that people are appending to GFDL licenses that appear to violate the license, but leave a perfectly valid free license alone :-) --Tony Wills 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This deletion request is not about deprecating the license GFDL1.2, but about deprecating the license tag {{GFDL-1.2}}, which should really be named GFDL-1.2-but-no-later-version. The argument is plainly and simply that the GFDL 1.2 was never intended for pictures, and it does not make sense to use it except with the or-any-later-version to permit the FSF to fix the problems. GFDL1.2-but-no-later-version would still be acceptable for computer manuals (which we don't have here), but definitely not for pictures, because in this context, it is a de facto non-free license that makes use of the work nearly impossible. Claims such as "Insisting media print the license is a great way to spread the concept of free licenses" are hypocritical; you know exactly that people are not using GFDL1.2-but-no-later-version because they value freedom (if they would, there should be no problem for them to license it as -or-any-later-version, to make sure the Free Software Foundation, which values freedom like no other, can keep the works free under changed circumstances), but because they want to upload pictures to commons without granting a really free license. Please leave the -or-any-later-version of a perfectly valid license tag alone. :-) --rtc 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep It's perfectly free and valid. Not being the best license doesn't mean we should delete the images which use it. Platonides 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep see Tony. -- smial 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep cf. Tony, there's nothing to add to. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony wrote: "Insisting media print the license is a great way to spread the concept of free licenses :-)" - no, it is not. It is a very bad way to do this, I think. You really don't want to see our content appearing in newspapers and magazines? For we can't reasonably expect one to print the whole license just because they want to use a nice Commons picture. We need a license that makes attribution easier, but of course still requires attribution, and it seems that exactly this is what a later GNU-FDL version will provide. It's also not only affecting newspapers/magazines. A recent example of the GNU-FDL 1.2 probably preventing an image use I personally think would have been nice: Commons:Help_desk#Using_an_image. The GNU-FDL was originally intended for whole books, not for single pictures or short articles; this is the historical reason for the "printing the whole license" thing and I don't think we should (mis-)use it to make our content in effect less free. Gestumblindi 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a better GFDL type license for single images would be great, and that's what your arguments support. But if banning a license results in material being withdrawn/deleted then we've lost freely licensed images. In the example you cite, having found a suitable image they can at least ask the author for more appropriate licensing if GFDL is a problem - better that than having no image to use, yes? The licensing doesn't prevent free use, a publication's priorities/economics/philosophy might, but that's their choice :-). If more people started publishing GFDL licenses people might begin to notice, more in your face than a one line attribution that doesn't even need to mention wikimedia anyway ;-) --Tony Wills 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never asked to ban a license! GFDL licensing is perfectly okay, but only if it done with the -or-any-later-version. "better that than having no image to use, yes?" no. Because the goal is not having images, but having free images. And no image at all is better than a quasi non-free-image. With the same argument we can say: Let's permit CC-BY-ND images - better that than having no image to use, yes? Let's permit CC-BY-NC-ND images - better that than having no image to use, yes? Let's permit images specially licensed for Wikipedia - better that than having no image to use, yes? Let's permit images where Wikipedia has only to pay a little bit per year, a special price - better that than having no image to use, yes? You are still ignoring the basic argument: There is no reason to use -but-no-later-version except to prevent free use of the image. Practical issues such as "a publication's priorities/economics/philosophy" are well barriers that need to be accounted for if something it to be free; not without a reason, the BSD license with the advertisement clause has a bad reputation. ---rtc 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I only see that you prefer to extend an argument about licensing from German WP to Commons. Your and some other users quite aggressive attitude - who eventually dare to claim that GFDL isn't a free license - made me withdraw any productive activities from WP and Commons, I'm not willing to contribute images any longer. I'm not willing to agree to "or any later version" as I consider it an adhesion contract to a further development of GFDL which I can't control and which I perhaps won't agree. It's simply an unfair condition, a clause of arbitriness to turn a free license with certain conditions into an unconditional free lunch. I wonder why some people insist on such a condition, it makes me suspicous about their aims. If I find a future version of GFDL more suitable, as copyright owner and licenser I want to decide myself wether I make an upgrade or not. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 12:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First, once more; nobody is claiming that the GFDL is not a free license. The GFDL is a free license, but in its current version de facto only if applied to computer manuals, which it was created for. Second, if you use the GFDL, you also bind yourself to the preamble. This preamble sets forth an ethical doctrine, and it is part of the license. If you really subscribe to the preamble, you *must* give permission to license the pictures or-any-later-version, since you otherwise contradict yourself, you say "hey, I give you this picture here. It's free and such, but here's a catch, you may not use it under any practical circumstances; because if you print the picture, you have to print a text that is many times as big as the picture, and you have to fulfil other annoying requirements that nobody knows how they even apply to pictures". Third, there is no contract involved, since you give up restrictions on the picture that you control without getting anything back. And by using the -or-any-later-version clause, you give the Free Software Foundation permission to keep the license up to date and adjust it to new needs and new situations to protect the freedom it grants. The Free Software Foundation promises to keep new versions similar in spirit to older versions, so if you really subscribe to the license, especially the preamble, there should be no problem for you. There is no unfair condition. You can even assign your copyrights to the Free Software Foundation, that way, you help even more to exorcise your copyrights that should not even exist in the first place and that you should not possess, because they serve to subjugate other people's freedom. What are you afraid of? You can alternatively use one of the creative commons licenses that are already available and that are actually designed for pictures. But we can't accept gfdl-1.2-only for pictures; that's purely an attempt to upload the picture but keeping it de facto proprietary. We must quickly, violently and painfully destroy the dream of some users who think they have found a trick to make their picture widely known by exploiting wikipedia's broad audience, but without the perceived drawback that they must be free. And we need to do it before it becomes too much of an accepted practice (it is already almost too late). PS: You added "a clause of arbitriness to turn a free license with certain conditions into an unconditional free lunch". That shows you simply don't get the idea behind the GFDL. The conditions are emphatically not there to hinder free lunch (and making that comparison between copyrights and physical objects is quite wrong, too). The license permits "free lunch"! The conditions are solely there to protect users' freedom. At the time the GFDL was designed, users did not have easy internet access. So to make users aware of their freedoms, it was necessary to add the condition that the license must be printed. And for computer manuals, this was not a practical issue. That was the purpose of that condition, not to rule out "free lunch". With everyone having easy access to the internet, the condition has become obsolete; a link to the license is sufficient to make users aware of their freedoms. Especially for pictures, the now-obsolete condition is now nothing but a practical issue that does not protect users freedom, but that restricts it. If you oppose "free lunch", don't use a free license, please. --rtc 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First I'm not such a romantic idealist to believe in ethical doctrines and promises. I'd rather believe in the stork, Santa Clause and the Easter bunny. Second it's much easier to prevent the using of a photograph by technical means, even if licensed under any CC. In that case you can stand on the sidelines.
But eventually you showed yourself: I consider your insinuation above that I or someone els want to trick the community as a personal attack. And it's an obvious contradition that you primarily assure that GFDL 1.2 is a free license and than later claim that people using that license for their images intend to block a free use. It the same weird argumentation you and your followers use in German WP and which brought nothing than strife. What about "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and "Assume good faith"? I miss it from your side. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See, I assume good faith, I assume that you personally use 1.2-only-option because you did not know better, or because you misunderstood the intention of the GFDL as trying to prohibit "free lunch", and not because you tried to trick people. But regardless of your intention, GFDL1.2 if applied to pictures *is* de facto non-free and should not be accepted. Using GFDL1.2, if applied to pictures, de facto establishes the same dictatorship over users as non-free licenses do. And dictatorships should be eliminated, regardless of whether they are meant well or not. It is not a contradiction to say that GFDL is a free license and say that using it without the or-any-later-version clause for pictures blocks (*not* "intend[s] to block") free use. What problem do you have with using GFDL 1.2-or-any-later-version? What are you afraid of? You did not answer that question. --rtc 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point that you - like a kind of Spanish Inquisition (sic!) - talk about exorcism by reference to intellectual property. Further you claim that the licences only grant users freedom. Everyone has a right to line their pockets with my media but I as a author shall have no benefits, not even be named? IMO such ideas enslave authors and deny their efforts and freedom. I'm actually afraid of people like you who want to steal my work under the cloak of freedom which I'm willing to donate voluntarily for free use but want to keep my ownership. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to keep ownership, that is, if you want to be the proprietor of your work, or, to use a different word, want to keep your work proprietary, you may not use a free license, because free licenses are defined to be those that are not proprietary. Nobody has any problem with attribution being required for your work. That is not the problem at all with licensing it as gfdl-1.2-only, however. The gfdl will continue to be requiring attribution, no matter which version. If you have a problem that people use your work and don't give anything back, don't use free licenses. This simply cannot be emphasized enough. --rtc 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• * Keep Eine freie Lizenz, Löschwunsch schwer nachvollziehbar. --Mbdortmund 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What is so hard to understand about the fact that this template is, contrary to your claim, de facto not free if applied to anything other than computer manuals? --rtc 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Was ist so schwer daran, zu verstehen, daß 1.2only eine gültige freie Lizenz ist? Es ist ein persönlicher Angriff, Benutzern zu unterstellen, daß sie unlautere Absichten haben, wenn diese Lizenz nutzen. Wenn Fotografen eine Verbreitung verhindern möchten, geht das mit technischen Mitteln weitaus einfacher. "any-later" ist als Vertragsbestandteil sowieso ungültig, egal wie die Amis das sehen. Was soll es außerdem, einen deutschen Streit auf Commons auszutragen? Ja klar, Urheberrecht ist böse und gehört abgeschafft. Kommunismus für alle! --87.185.253.140 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Die GFDL ist kein Vertrag, daher kann es auch keinen ungültigen Vertragsbestandteil geben. Und wenn es angeblich sowieso ungültig ist, was nicht der fall ist, dann frage ich mich, was Leute dagegen haben? Kommunismus heißt, andere Leute umzubringen, --rtc 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• rtc, how many media did you provide for the commons up to now? --Mbdortmund 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • zero. My work is almost exlusively in requesting the deletion of non-free media, which is at least as important, if not more important than providing free media. --rtc 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, that's interesting. You instruct others about free media but don't contribute to Commons yourself. You are the signpost that shows the way but doesn't walk it. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Mit solchen Aktionen erreichst du vortrefflich, daß Fotos in Zukunft in VGA-Größe und totkomprimiert hochgeladen werden. Selbst nichts hochladen aber andere belehren, schöner Stil. --87.185.253.140 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what I said above about technical means. And he can't do anything against it. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • If the choice is between a bad-quality free image and a good-quality de-facto non-free image, then we have to chose the former. --rtc 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I love that point. That isn't much more than the biting the bullet. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Höre auf mit dem Quatsch, zu suggerieren, GFDL wäre unfrei, egal weche Version. Die Wikipedia wird dir diesen Privatkrieg danken. It's only a german question, don't feed the troll. As answer we have in .de in future stamp-sized pictures. --87.185.223.31 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't know what you are talking about. --rtc 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Don't forget that Wikipedia's first and foremost goal is to produce and publish _free_ information. The downside is that we have to decline certain images or texts because their authors don't agree with our goals. And "we have in .de in future stamp-sized pictures." is nothing but FUD. There are many good photographers who are willing to license their images under a truly free license that allows everyone to use their images, even commercially. Just look at many of our free images of celebrities, something nobody would have imagined a few years back. There's no need to limit ourselves to less-than-truly-free images. And please stop those Ad hominem attacks. --Kam Solusar 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I consider it more FUD to claim that intellectual property is theft. And that's what you're just doing. It fits to the current New Manchesterism worldwide: Authors/workers right are worth nothing, users/masters rights beats everything. The real downside of your so-called freedom is slavery. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Sorry that I am confused, but if you support "intellectual property", that is, you disagree with the project's goal, what are you expecting? --rtc 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Yes, you're really confused that you don't see that there's no collision beetween intellectual property on one hand and the donation of that property for free use on the other hand. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • either you understand the word "free use" in a fundamentally different way than I or you are basically saying "I don't see a collision between dictatorship on the one hand and democracy on the other hand" How can something be property and free use at the same time? "Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights."(en:Property) "Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and produce modified versions of and works derived from the content." (en:Free Content) --rtc 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                      • Was interessieren uns angelsächsische Artikel oder Gesetze? Nichts! Wir richten uns ausschließlich nach DACH-Recht, aber das weißt du ja. --87.185.223.31 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                        • Okay, very slow and in simple words for someone who seems to stick in ideas like dicatatorship vs. democracy: Imagine I have a garden. This garden is registered in the cadastre. It is registered in my name. The garden is my property. I don't put a fence around the garden. I invite everyone to have their picknicks in it. That is property and free use. Got it? --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                          • No. This is where the fact kicks in that "intellectual property" is a propaganda term that provokes exactly this kind of completely misleading thinking and comparing things that have nothing in common. I cannot put a copy of your garden in front of my house if I don't have one. I cannot change a copy of your garden according to my needs. I cannot sell copies of your garden, or modified versions of your garden. It's not about how people use your picture as people might use your garden (I don't give people permission to use my garden, or the files on my computer, do you?). It is about using their copy of the picture you made. --rtc 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                            • I give up. Not only that you are not willing to follow me, you aren't even able or willing to understand a simple allegory. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than to convice someone who argues like a solicitor who got astrayed in the jungle of laws. Hope your deletion request got off-pressed to protect the project from endles strifes. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                              • You are comparing apples and eggs. You are the one who is confused; don't expect people to understand you if you make such nonsensish comparisons. You still didn't say which problem you have with the GFDL-1.2-or-any-later-version --rtc 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                                • Famous last words... You ought to read through the thread once more, perhaps you then understand. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This also could be an attemp from w:Knol to disturb success of wikipedia, couldn't it?. --ST ○ 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment Technicaly a free license so no we can't delete on those ground. What I can't work out is what it actualy means. GFDL version 1.2 only yes. Problem is that version 1.2 allowes updateing to latter versions. So explcitly going for 1.2 rather than 1.0 makes a sort of sense but I have no idea what impact it would have on attempts to update latter.Geni 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please see GFDL Section #10. Authors using the GFDL have the option, but not the requirement, to allow licensing under later versions. Hence authors can choose to specify GFDL version 1.2 and no later versions. Dragons flight 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Don't think so. As written it would appear to be saying that if a person specifies 1.2 then you can't use the work under 1.0 but could use it under a version 1.3. If theydo not specify a version then you are free to use 1.0 1.2 or a 1.3 version.Geni 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, this license is currently as free as most of our projects, since most content of our projects is released as GFDL, and the current version is 1.2. So basically, there is no reason for deletion. However, this license is exclusively used to protect some contributors from the possibility of providing truly free content; the current GFDL version is quite comparable to cc-by-sa-nc and these users want to keep it that way. Since there is no good reason for anybody to use this license (especially with regard to the major improvement in compatibility CC and GFDL will receive soon hopefully), we should delete it. Moreover, with the new version of the GFDL, GFDL-1.2 would be the only license in use which is compatible only regarding to the spirit of the license, while all other licenses are also legally compatible. To sum it up, there are two reasons for deletion: Nobody caring about really free content could want to use this license; when switching to a new GFDL version (which hopefully will come), these files are not longer usable or only usable via referring to the spirit, not to the current license – a situation we currently have and want to get away from. Code·is·poetry 08:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  An example for the usage of this template: retracting license via own licensing template. Code·is·poetry 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's the only way to explain people in nearly future the usage of commons images simple in some minutes. That's the reason why Jimmy Wales invest some time with the Free Software Foundation to make the GFDL easier to use. It's also the only way to stop things like "Abmahnung" and make all images compatible with our Wikimedia-Commons license which is visible on the footer of each page. I invested some time to look what images would be involved (but I can't see all images). Many images like Image:Solar-cycle-data.png are not really involved into this deletion request, because they are additionally Creative Commons licenses. A "subst" of the GFDL1.2 template would be enough in such cases. Also images from User:EvaK (Example-Edit) and User:Steschke (Example-Edit) are not neccesarely to delete, because they were uploaded in many cases as CC or GFDL (which includes "any later version "). So I don't understand there protest. We shouldn't hear on people which don't want to know that a Creative Commons license is like all free licenses is perpetual (see example edits). It shows that there is not only a theoretical interest to bring images under personal protection.

So, after I look to many images, I believe the win for the project with over 2 million images would be greater than the loss. --Kolossos 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm all for promotion and increasing the awareness of free licenses, but the full-license-text-citation requirement of GFDL, when applied to images, is just a joke and bad publicity for free content. It's a huge string attached. Use of the GFDL was mistake from the beginning, and instead of reinforcing this mistake its best to just rip it off like a band-aid - real quick. Apart from that I find it poor discussion practice to attack rtc based on a lack of image contributions. Commons has many ways for people to make useful contributions. --Dschwen 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep - Let's put this simply; someone has released their work under a free licence. That something about that licence might not be appreciated by certain groups of possible re-users does not detract from that free GFDL release they have made. I see no reason to junk so much good work when our intent is for free release and this licence supplies that explicitly. --AlisonW 01:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep -
  • Fact: GFDL v1.2 is a free license.
  • Fact: Most free licenses do not make provisions for updating the license of a work to a newer version (there are no other license templates with the words "or any later version" in Commons). The absense of the update license provision from other licenses does not make them less free. For example, images tagged as cc-by-sa-1.0 cannot be updated to cc-by-sa-3.0 but they are not less free.
  • Fact: With any other license (except GFDL) the creator chooses a version that he agrees with it, and knows the rules that will apply to the distribution of his work. If he agrees that a newer version is better he has the option to relicense it to the newer version himself. Updating to a newer version of the license for the GFDL automatically is an option and not a requirement.
  • Fact: We cannot take for granted that a newer GFDL will be better than v1.2. Let us all remember that cc-by-3.0 licenses had raised a big debate on whether they are free licenses. Can someone imagine how it would be if there was automatic updating for CC licenses?
  • Fact: Even if there is a later GFDL, version 1.2 will still be a free license. So I suggest that we leave these images here.
  • Fact: GFDL v1.2 is a free license. If it is not good for images then this applies to all images, and not only those that cannot be updated.
  • I would be more comfortable if there was a suggestion to refuse uploading new images licensed to GFDL-any-version if we agree that it's not a perfect license for images, but what is already licensed as such should stay here. Geraki ^T_L^G 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete - In actual practice this license is being used by Wikipedia photographers as a non-commercial license. Since it is usually not possible to actually follow the letter of the GFDL when reusing images (as it was never a license intended for images), some photographers insist that commercial reusers must pay them for the reuse of their "free-license" photos if they want to get out of the full license reproduction clause. For non-commercial reuse, they let the requirement slide (as has always been the practice since the beginning of Wikipedia). In effect, the license is not being used as a "free license" in this case, thus it does not fit the goals of the Wikimedia projects. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please don't just discuss the merits of the template and whether it should be used or not. Also establish a sensible method of deprecating its usage.--Nilfanion 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1. How to deprecate the template

That's pretty straight forward. Insert a big fat notice that the template and all the content that is licensed with it will be deleted by a certain date. Make it longer than the usual period, to allow users, which will be notified using a bot, to relicense their content to GFDL. Any content still tagged with said template can then be deleted. I'd propose a one month deadline. That should be enough even for casual contributors. --Dschwen 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. Gestumblindi 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with images from other projects?--Nilfanion 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep We should keep this template AND continue to allow uploads that are "GFDL-1.2 and no later versions". It is not fair to expect everyone to agree to licenses that they have never even seen yet. If some people want to give carte blanche for such things that is fine; but not everyone does and we should not force them away from the project. Also, the comment under the big "Note" heading is a red herring. We do not need to discuss how to deprecate the template because the template should not be deprecated. Johntex 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Nilfanion just asked for a what-if perspective, and as a Delete voter I laid out a rough plan so that other people can consider it when casting their vote.. ..uhm.. opinion. --Dschwen 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just deprecate the licence tag and delete any content uploaded _after_ the deprecation date while keeping the older stuff. Furthermore, as an exclusion from this rule we should accept any content which is just transferred from local projects, maybe requiring it to be older than the deprecation date in the local project. Notifying the uploaders by bot sounds good, maybe they will switch to alternate licences.--Wiggum 18:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ACK. Deprecate the template and delete images uploaded after e.g. April 1st 2nd 2008. Images from projects that still allow images licensed as 1.2only might be a problem, but I don't think they should be treated differently. I think the German WP project for example would probably deprecate the license template too if commons does.. --Kam Solusar 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

since November 2008 this is an outdated license

Since we have Version 1.3 this is an outdated License and how everybody knows not the best for images. Should we allow further the upload of new image with only this license? --Kolossos (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please talk further at Commons_talk:Copyright_tags#Template:GFDL-1.2. --Kolossos (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

redesign of the GFDL-1.2 template

I want to redesign this template to seprate it optically from Template:GFDL. Even they look different the text is nearly the same and most people/user don't notice or know about the difference between "under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 only" and "under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version". Below are three examples I tough about:

---

{{GFDL-1.2/lang}}

---

{{GFDL-1.2/lang}}

---

{{GFDL-1.2/lang}}

I prefer the first or the last one. May you have some different ideas you want to tell me. If there is no responce at all I will include the first suggestion.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Support First version is ok. -- smial (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes first one look ok and should be enough. --Kolossos (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Support for all versions --Marcela (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I included the new design in all templates ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}. Moreover I created Category:GFDL-1.2 as an additional separation from GFDL 1.2 or any later version and I included the autotranslate tag. Even there was Template:GFDL-1.2/layout I delted it for now, because it was a redirect to Template:GFDL/layout so that there is no additional confusion.

--D-Kuru (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated the template so that {{GFDL-1.2/lang}} is inside the temlate and not outside any longer

--D-Kuru (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, good work. -- smial (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

interwiki links

{{editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link to the Russian Wikipedia GFDL-1.2 template and update the Arabic, English and Vietnamese links.

The interwiki section should read:

[[ar:قالب:رخصة جنو للوثائق الحرة 1.2]]
[[de:Vorlage:Bild-GFDL/1.2]]
[[en:Template:GFDL-1.2]]
[[ru:Шаблон:GFDL-1.2]]
[[vi:Bản mẫu:GFDL-1.2]]

— Tetromino (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for licensetpl_link

Please see this proposal. /skagedal^talk 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)