Template talk:GFDL-1.2/Archive 1

message: I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently:
old→
←new
Image:The GNU logo.png just have to be changed to Image:Heckert GNU white.svg but I don’t have privileges to do it myself. Please see Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Sharp GNU Head. Rafał Pocztarski 05:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been changed by Quadell. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 05:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Please replace such an icon to the template. Thank you, adnghiem501  09:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharp GNU Head

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:GFDL 1.2
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin forgot to add this interwiki link to the template. -- ADNghiem501 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Commander Keane 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: Do we really need to explicitly state "no other versions"? It's kind of obvious and it would look sleeker without it. Bromskloss 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Usually the license states "or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" So it helps to make it explicit. Pengo 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No because it is meaningless. Anyone attempting to use "version 1.2 and no other versions" is using version 1.2, which states that version 1.2 or any later version may be used, nullifying the prior restriction. There is no way to use version 1.2 which does not include an explicit permission to use version 1.3, because there is no such thing as "version 1.2 of the GFDL" which does not include such permission. If people had actually wanted to do that, they would have had to edit the text of version 1.2 to delete the permission to use a later version, and then state that their work is licensed under their modified fork of the GFDL. Nobody has done that that I know of, and if anyone has, we can remove or paraphrase their edits manually.  I am repeating this for clarity below, since this thread is from 2006. NCC-8765 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does version 1.2 of the GFDL include a permission to use the work under any later version of GFDL? Section 10 gives it as an example of what a document may specify. --AVRS (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No other versions 

message: Please replace it with This one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.151.123 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC-8)
:Done.--Commander Keane 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image replacement 

message: Please change the template code to the following for purposes for  standardization. Kelly hi! 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbox standardization 

message: Anyone attempting to use "version 1.2 and no other versions" is using version 1.2, which states that version 1.2 or any later version may be used, nullifying the prior restriction. There is no way to use version 1.2 which does not include an explicit permission to use version 1.3, because there is no such thing as "version 1.2 of the GFDL" which does not include such permission. If people had actually wanted to do that, they would have had to edit the text of version 1.2 to delete the permission to use a later version (please note that the permission to use later versions is granted in Section 10 to "You" defined in Section 1 as "any member of the public ... a licensee" -- not the licensor), and then state that their work is licensed under their modified fork of the GFDL. Nobody has done that that I know of, and if anyone has, we can remove or paraphrase their edits manually. This template should be deprecated and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License should be updated to version 1.3. Please see GNU Free Documentation License#Compatibility with CC-BY-SA for more information. NCC-8765 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any text to that effect in the 1.2 license. Could you point it out specifically? Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: This is not correct: nowhere in the GFDL-1.2 license does it require you to allow the use of later versions; indeed the inclusion of the phrase "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version" very clearly implies that the opposite (that a document is published under only one version) is not only possible but is in fact the standard practice.  The section at the bottom, "how to use this license for your documents", which includes a recommendation to license under "or any later versions", is clearly marked in the original publication of the GFDL-1.2 as an "addendum", and only reinforces the expectation that omitting the "or any later versions" clause results in licensing under a single version only. Saying that you license a document "under the GFDL" would have significant ambiguity, which is why that is not done anywhere on wikipedia AFAIK.  Licensing a document "under the GFDL version 1.2 or any later version" is absolutely clear and absolutely valid; licensing "under the GFDL version 1.2 only" is equally valid. Happy‑melon 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecate because the restriction is self-contradictory 

message: Draft 3. More general wording in warning to give us more flexibility...
:I like it. Happy‑melon 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft 3

message: OK, what do you guys think of this one? Please note that this is a "1.2-only" template (not a GFDL transclusion), but it states that it can only be used for images temporarily transferred from Commons. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be an extension of WP:CSD#F3, which would need to be agreed at that project page. I think there should be a minimum time stated (e.g. five days) before deleting, to give the uploader chance to move the image to Commons. Other than that, I would accept this as the best working solution. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised the issue Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and followed your advise to add a "five days" clause to the warning. Kaldari (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, why are we even complaining about this? Licensing it under GFDL 1.2 only doesn't make it any less free than 1.3. ViperSnake151 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the tag itself? Did you read any of the text of this page? Feel free. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft 4

message: FYI, there is a discussion about speedy deletion of GFDL-1.2 images at WT:CSD#Why are we threatening to delete free content?. --Amalthea 16:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion 

message: Please add . Also, why is the template fully protected? Less than 50 pages link to it. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD