Wikipedia talk:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted

message: Try something like this:
"If you want to use this site, you must agree to the terms.  One of the terms is a non-revocable GFDL license.  If you attempt to renounce the license, (1) all prior contributions are still GFDL licensed, (2) because you say that you do not accept site terms, you may no longer edit, and (3) if you do make further edits, those edits are still GFDL licensed.  If you do not accept site terms, please do not edit.   
Don't talk about trust or feelings or liability or destruction of Wikipedia.  This can be explained very simply in neutral terms. Have Godwin take a look at whatever you finally create, please. - Jehochman  Talk 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no way to prove that someone really has accepted the terms of the license though.  Someone who has already attempted to revoke the GFDL once for a superfluous reason (like "I don't want my images on Commons") is likely to try revocation at some point in the future, regardless of whether they said they accepted the license or not.  --Cyde Weys 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To prove that an individual accepts the terms of the GFDL (after initially denying them), just have them to say so. That's all that's need for any license declaration. If they revoke it again (in the same context) something along the lines of WP:RBI may be put in place. I haven't noticed that someone who revokes once is likely to do it in the future, and why a policy should be made out of it just because it happens here or there. GracenotesT § 16:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better basis for banning

message: * The GFDL is quite complex, and not many people understand it completely. If a new contributor mistakenly uploads an image under the GFDL, and tries to revoke this when the consequences of this are pointed out, I don't think banning the user is really necessary. In general, only a real revoke should result in a ban, not a correction of a license of a contribution that really never was GFDL'ed.  (Of course, long-time Wikipedians should be familiar with our licensing rules, and we should be more strict with them. And that goes double for admins.)
* Perhaps it should be made clear that you are allowed to relicense your own images, as long as the license is still acceptable for Wikipedia. Problems only arise when the relicensing is retroactive (which we state is impossible), or when the new license is not free. Eugène van der Pijll 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: *We have no right to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, therefore I have changed "the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation" to "our opinion".  If the Wikimedia Foundation would like to make an official statement on the matter, this can be referenced and re-added.  Eagergray 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the official statement.  Please provide a link. Eagergray 13:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation

message: It seems to me that WP:NLT already covers this as any attempt to claim to revoke GFDL is a claim that we are violating their copyright which is a legal threat and should be handled like all other legal threats. WAS 4.250 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A claim of revocation of a GFDL license is not a legal threat unless a threat is made. I think we should just point to WP:NLT and explain that any threats regarding the GFDL license will result in a block. WP:NLT says that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"", so if the person is just confused, or even just disagrees with our interpretation of GFDL they should not be blocked unless they actually make a threat. If a user is disruptive in other ways(such as deleting their own GFDL images) then that can be addressed as disruption. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We redistribute our content. Anyone saying that they know we are going to redistribute their contributions and they will not allow it, is making a legal threat. Of course, they must be talked to first to make sure that that indeed is what they are claiming. WAS 4.250 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "I don't think it is legal for you to do that" is not a legal threat. "If you keep doing that I am going to..." is a legal threat. So it really depends on how they express their disagreement, specifically if they use threats or not. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: However, I do agree with the rational at the top of the page that not being willing to except the licensing terms of Wikipedia is grounds for banning due to incompatibility with the project. No resentment, no bad faith needed, just not compatible with our goals. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your re-statement of what I was trying to say.  That is exactly it.  It has nothing to do with legal threats or anything, it's just the simple incompatibility issue that we cannot have anyone who doesn't agree with the legitimacy of the GFDL editing Wikipedia.  For pragmatic reasons.  --Cyde Weys 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, instead of "banning" which is generally reserved for acts of bad faith, I think it would be better described as an indefinite block until the user is willing to accept the licensing required to allow them to contribute. If the user disagrees with our interpretation in a bad faith manner or makes legal threats that is another story, but simply disgreeing to the interpretation of the license is not neccesarily bad faith and should be given the option of changing their mind later and being unblock. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not needed 

message: This is text. It is not an image. Free content licences that work well with collaborative editing of a text document can encounter problems when being applied to images that generally are not collaboratively edited, but are usually revised, version by version as a whole. Anyway, the whole discussion is moot, because anyone who wants to "withdraw" their GFDL images can replace the GFDL tag with a copyright tag and add a notification that the original uploading under the GFDL was in error and that the pictures had always been "all rights reserved". What happens then? Delete the copyright images and ban the user for uploading the copyright pictures and tagging them as GFDL? Carcharoth 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the part in the GFDL license that says the license can be retracted if the original has not been modified. By my reading, even an un-altered original is still under the license. A license can be made less restrictive, but a more restrictive license is not binding because the less restrictive license still applies. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text and images are different 

message: Whilst my concerns are probably going to met by taking on WP:CSD#I8 and getting it amended or removed (so I can keep a local copy on en.Wiki without fear of some jobsworth coming along and deleting them under I8 even if I ask for them not to be), I nevertheless did revoke GFDL (or attempt to, depending on your viewpoint).  I trust this "banning" isn't going to be applied retroactively. Neil ム 11:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you now accept that anything you have contributed or will contribute is licensed under GFDL and accept that that means it can be redistributed and modified, then I see no problem. WAS 4.250 15:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick clarification 

message: How would this work with users who have released photos of themselves under the GFDL but now want to vanish? Also, how would it affect other issues where we are usually apt to err on the side of deleting an image? IronGargoyle 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly fine to delete images if we want to delete images, including situations like the right to vanish where we assure people beforehand that we'll help them leave if they want to. What this essay is saying is that, firstly, the project has an irrevocable license to use contributions, so it's our choice whether we delete them; and, secondly, that disrupting the project by attempting to interfere with licensed contributions that you earlier made in good faith is a legal threat and can be treated as such. In the meantime, we're never obligated to keep problematic content if we don't want to, apart from some requirements to retain the article history. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The right to vanish is poorly named, it is not a right, but a courtesy. We can delete the image, but that does not change its GFDL status, if another person wants to keep using it, it is still GFDL. We generally would not delete an image for the right to vanish unless the image was a) identifying in nature, and b) was not encyclopedic in nature. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:Right to vanish]]

message: While I obviously agree with the ideas expressed on this page, does this really occur often enough to warrant a lengthy and wholly new policy page? I think we could just as easily address this with a single paragraph on e.g. the blocking and banning policies. >Radiant< 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Something does not need to happen often when it happening at all is a major problem. Wikipedia should have been founded with this policy, people need to know that can't take back their contributions the moment they disagree with what is being done with them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, but 

message: I've recently been coming across Flikr pics where people upload them here (or at Commons) under a CC licence, but then later you come across a note saying that the uploader at Flickr has changed the terms of the licence to be more restrictive. Can someone please explain how CC licences can be changed like this, but GFDL (and I suppose PD) can't be changed like this. I agree that this is the right way to put it (GFDL can't be revoked), but wanted clarification with regard to revocation (or changing) of CC licences. That potentially creates the same problems as attempted revocation of GFDL, and would lead to the same conclusion: "we don't want contributions from people who are going to change their minds later". Note that you can't stop people changing their minds, you just have to be clear what can and cannot be changed. That's what really needs to be made clear here. Carcharoth 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CC cannot be revoked. If flickr lets their users change their license that does not invalidate the license they already released it under. CC licenses cannot be made more restrictive once released, that is the whole point of them. Since Flickr is not trying to create free(as in freedom) content for the world to mirror, then allowing users to cease advertising a CC license does them no harm, but it does not invalidate the CC declaration given to everyone, everywhere, forever. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why are people suggesting that Wikipedia and Commons images "need to go", based on changing licences at Flikr? I'll find an example. Carcharoth 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I confused two images, but I did track down :Commons:Template:Flickr-change-of-license. Over 1,000 Commons pictures link to that, and Commons rightly say that the licences are irrevocable, but it shows how they approach this sort of thing. Carcharoth 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It cannot be revoked, however there may be an issue with the inability to confirm that it was released under CC originally if the declaration is taken off the source. It is still CC, but it may be hard to convince the foundation of that if the proof is gone. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further explication of multi-licencing 

message: I've removed the sentence "Editors must be aware that they do not have a right to challenge the entire basis of the project and continue participating in it at the same time," since I don't think it's necessarily true. If I wish to challenge the utility of NPOV, I shouldn't be banned for it. And we're not about to start banning everyone who challenges the premise of allowing anyone to edit. Similarly, if I wish to challenge use of the GFDL, that should be fine, so long as I'm not being disruptive and removing all my edits. -Amarkov moo! 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a completely different issue than any other policy. We can remove NPOV, and the project would significantly change (in my opinion for the worse), but it would still be viable. The GFDL on the other hand is what guarantees, under US law, both the freedom to edit, and the free availability of content, without the loss of copyright and attribution. There are other licenses that could arguably fill this role (in fact, we use CC licenses for media content), and debate around that should not be sanctioned. However, I fail to see how a debate on what license might be better to use as the basis for the project can be construed as challenging the project itself. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that we should consider actually removing the GFDL, which as you say would be legally impossible. But that doesn't mean that we should be sanctioning people just for saying that we should. -Amarkov moo! 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, if someone (yes, me), said that the GFDL is a poor licence to use for images, and that other free licences should be used instead, am I attacking the entire basis of the project? Jumping on criticism is the wrong way to go. Making crystal-clear statements of our position, and encouraging discussion is the right way to go. Carcharoth 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to make this about someone challenging our sacred beliefs. I think it is enough to say that if you don't agree to our interpretation of GFDL you are not compatible with the project. No need to create a good guy bad guy situation, just people and groups with different goals which are not compatible. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging the basis of the project 

message: ...the current version. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me likes... 

message: I don't see why this page is necessary.  It just restates things already in WP:CSD (i.e. that you can't take it back once you've written it) and WP:NLT (i.e. don't threaten to sue anyone over this).  Any claims made as to what GDFL means is just commentary that does not have the force of policy and belongs in an essay or at best a "rationale" section for explaining why we have a rule.  We have too many policy pages as it is and they're proliferating.  Why can't we just merge this one into WP:CSD? Wikidemo 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this has much to share with speedy deletion criteria. -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSD addresses whether an author can summarily delete his/her articles[contributions], and under what circumstance.  It's not permitted if the deletion is out of frustration or some other act of bad faith...we just added mention of this page, that a license revocation is not permitted.Wikidemo 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we already had Wikipedia:No legal threats for that. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A twice-occurring problem, then.  If we made a policy out of everything that happens twice on Wikipedia we would have more policies than articles.Wikidemo 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page here? 

message: This seems to be a term of service rather than a policy. As such it likely should be linked in the disclaimer on edit pages. Policies like WP:NLT already cover remedies in the event that someone attempts to revoke GFDL. Therefore I suggest relabeling this as perhaps an essay or guideline. 198.203.175.175 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms of service rather than policy 

message: Can someone clarify what happens if someone tries to revoke their release of images into the public domain? Carcharoth 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, there isn't a good legal standard or system for an individual to abandon a copyright to the public domain.  The attempts to do so recite a lot of stuff but it's not clear they really effect it or that it's even possible to do so.  It's all boilerplate legalese that nobody bothers to read.  Someone could make the argument that the language is ineffective.  However, if it were effective, once something is in the public domain it's impossible for anyone to take it back.  The copyright is extinguished for good.  The GDFL assignment seems a lot more solid because it's a license, something you definitely can accomplish by clicking things online.  However, it too is vulnerable (for text too) in a lot of ways and has not been litigated enough to see how well it might hold up.  I think we have to take the position that neither can be revoked, and though I don't think this policy is important enough to get its own policy page, I think we have to be strict in enforcing a ban on users who attempt to take back their contributions - either by claiming to revoke the copyright grant or simply deleting all their work.  That severely undermines things.Wikidemo 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revocation of Public Domain images 

message: If a user's contribution history on a particular article is deleted, how does that effect the GFDL status of any of their contributions still in the article?  Is it enough that deleted revisions are available for review by Oversights, or does GFDL require a publicly-accessible history?  I'm concerned that, especially in BLP situations, history deletion may end up forcing complete blanking of the article, in order to avoid a situation where a user could claim we were violating GFDL.  I may be overthinking this, however, but it's a point I've heard raised previously, and I don't feel like I have a clear answer about how to comply with GFDL while simultaneously deleting troublesome revisions from the edit history.  --Ssbohio (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an entire contribution is deleted along with the history of it, there's no problem. Each contribution of a user is a separate entity, so deleting one has no effect on any other. Now, if the history line were deleted while the actual contribution was kept, that might be a problem. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's where I see a problem arising.  If the final revision of an article is kept, and in incorporates content from one or more deleted revisions, then what's our obligation under GFDL?  If we don't keep a publicly available revision history, do we create a situation where a disgruntled user could demand content removal on the grounds that we "broke" the GFDL? --Ssbohio 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that situation is created. The history doesn't necessarily have to be undeleted, but at a minimum somebody needs to credit the authors. I've seen this done in a few places by cut and pasting the deleted article history onto the talk page. - Ehheh 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also seen that done.  Now, I'm not sure that it does the trick, considering some of what I've read here.  If the list of contributors isn't tied in some fashion to each's particular contribution, does it satisfy GFDL?  And, if not, does it give the editor an "out" to revoke/deny/etc the GFDL?  --Ssbohio (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the only requirement is the author and the date of publication be listed - a copy of their specific version isn't required. Remember, the GFDL is supposed to license software manuals being reproduced in print. They wouldn't have space to publish every revision in such a format. - Ehheh (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks to be one of a series stating whether the Wikimedia Foundation may release the user's contributions under a license other than the GFDL, see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing#Wikimedia Foundation licencing. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it's licenses other than GFDL that the category members demure from.  Makes sense. --Ssbohio 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History deletion & GFDL 

message: The name change was necessary, but I don't like the "almost impossible" wording. It challenges people to try to find a way to do it.
We should go back to "not permitted", which is the real point anyway, because we'll block anyone who tries to for legal threats. rspεεr (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The new wording is too long and seems pointy.  Titles should describe the content of the article, not its thesis or conclusion.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Wouldn't  be a better fit for this page? Or even  to WP:NLT or WP:CC-BY-SA? -- œ™ 05:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay? 

message: Nothing in this page quotes any valid law.  In fact, it directly refutes the law.  Whether revoking a license would "challenge the basis" of the Wikipedia project means nothing.  The fact is that a license such as this is not a contract.  A contract requires consideration to flow from both parties.  A licensor is not receiving any consideration and therefore cannot be bound by any contractual terms.  This license can be revoked at any time because there is no consideration to make it binding.  Learn what law is.  I find it extremely discouraging to see such misinformation spread around here.  I would hope it is just out of ignorance, but apparently it appears to be stemming from a mean-spirited desire to prevent people taking their work with them. Leecharleswalker (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a contract. But estoppel applies to promises and representations of fact. Would you care to offer your legal opinion on those topics? (I realize this is a late reply...but I figure that it's making the point for the sake of discussion.) TheFeds 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Page Based on a Lie 

message: Skomorokh 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh oh... 

message: I just added a section on termination rights to the essay, pointing out that US law (specifically 17 USC 203, which I footnote) reserves to the author(s) the right to terminate any and all grants (which include licenses) during the period from 35-40 years after publication (or after creation). This right cannot be waived or contracted away. To excersize it requires giving notice two to ten years in advance. This means it is unlikley to be used often, but it remains legally possible, and nothing in the license terms, or in any TOU provision or in anything agreed to as a condition of editing can waive this right of authorship. Only works made for hire are exempt. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ternination rights