MediaWiki diskusija:Licenses

message: ari vajadzētu iebāzt te pie nebrīvajām--FRK (runas/darbi) 12:02, 21 oktobrī, 2011 (UTC)

message: Hello!
I generally think that all free files should be uploaded directly to Commons. Uploading locally should only be allowed for non-free files and for special exceptions. I know it is not the best place to suggest it but if you agree then the free licenses should be reduced. For example there are no reason to upload PD-USGov or PD-NASA files here.
But to start with I would like to suggest a few changes. 
First GFDL is not a good license so I think that should be removed as an option. 
Second "Self" should be replaced with "Cc-zero" for two reasons. First because Commons:Template:PD-self (the matcing template on Commons) is not a real license. It is something Wikipedia/Commons have invented years ago. Second because "Self" is the name of the template that on many other wikis are used to indicate that the work was made by the uploader. Example Commons:Template:Self. It is also used to manage attribution etc.
I know it will require some work to change the use of the self template but not adding it to new uploads is a start. --MGA73 (diskusija) 2020. gada 13. jūnijs, plkst. 11.22 (EEST)
replies: text: It sounds reasonable to me. Regarding moving to commons, we do have some exceptions for files (like keeping Freedom of Panorama affected files here, not on Commons. We would need to formalize it with a community vote, though). --Papuass (diskusija) 2020. gada 13. jūnijs, plkst. 11.35 (EEST)
replies: text: :Yes community should agree when larger changes are made. --MGA73 (diskusija) 2020. gada 13. jūnijs, plkst. 12.01 (EEST)
Suggested changes:
* BRĪVI LICENCĒTS (Please upload to Commons instead if possible): - Suggest to add a notice to use Commons instead
** Eesmu darba autors: - Suggest to start with own works
*** Self|CC-BY-SA-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 - Change so it uses new version of self-template (own work)
*** Self|Cc-zero|CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (Publiskā lietošanā) - Cc-zero is better than PD-self that is not a real license
** Neesmu darba autors:
*** CC-BY-SA-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 
*** CC-BY-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
*** GFDL|GNU brīvās dokumentācijas licence - Delete (GFDL is not a good license)
*** Publiskā lietošanā:
**** PD-self|Es esmu darba autors un nododu to publiskā izmantošanā - Remove (was called self but renamed to PD-self) as it is replaced by Cc-zero above
**** PD-vecs|Autortiesību termiņš ir beidzies (100 gadi - Atcerieties norādīt autoru) - Added that it is for those where author died more than 100 years ago)
**** PD-vecs-70|Autortiesību termiņš ir beidzies (70 gadus - Atcerieties norādīt autoru) - Added for those where author died more than 70 years ago)
**** PD-autors|Autors darbu nodevis publiskā izmantošanā
**** PD-nezināms|Autors ir nezināms (Atcerieties norādīt iemeslus, kāpēc fails tiek uzskatīts par publisku domēnu) - Added that uploader should tell why files is believed to be PD.
**** PD-padomju prese|PSRS preses materiāls - Are we sure about that? There is no link to a matching license on Commons.
**** PD-likvidēta prese|Likvidēta preses izdevuma materiāls - Are we sure about that? There is no link to a matching license on Commons.
**** PD-zinātne|Zinātnisks pētījums - Are we sure about that? There is no link to a matching license on Commons.
The names does not have to be the same as on Commons but there should be a license on Commons that matchec the local template. If there is no such license the file can't be moved to Commons and there is a risk that the file is not actually free. --MGA73 (diskusija) 2020. gada 20. jūnijs, plkst. 22.41 (EEST)

text: (Translations are done with Google so please fix typos and bad wording --MGA73 (diskusija) 2020. gada 20. jūnijs, plkst. 22.58 (EEST))
replies: text: : Also see MediaWiki diskusija:Uploadtext --MGA73 (diskusija) 2020. gada 23. jūnijs, plkst. 11.47 (EEST)
Hi Papuass! 
GFDL is meant for software and it is not good for media because it makes it difficult to re-use the material. Motivated by the the wish of making it easier to re-use files Wikimedia Foundation Board decided in 2009 to stop using GFDL as a sole license per this message. So as I mentioned above I would like to suggest that GFDL is removed as a suggested/valid license for new uploads. Where should I make this suggestion/vote?
Are there any of the other suggestions/edits above you can make without a community vote? If there are any other changes that need a vote perhaps we can suggest them all at the same time so we do not have to make more than 1 vote? --MGA73 (diskusija) 2021. gada 14. aprīlis, plkst. 19.26 (EEST)

text: I am not sure if even a vote is needed to remove these options from the dropdown menu. @ScAvenger

text: If people are willing to use these licenes, they can put them in wikitext. Papuass (diskusija) 2021. gada 16. aprīlis, plkst. 14.57 (EEST)
replies: text: :  The reason I talked about a vote is because of the earlier discussion. But reading the discussion again I think the comment about a vote was because my original comment also includes a suggestion to try to make users use Commons more.

text: : I also think that GFDL can be removed without a vote because users can still add it manually.

text: : I suggested it 9 months ago and annouced it at Vikipēdija:Kopienas_portāls/Arhīvs41#Suggested_changes_in_licenses_and_uploading_files_to_Commons and there were no protests. So I think you could remove GFDL now. --MGA73 (diskusija) 2021. gada 18. aprīlis, plkst. 21.51 (EEST)
thread_title:  Update licenses