Wikipedia talk:Upload/Uploadtext/en-placeholder-people

"under GFDL and the Creative Commons share-alike licenses" - try "under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license" (not licenses!) --pfctdayelise (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are we telling people they must multilicense their work under GFDL and CC-BY-SA? Surely they can release it only under the GFDL, or only under CC-BY-SA, or multilicense under GFDL and CC-BY, or only CC-BY, or under the Free Art License, or into the public domain. There are lots of options at Wikipedia:Image license tags#For image creators. —Angr 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure. I know people don't like pure gfdl for images, since the reprinting of the license for every use is somewhat laborious and limits re-use. That's no reason to push people away from only cc-by, cc-by-sa, or pd though. And some people choose gfdl explicitly for that difficulty, (but those people probably know what they are doing). - cohesion 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Making a derived work which combines GFDL content and CC-By-Sa content is highly questionable at best, eh, no. I'm beating around the bush... I'll be accurate and frank: a derived work combining both is clearly a license violation... but you could play games about what constitutes a derivative under the licenses.

We should ask for what we want, and what we should want is for someone to be able to legally distribute Wikipedia content under a single free content license. To achieve this we *must* receive a GFDL release. The concerns about GFDL being more restrictive are material, and that the current version applies somewhat awkwardly to images isn't unreasonable... which is why it's fairly advantageous to ask for CC-By-Sa. Because of the way the terms are setup there isn't a huge reason why someone who wanted to use CC-By-Sa should mind releasing under the GFDL in parallel... unless they intended to create a gratuitous incompatibility.

Because of the compatibility issue we used to require that all image be uploaded to enwiki by their copyright holder be distributable at least under the GFDL. Unfortunately the text was lost from the upload page by an over eager simplification of the text which didn't consider the legal implications of the change. The enwiki upload page was also copied to commons when it started.. and the rest is history. We can't take back that mistake in the past, but we should stop digging ourselves in deeper.

When the usability study folks gave their results back to us, uploading was identified as one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. Licensing was identified as the second most difficult part of uploading (actually getting the image to show was the most). Their recommendation was to remove all mention of licensing. *doh*. Well we can't do that, obviously. But we can make the default 'simple' process not burden people with a lot of choice. If they want to do something different, they can use the old upload form.

I'd personally rather see us make it simpler and just ask for GFDL only, and allow people to specify an additional license if they wish, but I know some people will oppose because they want CC grants for their own purposes. Rather than fight that argument, I thought it would be an acceptable compromise to ask uploaders for a fairly permission grant under a choice of these two licenses. --Gmaxwell 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is, the way it's currently worded we aren't asking them to multilicense under GFDL and CC-BY-SA (which I agree is generally a good idea and how I usually license my images at Commons), we are requiring them to multilicense, implicitly suggesting that any other choice of free license is unacceptable. —Angr 05:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the choice of licenses is one of the hardest parts in uploading. We provide an escape for people knowledgeable enough to use it... and people who aren't knowledgeable enough to figure that out should just be taking the default. If they can't figure that out, then they probably aren't going to make an informed decision to use anything else in any case. --Gmaxwell 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on dual-license "requirement"

Was there ever a consensus on this text (implying GFDL+CC dual license is required)? Superm401 - Talk 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)