RationalWiki talk:Transitioning to CC-BY-SA
Users list[edit]
- The following users have pictures with this template:
- User:Linus
- User:LArron
- User:SusanG
- User:Gauss
User:ΠUser:Sprocket J CogswellUser:Nx - two images from the MW commons, please update C terms.- User:Irrationalatheist
User:Sterile- User:Genghis Khant
- User:Publius
- User:Armondikov
- User:Nutty Roux
- The following users have pictures with this template:
- User:Linus
- User:Tmtoulouse
User:HumanSomeone else fixed the book cover.- User:SusanG
- User:Fox
- User:Redback
- User:Toast
User:ListenerX- User:Terry Sita - one file, File:Easy cheese.jpg, from here, probably easy to switch. Or delete.
- User:Ipatrol
User:ΠUser:Nxcleared, I think- User:Stunteddwarf
- User:TheEgyptian
User:Arthropleura- I don't see any, am I doing it wrong, or did someone already clean up? (Yes, someone did.)- User:Corry
- User:Armondikov
PROTIP: [1] (replace my username with yours of course) Nx 02:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
AMATEURTIP[edit]
- Copy and paste this (from the edit window) into anywhere and preview to see:
<dpl> createdby = Anonymous User namespace = File uses = Template:GFDL </dpl> <dpl> createdby = Anonymous User namespace = File uses = Template:GFDL-self </dpl>
Better yet, do what I think people are doing and sub the above user names for "Nx" into the following code:
- File:Bouncywikilogo.gif
- File:--librul-- --DECEITS--.JPG
- File:SigButt.png
- File:Carbon8All.png
- File:Anomalocaris BW.jpg
- File:Wiki4CAM logo.png
- File:Redbackspider.jpg
- File:Robothead.svg
- File:Infant baptism.jpg
- File:Milgram Experiment.png
- File:Pakicetus BW.jpg
- File:Patrol.png
- File:Fork1.png
- File:Fork2.png
- File:Fork3.png
- File:Brainfork.png
- File:ForkInRoad.svg
- File:Donate button.png
- File:Adsig.png
- File:Flame - Insectoid.jpg
- File:Laffer napkin.jpg
- File:Mathtemplatepic.png
- File:Kenloveshimsomegays.jpg
- File:Badge 32.png
Asking users if they consent to re-license images[edit]
Is this necessary? I thought the entire GFDL 1.3/CC-BY-SA 3.0 transition process was made so as to remove this requirement. ListenerXTalkerX 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hell if I know. I'm just doing what the screen tells me to. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- If an editor specifically released content under a GFDL license then we don't have the right to re-license it. From what I can tell no one has released edits under a specific license but many pictures/images have been. Just as if a user uploads a pictures and releases it public domain or CC-BY-SA we can't go in and relicense it as a site. tmtoulouse 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- So how do we get from our name appearing above to specific images we GFDLd? ħuman 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- The GFDL template says "1.2 or any higher version," which means we can switch anything licensed with that template to CC-BY-SA. ListenerXTalkerX 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- But we as a site do not hold the copyright to "move" the images into CC-BY-SA that right stays with the originator of the image. Hence why permssion should be granted by the users. tmtoulouse 02:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can someone answer Human's question. That is, what do we do? Sterile factoid 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- The code just under AMATEURTIP above. Basically, it's a code that will look up any images posted by the user that holds the GFDL or GFDL-self templates. I've just done it for mine and it's coming up with "missing" which I assume means that there's no more things that I've put up that are liscenced so I can strike out my name from the above list. theist 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that is correct, yes. Later I guess we'll need to run it without specifying a user? And perhaps even search the image namespace for the text "gfdl" for places where people just typed it (or did someone make sure every image was templated?)? ħuman 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The code just under AMATEURTIP above. Basically, it's a code that will look up any images posted by the user that holds the GFDL or GFDL-self templates. I've just done it for mine and it's coming up with "missing" which I assume means that there's no more things that I've put up that are liscenced so I can strike out my name from the above list. theist 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can someone answer Human's question. That is, what do we do? Sterile factoid 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- But we as a site do not hold the copyright to "move" the images into CC-BY-SA that right stays with the originator of the image. Hence why permssion should be granted by the users. tmtoulouse 02:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- The GFDL template says "1.2 or any higher version," which means we can switch anything licensed with that template to CC-BY-SA. ListenerXTalkerX 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- So how do we get from our name appearing above to specific images we GFDLd? ħuman 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2 + others[edit]
The former needs no changing, it uses the the license in localsettings (btw, that still says GFDL1.2...). As for the latter I don't know where it is used, but again it links to Project:Copyrights (probably), so no need to change it. I've created a cc-by-sa-3.0 template from the cc-by-sa-1.0 one and added it to Mediawiki:Licenses. Nx 01:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I went through a while ago and changed, I think, everything that could be changed (i.e., everything except the parameter in LocalSettings.php) to GFDL 1.3. ListenerXTalkerX 01:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of licenses, the drop down at "upload file" could use a dozen or so more better things added? I only wish I knew how, and remembered what those options should be... ħuman 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- And can that drop-down be set up better, ie, to explain what the licenses mean? Please? ħuman 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Replacement for "GFDL-self"[edit]
I thought we should have a specific replacement for the "GFDL-self" template, so I have added a new template, Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-self, for this purpose. It is presently just a duplicate of the Cc-by-sa-3.0 template. ListenerXTalkerX 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with using the standard template? I don't really know what the difference between Template:GFDL-self and Template:GFDL is, does the different wording change any of the terms? Anyway, I'd prefer not to have another set of licenses (we'd need Cc-by-3.0-self, and then possibly the other versions too, which would make the dropdown huge)Nx 10:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)- On second thought Nx 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)