RationalWiki talk:Transitioning to CC-BY-SA

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Users list[edit]

The following users have pictures with this template:

The following users have pictures with this template:

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:

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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell if I know. I'm just doing what the screen tells me to. Aboriginal Noise Theist, barely hanging by a nail 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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 fritter 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. Scarlet A.pngbomination 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?)? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:17, 9 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And can that drop-down be set up better, ie, to explain what the licenses mean? Please? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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)