Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
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)
This is a bit harsh, but a good idea in concept. I strongly suggest the addition of a clause that permits assuming good faith that someone does not know the terms of the GFDL, or knows the GFDL but doesn't think that what they're doing is a revocation thereof. Note, under certain conditions, we do grant "revocations": WP:CSD#G7. In addition, I suggest changing "banned" to "banned until the user accepts the terms of the GFDL". This is only fair. Gracenotes T § 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The proposal of immediate bans is overkill, and I don't think it matches established practice. People who want to revoke the GFDL get politely told they can't, and that's it. Then, if they continue to make a fuss in practical terms, like edit-warring over deletion tags (or, in cases of admins, actually deleting), they get a short-term block for disruption, upon which they can cool down and come back (which they quite often do.) A ban comes into the picture only when they actually start talking about suing Wikipedia, and that's already covered by NLT of course.
Also, a page like this should contain some language acknowledging that people sometimes have a legitimate or at least understandable reason for wanting their stuff deleted, and that Wikipedia routinely fulfils their wishes in many cases on a voluntary basis. There should be a link to WP:CSD G7. It just needs to be pointed out that Wikipedia has no legal obligation to honour such a request, and that if somebody else thinks the content is beneficial it will most likely not be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
An immediate ban wasn't exactly what I was looking for, and if I worded it inappropriately, I guess it should be fixed. I'm not suggesting that we immediately indefinitely ban anyone who makes the naive comment wishing to revoke the license, but as soon as it is explained to them and they persist in denying their release under the GFDL, they need to be banned. Only further harm will come from letting them continue to edit while disagreeing with one of the fundamental tenets of the GFDL that makes Wikipedia possible. -- Cyde Weys 17:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation already has made an official statement regarding the non-revocability of the GFDL in their disclaimer. See the first text above in the "Better basis for banning" section. Anyone who disagrees with the GFDL cannot edit Wikipedia. This isn't just me saying it. -- Cyde Weys 17:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
But it's a different issue. Not everyone trying to revoke the GFDL is making claims about violating their copyright. Neil, for instance, merely tried to do it because he didn't want the images on Commons. They still shouldn't be allowed to edit if they disagree with the GFDL, even if they aren't making legal threats presently. -- Cyde Weys 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
GFDL is a legal issue and should be handled by the same mechanisms all our legal issues are handled. Maybe they just need an explanation; maybe they are just griping about what they wish was the case; maybe they are claiming future edits are not under GFDL; maybe they think they have a valid copyright infringement case. Whatever. We have a system to deal with legal case. First explain on wiki if that's where they are talking; then block from wikipedia while a legal threat exists and engage via OTRS; then bump it up to our legal people if necessary. When there is no more legal threat they get unblocked. Someone who claims that their edits are not GFDL must be blocked for legal threat so long as they hold that position. Blocked editors contributions are routinely deleted. WAS 4.250 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think many people are going to understand why editors who claim their edits are no longer under the GFDL (or revoking it on past edits) are making a legal threat. This proposed policy is necessary for clarity's sake. -- Cyde Weys 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
The image's being used in the article, unlike in the collage or retouch, is not a derivative work, so your argument does not really apply. If the editor retagges his compliant cc-by-sa image as "cc-by-nc", the image has to be deleted, It won't affect the true derivative work based on the image though. -- Irpen 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
What about people who claim contibutions can not be moved from one article to another? SlimVirgin is claiming this. WAS 4.250 15:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt by Carcharoth 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (note that this is also a form of attribution, this time of my talk page edit which is a copy-paste from another talk page).
When copying text from one page to another, simply use the url in the "Permanent link" on the left tool bar as the edit summary. This satisfies GFDL. If another user copies your text without doing this, make a dummy edit stating that revision (whatever revision was not attributed) is attributed to (url to the version copied from). Then leave them a note explaining. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
I support the case that this should be policy. I am re-writing the article to reflect how a policy should look and give it more "teeth".
Thanks!-- Cerejota 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This has gone from being succinct and accurate to being a total bleeding mess in the last day or so. It has become full of legalisms that are wrong, apparently internal new 'laws' and all kinds of editorial points. This is a policy - it describes the status quo, and does not need to thunder and blunder on about philosophy and blah blah. I am going to make it sensical again.
Splash - tk 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Even though I think you're being very pernicious about this, here's a summary of my changes. (Incidentally, do note that one is invited to edit everything, as your userpage does correctly state, and that there's no reason to summarily revert when someone does that).
I hope that makes it clear. I'll boldly edit the page in a moment. Splash - tk 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your constructive criticism and edits, Splash. For a "total bloody mess", the bulk of the content actually remained the same. Thank you also for the few minor language checks, "non-revocability" in particular - however I have seen the word used before. I do disagree with some (not all) of the substantive issues you raise:
I think I will implement some of my changes now. But by the Holy Appendage, don't be so bity!-- Cerejota 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
...the current version. Thanks!-- Cerejota 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I had not read the GFDL from end to end before. It is very badly drafted. Who chose it? Whether it is irrevocable or not, and whether its terms set out the whole licence (or conversely whether terms can be implied) would be an interesting question for a class of law students; and the answer may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the assertion that this page makes, it is not at all clear (to me, at least) that the GFDL is irrevocable - that is, that a person who chooses to license text (or images, whatever) under the GFDL cannot later choose to withdraw that licence. That is not to say that Wikipedia cannot require contributors to waive any right that they may have to revoke the licence in respect of their contributions. If we have not done so to date, then it may be worth doing that going forwards.
This page starts uncontroversially, with a first sentence stating that all contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (although some are dual licensed, of course).
But it then it seems to lose its way. It says that "Revocation of the GFDL is not permitted" because that would make it difficult (or impossible) to create a "freely-editable, freely-available, encyclopedia". Not permitted? That implies (to me, at least) that revocation may possible, but there is a rule somewhere (if so, where?) that prohibits revocation.
This page then goes on to claim that "The GFDL is irrevocable". This is a pretty strong claim. I see nothing in the bare words of the licence that says explicitly that the licence cannot be withdrawn or revoked. Sure, the preamble (section 0) to the text of the GNU Free Documentation License v.1.2 (November 2002) says the purpose of the licence is to make documents " "free" in the sense of freedom", and the section on applicability and definitions (section 1) says that the licence grants a "world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration".
But, first, "freedom" is not an unconstrained thing in any organised society - "free" citizens can be sent to prison if they break the law; my freedom may conflict with your freedom, and someone will need to decide whose freedom takes priority. And second, the "world-wide, royalty-free license" is subject to the conditions of the licence itself. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is am implied term that the licence can be withdrawn or revoked by the licensor (at least where no-one has relied upon the licence to make a copy or a derivative version); on the other hand, you could perhaps imply a term that the licence can only be terminated under section 9 (Termination). But there is nothing that says explicitly that the licence is incapable of being revoked. -- !! ?? 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "It is basically a guarantee". A copyright licence is nothing like a guarantee.
It is by no means a certainty that granting a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free copyright licence (subject to certain conditions, which can be terminated in certain circumstances) means that the licensor is incapable of revoking or withdrawing the licence. I think you (we!) might want to take some legal advice. I'll read what our esteemed counsel has to say. -- !! ?? 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, 1==2, you are using legal terminology in a way that does not make much sense to me. Can you explain in what way you think a licence is a kind of guarantee? Yes, they both have terms - but terms can be express (oral or written) or implied, you know. Perhaps you might like to read our articles on relevant concepts - contract and contractual term would be a good places to start.
That we can have this argument indicates that the case is not as completely open and shut as it ought to be. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. Perhaps we don't need to be certain to carry on, but it would be a substantial problem if a court of law later decides that the interpretation we have been using is wrong. As I indicate above, one way to make things a bit clearer would be to require editors and uploaders to agree to waive any rights that they may have to revoke or withdraw their GFDL licence when they make a contribution. -- !! ?? 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors and uploaders agree to license their contributions under the GFDL; they do not agree to waive any rights that they may have to revoke or withdraw the licence (not as far as I can see, anyway, as I write this). It is clear that you think there is no issue; well, I hope so. That the licence explicitly sets out certain circumstances under which it will automatically be terminated does not necessarily mean there are no circumstances under which it can be withdrawn or revoked by the original licensor. With the greatest of respect, we seem to be placing a rather heavy reliance on what you think. -- !! ?? 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Wikipedia frequently violates the GFDL when selective page history deletions are carried out, or attribution is lost through cut and paste moves. Would that be grounds for the contributors to revoke their GFDL license? Carcharoth 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, TELL THE WIKITRUTH. This policy was only created to make another banhammer excuse. If GFDL is fundamentally irrevokable, then any editor making an on-wiki revocation declaration is making a self nullifying statement. Therefore, this policy, as an excuse to permanently ban, is not necessary. 198.203.175.175 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
"once-occuring problem"? - for the record it has happened again, this time with PD images. See below. Carcharoth 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I noticed that there is a Category called Wikimedia no licensing permissions. I'm confused about whether that means that these Wikipedians are dissenting from the GFDL, or something else. It seems like it would be something else, given the number of people in the category. I'm just at a loss as to what the category represents and whether it ties into the discussion here. -- Ssbohio ( talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
I agree with Rspeer - getting this page moved was on my list of things to do, but the current title is not so great. The "prohibited" wording was better and clearer. — Gavia immer ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't {{ Infopage}} be a better fit for this page? Or even {{ Supplement}} to WP:NLT or WP:CC-BY-SA? -- œ ™ 05:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
In the United States, however, copyright law makes the permanent grant of license to reuse a work impossible. There are provisions in the statute (most notably section 203(a), which governs all transfers and licenses executed since 1978) that permit the creators of copyrighted works to rescind any licenses they previously granted.
— Tim Armstrong, Now in Print: Termination and Open-Content Licensing
Skomorokh 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The point of this essay is misleading, at least in regards to CCL's. A lot of editors link to What if I change my Mind? to back it up but do not read the full "answer" given. The second sentence states, in full, "This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license." What is important to understand is what "using the work according to that license" actually means. To understand what it mean one also needs to read the What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work? section of the same FAQ. The very first sentence is "A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms".
The more correct, and accurate, wording throughout this essay would be that the Creative Commons license itself is not revocable, but an end users license can be terminated. Wikipedia is considered an end user, or, in the wording of the license "You." As it is laid out the "Licensor" is allowing "You" to "Publicly Perform" and "Reproduce" the "Work" provided the terms of the "License Grant" are met. Failure by "You" to do so can result in the "License and the rights granted hereunder" to "terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." Soundvisions1 ( talk) 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
I see this was noted more than 9 years ago in the section above #Uh oh... but not responded to. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
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)
This is a bit harsh, but a good idea in concept. I strongly suggest the addition of a clause that permits assuming good faith that someone does not know the terms of the GFDL, or knows the GFDL but doesn't think that what they're doing is a revocation thereof. Note, under certain conditions, we do grant "revocations": WP:CSD#G7. In addition, I suggest changing "banned" to "banned until the user accepts the terms of the GFDL". This is only fair. Gracenotes T § 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The proposal of immediate bans is overkill, and I don't think it matches established practice. People who want to revoke the GFDL get politely told they can't, and that's it. Then, if they continue to make a fuss in practical terms, like edit-warring over deletion tags (or, in cases of admins, actually deleting), they get a short-term block for disruption, upon which they can cool down and come back (which they quite often do.) A ban comes into the picture only when they actually start talking about suing Wikipedia, and that's already covered by NLT of course.
Also, a page like this should contain some language acknowledging that people sometimes have a legitimate or at least understandable reason for wanting their stuff deleted, and that Wikipedia routinely fulfils their wishes in many cases on a voluntary basis. There should be a link to WP:CSD G7. It just needs to be pointed out that Wikipedia has no legal obligation to honour such a request, and that if somebody else thinks the content is beneficial it will most likely not be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
An immediate ban wasn't exactly what I was looking for, and if I worded it inappropriately, I guess it should be fixed. I'm not suggesting that we immediately indefinitely ban anyone who makes the naive comment wishing to revoke the license, but as soon as it is explained to them and they persist in denying their release under the GFDL, they need to be banned. Only further harm will come from letting them continue to edit while disagreeing with one of the fundamental tenets of the GFDL that makes Wikipedia possible. -- Cyde Weys 17:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation already has made an official statement regarding the non-revocability of the GFDL in their disclaimer. See the first text above in the "Better basis for banning" section. Anyone who disagrees with the GFDL cannot edit Wikipedia. This isn't just me saying it. -- Cyde Weys 17:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
But it's a different issue. Not everyone trying to revoke the GFDL is making claims about violating their copyright. Neil, for instance, merely tried to do it because he didn't want the images on Commons. They still shouldn't be allowed to edit if they disagree with the GFDL, even if they aren't making legal threats presently. -- Cyde Weys 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
GFDL is a legal issue and should be handled by the same mechanisms all our legal issues are handled. Maybe they just need an explanation; maybe they are just griping about what they wish was the case; maybe they are claiming future edits are not under GFDL; maybe they think they have a valid copyright infringement case. Whatever. We have a system to deal with legal case. First explain on wiki if that's where they are talking; then block from wikipedia while a legal threat exists and engage via OTRS; then bump it up to our legal people if necessary. When there is no more legal threat they get unblocked. Someone who claims that their edits are not GFDL must be blocked for legal threat so long as they hold that position. Blocked editors contributions are routinely deleted. WAS 4.250 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think many people are going to understand why editors who claim their edits are no longer under the GFDL (or revoking it on past edits) are making a legal threat. This proposed policy is necessary for clarity's sake. -- Cyde Weys 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
The image's being used in the article, unlike in the collage or retouch, is not a derivative work, so your argument does not really apply. If the editor retagges his compliant cc-by-sa image as "cc-by-nc", the image has to be deleted, It won't affect the true derivative work based on the image though. -- Irpen 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
What about people who claim contibutions can not be moved from one article to another? SlimVirgin is claiming this. WAS 4.250 15:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt by Carcharoth 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (note that this is also a form of attribution, this time of my talk page edit which is a copy-paste from another talk page).
When copying text from one page to another, simply use the url in the "Permanent link" on the left tool bar as the edit summary. This satisfies GFDL. If another user copies your text without doing this, make a dummy edit stating that revision (whatever revision was not attributed) is attributed to (url to the version copied from). Then leave them a note explaining. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
I support the case that this should be policy. I am re-writing the article to reflect how a policy should look and give it more "teeth".
Thanks!-- Cerejota 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This has gone from being succinct and accurate to being a total bleeding mess in the last day or so. It has become full of legalisms that are wrong, apparently internal new 'laws' and all kinds of editorial points. This is a policy - it describes the status quo, and does not need to thunder and blunder on about philosophy and blah blah. I am going to make it sensical again.
Splash - tk 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Even though I think you're being very pernicious about this, here's a summary of my changes. (Incidentally, do note that one is invited to edit everything, as your userpage does correctly state, and that there's no reason to summarily revert when someone does that).
I hope that makes it clear. I'll boldly edit the page in a moment. Splash - tk 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your constructive criticism and edits, Splash. For a "total bloody mess", the bulk of the content actually remained the same. Thank you also for the few minor language checks, "non-revocability" in particular - however I have seen the word used before. I do disagree with some (not all) of the substantive issues you raise:
I think I will implement some of my changes now. But by the Holy Appendage, don't be so bity!-- Cerejota 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
...the current version. Thanks!-- Cerejota 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I had not read the GFDL from end to end before. It is very badly drafted. Who chose it? Whether it is irrevocable or not, and whether its terms set out the whole licence (or conversely whether terms can be implied) would be an interesting question for a class of law students; and the answer may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the assertion that this page makes, it is not at all clear (to me, at least) that the GFDL is irrevocable - that is, that a person who chooses to license text (or images, whatever) under the GFDL cannot later choose to withdraw that licence. That is not to say that Wikipedia cannot require contributors to waive any right that they may have to revoke the licence in respect of their contributions. If we have not done so to date, then it may be worth doing that going forwards.
This page starts uncontroversially, with a first sentence stating that all contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (although some are dual licensed, of course).
But it then it seems to lose its way. It says that "Revocation of the GFDL is not permitted" because that would make it difficult (or impossible) to create a "freely-editable, freely-available, encyclopedia". Not permitted? That implies (to me, at least) that revocation may possible, but there is a rule somewhere (if so, where?) that prohibits revocation.
This page then goes on to claim that "The GFDL is irrevocable". This is a pretty strong claim. I see nothing in the bare words of the licence that says explicitly that the licence cannot be withdrawn or revoked. Sure, the preamble (section 0) to the text of the GNU Free Documentation License v.1.2 (November 2002) says the purpose of the licence is to make documents " "free" in the sense of freedom", and the section on applicability and definitions (section 1) says that the licence grants a "world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration".
But, first, "freedom" is not an unconstrained thing in any organised society - "free" citizens can be sent to prison if they break the law; my freedom may conflict with your freedom, and someone will need to decide whose freedom takes priority. And second, the "world-wide, royalty-free license" is subject to the conditions of the licence itself. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is am implied term that the licence can be withdrawn or revoked by the licensor (at least where no-one has relied upon the licence to make a copy or a derivative version); on the other hand, you could perhaps imply a term that the licence can only be terminated under section 9 (Termination). But there is nothing that says explicitly that the licence is incapable of being revoked. -- !! ?? 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "It is basically a guarantee". A copyright licence is nothing like a guarantee.
It is by no means a certainty that granting a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free copyright licence (subject to certain conditions, which can be terminated in certain circumstances) means that the licensor is incapable of revoking or withdrawing the licence. I think you (we!) might want to take some legal advice. I'll read what our esteemed counsel has to say. -- !! ?? 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, 1==2, you are using legal terminology in a way that does not make much sense to me. Can you explain in what way you think a licence is a kind of guarantee? Yes, they both have terms - but terms can be express (oral or written) or implied, you know. Perhaps you might like to read our articles on relevant concepts - contract and contractual term would be a good places to start.
That we can have this argument indicates that the case is not as completely open and shut as it ought to be. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. Perhaps we don't need to be certain to carry on, but it would be a substantial problem if a court of law later decides that the interpretation we have been using is wrong. As I indicate above, one way to make things a bit clearer would be to require editors and uploaders to agree to waive any rights that they may have to revoke or withdraw their GFDL licence when they make a contribution. -- !! ?? 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors and uploaders agree to license their contributions under the GFDL; they do not agree to waive any rights that they may have to revoke or withdraw the licence (not as far as I can see, anyway, as I write this). It is clear that you think there is no issue; well, I hope so. That the licence explicitly sets out certain circumstances under which it will automatically be terminated does not necessarily mean there are no circumstances under which it can be withdrawn or revoked by the original licensor. With the greatest of respect, we seem to be placing a rather heavy reliance on what you think. -- !! ?? 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Wikipedia frequently violates the GFDL when selective page history deletions are carried out, or attribution is lost through cut and paste moves. Would that be grounds for the contributors to revoke their GFDL license? Carcharoth 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, TELL THE WIKITRUTH. This policy was only created to make another banhammer excuse. If GFDL is fundamentally irrevokable, then any editor making an on-wiki revocation declaration is making a self nullifying statement. Therefore, this policy, as an excuse to permanently ban, is not necessary. 198.203.175.175 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
"once-occuring problem"? - for the record it has happened again, this time with PD images. See below. Carcharoth 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I noticed that there is a Category called Wikimedia no licensing permissions. I'm confused about whether that means that these Wikipedians are dissenting from the GFDL, or something else. It seems like it would be something else, given the number of people in the category. I'm just at a loss as to what the category represents and whether it ties into the discussion here. -- Ssbohio ( talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
I agree with Rspeer - getting this page moved was on my list of things to do, but the current title is not so great. The "prohibited" wording was better and clearer. — Gavia immer ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't {{ Infopage}} be a better fit for this page? Or even {{ Supplement}} to WP:NLT or WP:CC-BY-SA? -- œ ™ 05:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
In the United States, however, copyright law makes the permanent grant of license to reuse a work impossible. There are provisions in the statute (most notably section 203(a), which governs all transfers and licenses executed since 1978) that permit the creators of copyrighted works to rescind any licenses they previously granted.
— Tim Armstrong, Now in Print: Termination and Open-Content Licensing
Skomorokh 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The point of this essay is misleading, at least in regards to CCL's. A lot of editors link to What if I change my Mind? to back it up but do not read the full "answer" given. The second sentence states, in full, "This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license." What is important to understand is what "using the work according to that license" actually means. To understand what it mean one also needs to read the What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work? section of the same FAQ. The very first sentence is "A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms".
The more correct, and accurate, wording throughout this essay would be that the Creative Commons license itself is not revocable, but an end users license can be terminated. Wikipedia is considered an end user, or, in the wording of the license "You." As it is laid out the "Licensor" is allowing "You" to "Publicly Perform" and "Reproduce" the "Work" provided the terms of the "License Grant" are met. Failure by "You" to do so can result in the "License and the rights granted hereunder" to "terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." Soundvisions1 ( talk) 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
I see this was noted more than 9 years ago in the section above #Uh oh... but not responded to. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)