Template talk:MultiLicensePD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:MultiLicensePD has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit. |
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 19. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Could someone please replace the first sentence in the template with this:
I agree to release my eligible text contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain.
The public domain is not a license and prevents any actual licensing of the work, so it should not "multi-license … under the GFDL and into the public domain". Guanaco 01:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The public domain is not a license - true.
- and prevents any actual licensing of the work - false. You can simultaneously release a work into both the public domain and under a license. Where that becomes important is WRT derivative works and/OR compliations. →Raul654 12:21, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Could someone explain why it is important with derivative works or compliations? "Released into the public domain" means that the person has given up all claim to copyright (this is the legal meaning of the word release as used here). They, therefore, have no right to license. Having a license means that the licensor has some right which they can control by issuing a license that the licensee must be obligated to perform. — © Alex756 17:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I thought public domain was the *absence* of any copyright whatsoever, thus making it unlicensable? -- bd_ 02:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why is the word "eligible" there? What kinds of text contributions count as ineligible? AxelBoldt 22:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Contributions that are not original to yourself, for instance, when copying from one Wikipedia article to another. Also when adding material that you got permission from someone else. Pretty much anything where you do not own the copyright to. -- RM 03:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- This issue has not gone away. If you don't hold copyright on the content, you can't license the content under the GFDL or anything else. Superm401 - Talk 12:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Retiring
Because it's actually legally impossible to grant one's own works into the public domain in the U.S. and U.K., and this creates serious potential legal problems, I will deprecate this tag if there is no dissent for 4 days. Please see Wikipedia:You can't grant your work into the public domain for a full explanation along with some authoritative sources, including the U.S. Copyright Office. I have created the tag {{TextLicenseFreeUse}}, which reflects the intent of this template. Deco 03:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please ignore the above. This template has not been retired and there was considerable dissent over the accuracy of my statements. I no longer contend that it is impossible to release one's works into the public domain - I am not a lawyer and there is no legal precedent in this matter. The link above should redirect to relevent discussion. Deco 05:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reworded
Can this be reworded like this? I agree to release my eligible text contributions, unless otherwise stated into the public domain. This applies worldwide. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.
This is closer to the {{PD-self}} tag and removes redundant wording about multi-licensing under GFDL. (If you release it under the PD, why do you need to multi-license it?) pamri 13:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit text in tag?
Shouldn't the text at the beginning of this tag be edited to be all-encompassing, like this:
- I agree to release my eligible contributions – text, images, and/or other media – unless otherwise stated, ...
or similar? Many users (like me!) create images that should have a similar proviso associated with them. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Revert of icon inclusion
I suppose I understand the logic of User:Freakofnurture's reverts to my changes ("beautification," if you will) in this edit. I understand that it may screw up the layout on some people's pages, including his own, but I did like the icons better, as they appear in Template:User Publicdomain and Template:Public domain. It's not a big deal to me though, and considering my reluctance to randomly poll a few hundred Wikipedians, I'll defer to his formatting interests. - Draeco 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request unprotect to make edit
{{editprotected}} --Anonymous Whistleblower 09:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. You have to say here what edit you want to make, then an admin will make it for you. --Rory096 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit protect
Whoever nominated this for deletion subst'd the notice template, which means that it doesn't point to the right direction. For instance, on User:OrphanBot, the link points to Template:OrphanBot, which doesn't exist. Would someone please replace that text with {{tfd|MultiLicensePD}}? Hbdragon88 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Luna Santin 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
