Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chris is me/Viral License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (and keep in userspace). Anyone may generate their own IP licensing scheme, noone can be forced to use it here, as all text published on wikipedia MUST be licensed under GFDL, if they conflict, then GFDL prevails. — xaosflux Talk 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chris is me/Viral License

Self-designed copyright license that is incompatible with the GFDL. Doesn't appear to be in use at present, but it should not be used at all on Wikipedia. If you want different terms than the GFDL, use the CC-BY-SA licenses and/or public domain instead; they're compatible. (Radiant) 10:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is he trying to licence his stuff under this? I could see this being a totally legitimate subpage, or just as easily a very violatory one. Has the owner stated the intent of this? 68.39.174.238 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the CC-BY-SA is incompatible with the GFDL, some people just choose to dual-license contributions, meaning that the work is available under either term. -- Chris is me 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be a critique of the GFDL, and besides, I don't see how they are incompatible. -Amarkov blahedits 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • For instance, it states that all derived works must contain the license text. That means that once added to a page, it may not be removed, and that is a contradiction of the GFDL. (Radiant) 09:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Radiant raises some good points ... but I see no evidence that the user was asked about the page before it was listed for deletion (unlike many of the users whose pages wind up on MfD, the creator is still an active editor; in fact he has edits from today). In the past when asked about other pages in his userspace he's clarified or agreed to delete them. I'll post a note drawing this listing to his attention. Newyorkbrad 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a license for Wikipedia! I'm going to license any images I upload (after now) under it... It's like CC BY-SA but without the Attribution part. The actual text of the license is in the public domain. It's an image license. Can I keep it now? -- Chris is me 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Images you upload are a part of Wikipedia. Users introducing new custom licenses on Wikipedia content (including images) should get consensus beforehand. --Dgies 06:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it is a free license... You don't need consensus to use CC-BY or the MIT license or anything, right? So why should my clearly free-content license require approval? 66.82.9.80 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not just use CC-SA (which was discontinued by Creative Commons because no-one wanted to use it, if I remember, but had the same effect as that)? --ais523 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, keep as an image licence. --ais523 09:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The license allows any and all use as long as license text is included. It sounds like an oversimplification of the GFDL with a lot less text involved. Don't see how that violates anything. - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But the GFDL does not require you to insert the text of the GFDL in everything licensed under the GFDL. --Dgies 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you are. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? --Dgies 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's intended to be used to license anything uploaded to Wikipedia. As written, this license cannot be applied to an image unless the text is embedded in that image, IMO. Geoffrey Spear 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    Techincally (according to your logic) the GFDL can't apply to images either, since you have to include the license. I just found the Creative Commons ShareAlike 1.0, but I fear that it, being not maintained, may have legal flaws in it that haven't been updated (unlike the others). Regardless, the fact that I can use another license isn't rationale for deletion. -- Chris is me 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see it as a harmless variation. DGG 04:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If intended for use on Wikipedia. It IS incompatible with the GFDL because it requires inserting that text and prevents you from removing it. If this was actually in use on Wikipedia, articles would be crudded up with this license text. --Dgies 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    Let me clarify a few things. 1. Whether or not it's GFDL compatible is irrelavent since I don't license any of my text contributions under it. It's copyright compatibility is not a reason to delete. Also, we permit incompatible image licenses (such as cc-by-sa and the free art license) as long as they maintain the spirit of the GFDL. I am not proposing its use on Wikipedia, I just want to use ift for iamges I upload. Why do you want to delete something that has no effect on you or your Wikipedia experience? 66.82.9.80 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in
  • Comment if this is intended to be an image copyright tag, it really should be turned into a real copyright tag. I don't like the personal image copyright tags that occasionally crop up ("This image uploaded by BigDT is licensed for any reason provided that you smile in the general direction of Virginia Tech any time you use it") but this one is generic and seems pretty free. Also, please note that we are permitted to multilicense our contributions under the GFDL and another license ... and the second license doesn't have to be compatible with the GFDL because the GFDL can always be used instead. BigDT 07:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.