Template talk:MultiLicenseMinorPD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:MultiLicenseMinorPD is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
This template does not have a documentation subpage. If the template page contains categories, interwiki links or usage notes, move these to Template:MultiLicenseMinorPD/doc. If the template does not require documentation, add |doc=no to this template ({{permprot}}).
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 19. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

You can't really licence something into the public domain. You can release it into the public domain at which point anybody (including you yourself) can slap any licence on it you want, however people can still use the unlicenced public domain version: Licencing is something you can only do with stuff which has copyright on it, the public domain is the body of works which has no copyrights on it. Could someone adapt the wording a little? Thanks. --fvw* 17:03, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I admit the wording is a bit awkward, but it may not be quite as bad as you think. When one makes an edit, such as what I am doing now, you at that point own the copyright to it, until you specifically state otherwise. Of course you are agreeing that you will release it into the GFDL, which is a license. Then you say that you are releasing your copyright and putting your contribution into the public domain. So it is not a multi-license in the traditional sense, but I can't think of a better term to use. It's more like a multi-license into every license. I'd welcome anyone who can come up with a better wording. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 18:54, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
How about
I release my minor edits into the public domain, unless otherwise stated in the edit summary. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my minor edit contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.
? No need to mention the GFDL, though if you wanted to you could point out that all wikipedia contributions are at least licensed under the GFDL, or that anyone is free to stick whatever license they want on it. --fvw* 21:16, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
Jameday has said that there is a purpose to licensing public domain text under the GFDL as well. I'm not sure of the details, so talk to him. Meanwhile I'm going to request that this page be unprotected so that we can fix it. anthony 警告 14:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page. The reason is probably legal in nature. I imagine that not all countries may accept the public domain as does the U.S., so specifically choosing a license avoids this point by having a fallback option. Besides until you release your contributions into the public domain, you own the copyright and can choose to license them into the GFDL, so this is perfectly valid. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 15:51, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the point of mentioning the GFDL, since all contributions have to be licensed under the GFDL, but I'll leave it in if you want it. anthony 警告 16:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't feel that strongly about it, but I'd as soon just leave it in. As for "unless otherwise stated in the edit summary", this is not a compatible change from "unless otherwise stated", because users may not use edit summaries exclusively for this kind of disclaimer. I personally use my user page to list exclusions. A large number of people do the same. Having a disclaimer of that nature is important, but it should not be limited to edit summaries because the text of the banner is not fine enough for some uses. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that you can use the GFDL if it's in the public domain, because once it's in the PD, there's no copyright, and the GFDL is based on someone having a copyright. I also like fvw's suggestion (above). Peter T.S. 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The image public-domain template {{Template:PD-self}} has a good idea. The clause "In cases where this is not legally possible..." covers the times when the GFDL would otherwise have to be used.

[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 tags {{TextLicenseMinorFreeUse}}, which reflects the intent of this template. Deco 03:34, 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 05:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)