Content deleted Content added
m Avoid doubt. |
→Copyright problem removed: Reply |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 16:
::And yes, you are correct: it is not a copyvio.⸺([[User talk:Randomstaplers|Random]])[[User:Randomstaplers|staplers]] 04:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The reason I used {{tl|dual}} rather than {{tl|cc-notice}} is that it is licensed under CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA. As a license without a share-alike requirement that only requires attribution, it does seem compatible to GFDL to me. But of course {{tl|cc-notice}} is also correct. [[User:Felix QW|Felix QW]] ([[User talk:Felix QW|talk]]) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Felix QW|Felix QW]], There's nothing making CC-BY 4 incompatible with the GFDL. CC-BY does not preculude you from using more restrictive licenses, or even ''reselling'' the work, even ''copyrighting'' the derivative work under a different, more restrictive license, like the GFDL.
::::I think you may be confused about this line:
::::{{blockquote|No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.}}
::::But if you read just above:
::::{{blockquote|Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to '''Your''' use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.}}
::::Taken together, this basically says if ''you say'' "it's ''licensed'' CC-BY, you don't '''change''' anything, you cannot turn around and say, "oh, but you can't sell it, even though I presented you with this license that says you can".
::::'''"Change."''' There's multiple layers to copyright. Like the copyright for ''recording a performance'' exists. So you're not allowed to record someone's rendition of Beethoven, even though the notes are public ___domain. You creating this article ''is your own performance'' and therefore, it's copyrighted.
::::Look at this:
::::{{blockquote|If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.}}
::::Which in CC-BY's case, is mostly just providing attribution, since compared to CC-BY-SA, lines like these are '''stricken''' from CC-BY: {{blockquote|<strike>In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.</strike>}}
::::That means ''you'' tell others that the image you changed is now only available on your terms with XYZ license, which you attribute to {{tq|someguy who released it under CC-BY 4}}, because you're required by the license to do that.
::::That notice means nothing in terms of changing the license. It's just stating fact, that you took words from a CC-BY licensed piece of work. ''It doesn't say that the work is now licensed CC-BY.''⸺([[User talk:Randomstaplers|Random]])[[User:Randomstaplers|staplers]] 20:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::* Oh, as for the GFDL, that license requires attribution too, because you have to preserve copyright notices. So there: a more restrictive license that doesn't prevent you from complying with CC-BY.{{blockquote|the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.}} ⸺([[User talk:Randomstaplers|Random]])[[User:Randomstaplers|staplers]] 03:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
| |||