from the village pump
I'm a bit concerned at the contents of Template:Noncommercial, which reads at present
This image is not licenced under the GFDL. It is under a non-commercial-use only licence. Copyrights.
and is linked to by a number of image pages and also possibly used on others by means of the subst: syntax.
This seems to me to directly violate both Image_use_policy#Copyright_(images) and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors'_rights_and_obligations. I'd suggest we either update the policy pages or add the following text to MediaWiki:Noncommercial:
Unless a GFDL compatible license is granted, the image will shortly be removed.
And, of course, do it. But that's a bit drastic. I'd like other comments. Have I missed something here? Andrewa 19:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- Some things to think about:
- non-commercial-only images are arguably (and argued by Jimbo) GFDL-compatible under the "aggregation" section.
- non-commercial-only images are preferable to fair use images, as they are more free than fair use images, and we allow fair use images where absolutely necessary. Martin 21:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely stuff to think about! Thank you.
- Where does Jimbo argue this?
- I wonder why the policy pages don't say this. Or do they and I've misread them? Or is it just a matter of updating them? Or is there still something I'm missing? Andrewa 01:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- No more comments? I was never going to move unilaterally on this, even before Martin's comments. If nobody else is interested, or if everyone else feels his comments have answered my concerns (I don't, obviously), then this will lapse. Andrewa 19:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's not that nobody else's interested in the contradictions of the "commercial only" pics. I suspect the real reason for not getting too worked up about it is that we have other image-related problems that are more serious, more pressing, but a lot more difficult to tackle: thousands and thousands of photos with no information at all on their provenance, and hundreds of others flagged as "fair use" without even saying where they've been
stolencopied from. Compared to that mess, a couple of dozen commecial-use only images is a minor irregularity. –Hajor 00:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
This protected page contains a typo. It needs to be changed to the following:
:''This image is not [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|licensed]] under the GFDL. It is under a '''non-commercial-use only''' licence.
"License" is so spelt when it is a verb. This is not a US/UK difference: that issue affects the noun "licence", which Americans spell with an s just like the verb. — Chameleon My page/My talk 03:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed, i hope. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:52, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
- You sure? Dictionary.com (American Heritage) says
- li·cence
- n. & v. Chiefly British
- Variant of license.</nowiki>
- And thus, the current template's use of the word seems inconsistent to me.
- -Grick(talk to me!) 19:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- That's an American dictionary. Standard UK usage has license as a verb and licence as a noun. The same goes for practise and practice, and for advise and advice. — Chameleon 22:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)