Inline videos. See also:Category: Articles with embedded Videos..

Template talk:GFDL

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

I wrote out GFDL, because that's good practice.

The "see wikipedia:copyrights" I removed, because it's not a helpful link - it just says "uh, images can be under lots of licenses. Hope this helps!". Rather, we should say "see later on this page", where there'll be vital details, such as *what* version of the GFDL, if any, who owns the copyright, etc. Martin 21:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How did this get so bloated? I suggest we go back to this:

The disclamer thing has been covered elsewhere, we dont have to reapeat it all the time. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:03, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

I would like the GFDL template to look exactly as the text above. I have no idea why does it now have unlinked GNU Free Documentation License text and another sentence with the only purpose of linking to FDL text. Everything is subject to disclaimers, yet only GFDL template seems to repeat it. See also pd message is unclear section on Image copyright tags talk page. Rafał Pocztarski 21:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make the license text more visible by adding a frame to it? For instance I like the layout the German Biocrawler is using: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:GFDL -- mkrohn 23:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do that, i like the german one, but skip the "Copyright ©" thing. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 10:26, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I thought exactly the same about the "copyright" thing. Only problem with changing is that the template is - btw in contrast to the German one - protected, which is understandable. Any sysop around? :-) -- mkrohn 17:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well i am, just post the thing here and i'll update it ( i would unprotect it, but i do not know the specific reasons for it so i wont to not step on anyones toes, guess these copyright messages are protected now ) Make sure you get it right the first time though as obsoleting the proxy for everything that links to it will cause some DB load. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 17:50, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

O.k. let's see: this is the one from "de" (without adjusted links, that's why they are red atm):

Dieses Dokument wurde unter der Gnu Freien Dokumentationslizenz veröffentlicht. Sie haben die Erlaubnis, dieses Dokument nach den Bestimmungen der Gnu Freien Dokumentationslizenz, Version 1.2 oder später von der Free Software Foundation veröffentlicht, zu kopieren, zu verteilen und/oder zu modifizieren, solange dieser Copyrightvermerk erhalten bleibt.

this is the one from "en":

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License".

Subject to disclaimers.

and this is the new one for "en":

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to disclaimers.

The original "en" source code additionally includes a category link, please don't miss that!!! I have not copied it to this page. -- mkrohn 19:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Updated it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 21:10, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

How's this? It's more in line with the cc by sa template.

--Jia ng 08:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesnt look that good, first the logo is too wide and too small and it's not an official logo unlike the CC logos, if you look at the GFDL (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html) page you'll see that the official one is the GNU head. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 15:37, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Contents

1 new version

1.1 Current version
1.2 Proposed version
1.3 Comments

2 Category

3 Could someone add a blank line to the top?

4 Sharp GNU Head

5 Image and category removed

[edit]

new version

[edit]

Current version

[edit]

Proposed version

[edit]

Comments

I made a new version which uses a wikified link to the licence and removed the following text: "A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License"" -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 21:25, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Cool, I like it. It's more streamlined. --Sonjaaa 21:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC):Ia

I agree. -- mkrohn 12:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The white box bothers me. Can it be made transparent? --Farside 12:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Could someone add a blank line to the top?

Otherwise it breaks code like:

This is my summer photo. {{GFDL}}

-->

This is my summer photo.

And also Template:PD-USGov, Thanks, — Matt 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since User:Mfc opposes the use of {{GFDL}} on all his GFDL-licensed image description pages (because it is too obtrusive and too much legalese), I created a slimmed {{GFDL-small}}, which can be used in such cases. The template includes the GFDL images category. Discuss this on Template_talk:GFDL-small. — David Remahl 17:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the need for two different versions. Either the one or the other, but not both. If the smaller one is legally sufficent, which I can't judge, than it's fine with me to replace this template with the small one. Otherwise I object introducing a second one--what happens if another user wants another template for his images? Also it makes automatic classification of content more difficult. -- mkrohn 19:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Presumably, the checking of the GFDL box when submitting a work for which you hold copyright is legally sufficient, which is what User:Mfc argues. I also want to limit the number of copyright tags; however, if someone _definitely_ does not want the GFDL template on his/her image description page, then automatic classification becomes _impossible_. Personally, I find the verbose copyright status blobs informational, and I think that the image description pages should be used mostly for book-keeping. In contrast, Mfc thinks that they take up too much space and detract from the information about the images. — David Remahl 19:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I believe the category system should be the main way of extracting lists of images with certain licensing properties, not the tags in and by themselves. — David Remahl 20:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Modification of the GFDL is prohibited, so adding the disclaimers to the license invalidates the license. Fortunately, the license grant is really GFDL and it's just the template which is wrong, so it's not really a mass copyright infringment. But it's nice to accurately describe the license, as required by it. Alternatively, a new, non-GFDL (and inherently incompatible with the GFDL), license could be created which incorporates the disclaimers. Jamesday 03:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should clarify this a little: Warranty disclaimers are fine in association with the GFDL. However, the Biocrawler site disclaimers which the GFDL notice currently links to appear to exceed a warranty disclaimer and hence appear to be an attempt to modify the GFDL. A GFDL-specific disclaimer, limited to only what fits in a warranty disclaimer, would be fine. Jamesday 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you please comment my reasoning at User talk:Rfl#My personal license on the additional restrictions added to the GFDL (“the author demands that his name be quoted under the image wherever it is posted”) in the User:Halibutt/GFDL template? Can those images be included in the Category:GFDL images? Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 13:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably not what you expected.:) Here's the reply for him from the talk page for that template: You should probably modify this so that it makes what you're asking more clear in GFDL terms. I suggest:

That you use a copyright notice, which the GFDL says must be preserved and distributed with the work. A notice of the form (c in a circle character) 2004 (your name) would suffice in most countries. If you want a valid copyright notice in the two minor countries which require it for a valid copyright notice, also include "All rights reserved".
You may also use moral rights and require that in moral rights jurisdictions your name be associated with your work. In those jurisdictions that is a right distinct from copyright and does not interfere with the license.

In general, it's also good on Biocrawler to identify photographers in a standard photo credit identifying the photographer. If you see an image for which we don't have the photographer properly credited, please add the appropriate credit.

In addition, in a moral rights jurisdiction for text, I expect that all authors of any substantive part of an article may exert their moral rights to require that their name be associated with their work. Typo corrections aren't the sort of thing which is usually substantive. Jamesday 22:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be precise, it was not a reply from me, but a comment from you ;) . Also, I agree with your ideas, but I still have no idea how to include them in the comment. Any suggestions as to the wording? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 14:16, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now, I hadn't noticed that you inserted the remark in my tag. Thanks for your help! Halibu tt 14:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Sharp GNU Head

I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently:

old→ ←new

Image:The GNU logo.png just have to be changed to Image:Heckert GNU white.png but I don’t have privileges to do it myself. Please see Biocrawler talk:Image copyright tags#Sharp GNU Head. Rafał Pocztarski 05:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It has already been changed by Quadell. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 05:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Image and category removed

Acting as a developer I've removed both the image and category from this template until MediaWiki 1.4 is in service on this wiki. Their presence caused a denial of service attack warning and mass query kill on the main database server for the sites at a low traffic time. Mediawiki has some changes which should make it possible to add them back without DOSing the sites. Jamesday 11:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Template_talk:GFDL"

Categories: GFDL images