Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/GFDL to CC License Migration of files

< Requests for comment

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Hello everyone!

On de-Wikibooks we got a message from User:MGA73, that "we need to finish" license migration. Compare: Discussion on my user page (in english language), feel free to read the above paragraphs on the same page also in english language, where the discussion started because of house-keeping-issues regarding GFDL in wb-de.

The user wants to add templates "to complete license migration" and to "take care" for ~4000 files (compare User:MGA73/GFDL_files/Categories, the regarding table-row for german wikibooks). The argument is, that we are obligated to do this. I don't see this as necessary, because - if I understand it correctly - there was no process in place back than to migrate files globally in every project (compare Licensing_update/Implementation#Information_for_non-text_media_contributors and m:Talk:Licensing_update/Implementation#Relicensing_of_media_files). The wb-de-community seem to have missed the process back than and because of the closed time-window (compare GFDL, No. 11) there is no easy way of doing this now. So, because of foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy I don't see a necessity to "migrate" every GFDL-file to a double license. The work of contacting the editors in question (from which some are suspected to not being contactable anymore, may they please RIP) and taking care of the files is far to much work, than just to keep the license as is (which is allowed by the rules, policies and terms, if I understand correctly).

I'd kindly like to ask for opinions! I'd surely like support, but I'm willing to accept an obligation if it can be properly explained. We sadly failed to achieve this in the discussion until now.

tldr:

  • Is every Wikimedia-Project obligated to migrate files from GFDL to dual-Licensing manually?

Thanks everyone for their time and effort thinking about this problem and commenting here!

I'll notify the user talk:MGA73 and the project b:de:Wikibooks:Ich brauche Hilfe#Lizenz-Migration according to RfC-policies. Thank you very much HirnSpuk (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello and thank you for the ping. Neither German or English is my native language so I may at some point have said something that is unclear or wrong.
I do not think we can force someone to do something they do not want. So if HirnSpuk or other users would rather spend their time on something else they are free to do so.
I think the most important question is if it is still legal to do it.
The link does not work for me but we discussed on de-Wikibooks what the date August 1, 2009 means. As I understand it and as it is said on m:Talk:Licensing_update/Implementation#Relicensing_of_media_files the relicensing has occurred and already applies to the existing GFDL works meeting the criteria (whether or not they are labeled). It happened when the resolution passed by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
I think we all agree that it would have been better if the template had actually been added to every single file before August 1, 2009.
The next question is if de-Wikibooks can prevent other users (me for example) from doing it. Each user have the right to opt-out for their own files but apart from that I do not see any reason why de-Wikibooks should prevent finishing the license migration. Creative Commons is better than GFDL so giving reusers the choice to use as CC is good. --MGA73 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my standpoint:
  • Yes, relicensing has occured, but in my opinion it doesn't apply to Media-Files but the Database itself. I think Media-files would need to be handled individually (because the date of the GFDL No. 11 passed), which would have been possible 15 years ago, but is not anymore, and didn't happen than at wb-de. The work to take care for individual contacts of license-choosing would be to much and there is no problem, because stand-alone GFDL is possible referring to foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy.
  • I do not doubt, that MGA73 can do it. I do not doubt, that it's possible to do it. I do not believe there would be harm in doing and finishing it.
  • I do think it's legal to keep it as it is and I doubt, that it's worth the work.
  • I don't agree, that "it would have been better if the template had actually been added to every single file before August 1, 2009." I think it actually doesn't matter that much, because we as wikibooks doesn't have a big problem with reusing of local files or implementing GFDL in books.
  • The de-wikibooks-community doesn't want to "prevent" anything, as far as I see it. I personally would like to prevent MGA73 from creating new pages in the template namespace to clarify an idea, that could have been explained beforehand.
  • There is nothing to finish. On wb-de there hasn't been a discussion on migration, there hasn't been work on migration (at least not to my knowledge). It would be a completely new task, that touches community discussion, user contacts, template generation and modification, file service and general house-keeping which will probably need admin-support (and probably bot-service as well), and last but not least error-checking. I just argue, that we - as a small wikimedia-project-community - have a strong track record of started and not finished work/projects and I see a high risk of this here (because of the amount of files we are talking about, if we would talk an amount one power less it would be something different). And (from my standpoint) the de-wb-community doesn't have the human-power to finish (or reset) this ever, if the process, from which I argue is not needed, is started and stalls for some reason that is not foreseeable.
So for me the question at hand is: is there an obligation to take care for the migration or not. And if there is no obligation, I would prefer to keep it as it is. HirnSpuk (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CC BY-SA is a lot more user-friendly than the GFDL, so it is absolutely worth doing. Every time you share something under the GFDL, you need to include a copy of the GFDL. Not a link to a copy. Not a summary. A copy of the entire original license in English. When you are creating documentation (as the GFDL is intended for), the extra pages of the GFDL are insignificant. But when you are sharing a photograph, the need to include a couple of pages of legalese in a language the recipient might not even understand is less than ideal.
As for whether it is necessary: The files have already been relicensed by the WMF (prior to August 1, 2009) if it was possible to relicense them. Adding the tag merely indicates that they can be used under CC BY-SA 3.0; it does not change the legal status of the work. (Think about how adding c:Template:PD-old-70-expired to a work does not cause the author to have died 70 years ago; it just reports that it has happened.) Because they are already licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 but not tagged as such, the edits are correcting an error and are therefore (in my eyes) productive. Best, HouseBlaster (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster, I don't doubt that CC is the better option. I know all the advantages. The problem I see is, that there was an option for "opting-out" compare c:Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force/Migration#The_opt-out_provision. And that should have been "community-decision". There was no community decision in de.wb back than. I argue that the users back than did not have the opportunity to viably opt-out, because they didn't know. Hence I'd say it's better to assume everything is opted out. I could live with the interpretation, that relicensing has occured and that no one has a word in it anymore, but I object to MGAs idea to use b:de:Vorlage:License_migration, because it would yield individual contacting of every affected user. It would be sufficient to just add a CC-by-sa 3.0 template (the only option I think is to do it automated, because of the amount of files). But that was never MGA73's proposal (at least not how I understood it). Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no cause for Meta to take any action here. GFDL is considered free by wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy so if the de.wikibooks community wants to not do license migration that's their right. * Pppery * it has begun 05:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HirnSpuk I created the templates in the template namespace because I misunderstood you and thought you wanted me to show how it should be done. I can't change that and neither can anyone on meta. I can only say I'm sorry that I did not created the templates in my user space instead.

The community can't opt out. Only single users can opt out. The license migration was announced on all wikis so all users had a chance to go read it if they wanted to.

If you do not wish to prevent me from completing the license migration but you worry about if the license migration project will be completed then I can tell you that I have fixed more than a million files and I can easily complete the license migration on de.wikibook. If you want we can discuss details like

  • which templates to use
  • how the edits summary should be
  • if each user should have a message on their talk page
  • etc.

I'm not sure what you mean about "It would be sufficient to just add a CC-by-sa 3.0 template (the only option I think is to do it automated, because of the amount of files). But that was never MGA73's proposal (at least not how I understood it).". But I agree that it is sufficient just to add the cc-by-sa-3.0. We do not have to contact the users. I think the reason the discussion about contacting users was brought up because it is easier and make it possible to update the license if users say yes. Because then we can add cc to files that are not eligible for a license migration and we do not have to worry about dates. That option is easier if there are a few users with lots of uploads and they are still active. If there are many users with a few uploads it is probably not worth the time. On most wikis I just add a message in the edit summary asking copyright holder to consider to relicense.

* Pppery * do you also think that community (English Wikipedia for example) can decide not to use cc-by-sa-4.0 for text and only use GFDL? That is not how I understand the resolution. I understand it as the wmf have decided (after a vote on meta) that all wikis now use Cc-by-sa-4.0 (with exception of Wikinews and Wikidata) and that the license migration has been done. What the users on de.wikibooks can decide is if they want to spend the time completing the license migration or not. I do not think a community can decide that I'm not allowed to mark the files as relicensed if I want to spend the time doing that. I do not see how that would be possible because I could just move a file to Commons or another wiki and relicense it there. It would be a nightmare if Commons had to keep track of which wikis support the license migration and which wikis does not. --MGA73 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by some miracle the enwiki community gets consensus to say "all pages created in 2025 or later are only released under the GFDL" (I carefully worded this so it is legally allowed), then while that would be a mindbogglingly stupid thing for them to do, it's not a reason for anyone else to abrogate their sovereignty. The same is the case here. You have to set some floor above which the communities are sovereign, and that floor is set by wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to be the definition of a free license, which GFDL technically qualifies as. * Pppery * it has begun 02:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I agree that per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy (from 2007) GFDL is a free license. So if that was the only resolution the wmf have made I would agree. But they also made the wmf:Resolution: Licensing update approval (from 2009) where they approve the licensing update. So to me its like discussing if it is enough to follow the w:Constitution of the United States or you also have to comply with all the amendments too? And if two "laws" contradict eachother which one "wins" (older or newer "law")? --MGA73 (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument. But it proves too much since individual opt outs aren't mentioned in either that resolution or the text of GFDL 1.3, both of which describe relicensing as an at-once decision applying to Wikimedia as a whole. Since you seem to accept individual opt-outs, then the distinction between them and this must flow from some source other than a fundamental global principle, and no such source could possibly have the authority to mandate this.
In any event, the dispute here doesn't seem to be legal in nature (as HirnSpuk's first bullet point acknowledges) but instead technical in nature, giving Meta even less cause to intervene. We're coming at this from sufficiently different perspectives here that I think either one of us convincing the other is unlikely at this point. * Pppery * it has begun 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A license is non-revokable so if someone upload a photo to Wikipedia or Commons and then regret then we have the right to keep it. But in most cases we accept that files can be deleted if unused and uploader request it. We do not need license terms to say its allowed to be nice :-)
So now we have a situation where I would like to execute the WMF-resolution and HirnSpuk does not. The idea of a wiki is that everyone can and may edit so to prevent me from doing edits should be based on either my edits are not legal or they are disruptive.
If we all agree that there are no legal problems or anything disruptive by marking the files as either eligible or not-eligible now then I think we have gotten far. --MGA73 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I do not agree. (Just for completeness, that free licenses are usually non-revokable as used in wikimedia-ecosystem, doesn't mean "a license is non-revokable").
  • I don't know, if there are legal problems or not (though I can think of a situation where there would).
  • I expect disruption, because I don't trust Bot-Edits in this case (because of the complicated nature of the edits, not taking into account, that Bot-rights need to be granted first) and I think there are to many tasks to be done and to many pages to be created, modified and checked (especially for a non-native-speaker, no offense).
So I'm expecting a worse situation afterwards. If we work with "marking as eligible", we'll be left with a situation, that helps noone, because I don't expect anyone to take care for this in the long run (checking and working on the "eligibility").
So I would kindly like to ask: if you insist on proceeding, just add the cc license for files before the GFDL-time-frame and change nothing for files after the GFDL-time-frame; it would be nice to ask on b:de:Wikibooks:Verbesserungsvorschläge for comment about the plan, wait a sufficient time-period for comment (I'd say four weeks) before proceeding.
But please don't install a template-driven license-migration check-system (maybe even with categories).
Thanks everyone for their time and effort. Regards, HirnSpuk (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment For the record I have made the suggestion at German Wikibooks. I would like to comment on two things:
    1. I see no reason to worry. Bots work on wikis non-stop and make millions of edits every year. They are not going to go crazy and ruin everything. They do what they are told to do by whoever operate them. I have been working on this since 2009 and yes I need a bot flag but I have a bot flag on many wikis. You may not know me on German Wikibooks but I'm a trusted user on many wikis. So I see no reason why you should expect me to cause disruption.
    2. There will be nothing or very little to monitor in the future. All that needs to be done is to change b:de:MediaWiki:Licenses and add either "|migration=not-eligible" or "-Neu" after the existing "Bild-GFDL". That will make sure that all future uploads are marked as not eligible for relicense. Of course no system is 100% safe. If someone upload a new file and actively decide to add Bild-GFDL without the extension then file will end up in a category for review. Then when someone notices they can either fix it or ask uploader to fix it. But I think in the last 5 years only 5 files was uploaded as GFDL. So to me it seems like a non-existing problem.
If there are any other worries then I'm sure they can be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status per December 14, 2024: As I see it the license migration is now Done. About 3,300 files were moved to Commons and the remaining 700+ files were taken care of. Most via a change of the template but a few via an edit to the file page. --MGA73 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/GFDL_to_CC_License_Migration_of_files&oldid=27975242"