Commons talk:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria

Mark as reviewed

{{GFDL-self}} shows, "The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed." After adding {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} what change should we make to mark it as reviewed? Superm401 - Talk 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• {{GFDL-self|migration=relicense}} should do it. →Diti the penguin — 23:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

{{GFDL-user-w}}

This template {{GFDL-user-w}} does not respond to "migration=relicense". Am I doing something wrong? Sv1xv (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the template wasn't passing the parameter along. I think I've fixed it now, see if it works. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it works now, see File:Averof Today.jpg. Thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GFDL images uploaded after August 1, 2009

Will they stay GFDL or will they automaticly recieved the multilicensing of cc-by-sa? Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thos images will stay GFDL, at least under the current version of the GFDL. It might be that in a few years the FSF adds another relicensing clause. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

KISS

I find all the fine detail of these licences rather boring. Could someone please state clearly in the article: what tag should I put on my uploads to replace {{GFDL}}? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot replace GFDL tag: if you published your works under GFDL, they will be under GFDL forever. You can only multilicensing your works: you could release them also under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Please see Commons:License Migration Task Force/Licensing change by uploader for further informations.--Trixt (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 1.3 allows re-licensing to CC-BY-SA-3.0 or any latter version

GFDL 1.3 allows re-licensing to CC-BY-SA-3.0 "as well as future copyleft versions of that license published by that same organization" (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html section 11), however our templates only seem to mention CC-BY-SA-3.0. Is that an error or did someone decided to re-license to CC-BY-SA-3.0 only? --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

During the timeframe this change was permitted there was no CC version 4.0 license. AFAIR re-users may use version 4 or higher version if they want, we are bound to 3.0 as highest version available in summer 2009. --Denniss (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If reusers can use CC-BY-SA-3.0 or higher than our templates should say so. --Jarekt (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that savy in CC licenses and the version upgrade, too many confusing and unclear info at CC. I would not change anything if that's not properly supported by copyright experts. For Wiki use only version 3.0 is relevant and valid.--Denniss (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)