Commons talk:Multi-licensing
Usage concealment[edit]
This page totally conceals one obvious and clear usage of multi-licensing: combining barely free licenses (such as {{GFDL 1.2}}) and unfree ones, as a mean to bypass Wikimedia Commons rules and effectively proposing contents under a non-commercial clause… Jean-Fred (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? Rd232 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- One recent example of this sort of combination is {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}}. This page's unqualified assertions that multi-licensing gives users more freedom presumably would not sit well with people who see {{GFDL 1.2}} as a "barely free" license, so such statements could be phrased a bit less dogmatically. On the other hand, the "barely free" view of GFDL-1.2 is not universal, and such license combinations aren't very common. Maybe a footnote acknowledging these complexities would be enough. --Avenue (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Given that GFDL used to be the Commons primary license, and remains good enough for use on Wikimedia projects, I have no problem with the combination you mention, if the alternative is not having the content available for use on Wikimedia. Rd232 (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- One recent example of this sort of combination is {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}}. This page's unqualified assertions that multi-licensing gives users more freedom presumably would not sit well with people who see {{GFDL 1.2}} as a "barely free" license, so such statements could be phrased a bit less dogmatically. On the other hand, the "barely free" view of GFDL-1.2 is not universal, and such license combinations aren't very common. Maybe a footnote acknowledging these complexities would be enough. --Avenue (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
strange recommendation[edit]
Commons:Multi-licensing "recommends" multilicensing with CC-BY-xx plus CC-BY-NC-xx. However, when a user puts an additional NC-template on the image page, a speedy-deletion warning is automatically produced. --Túrelio (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, NC is currently only possible via {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}, AFAIK. I had suggested making an NC template that required a COM:L-compatible license as a parameter, as a more flexible forced-dual-licensing for people applying NC. Rd232 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. My rant was related to a recent case, see User talk:Torf. As there was no other option visible, the user removed the NC-template. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
How to use multi licensing with an NC tag with CC4.0?[edit]
I tried {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}}, and got the stupid Speedy-box, big and red and completely rubbish. I tried the mentioned {{Multi-license}}{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}}, nothing changed. I tried {{Multi-license}} {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} {{self|cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}}, still no change. How can I get a cc-by-nc-sa-4.0 to my pictures without this nasty and utterly wrong speedy box? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC) P.S.: {{self|Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0-dual}} was not even there as a template.
Public domain and CC BY 2.o[edit]
For this scenario, would the only permissible license be CC BY 2.0, because the latter requires attribution? ProfessorM2112 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)