File talk:Annie IP's serious jokes Nr1.png

Licencing

From my talk page:

May I please ask you to show on recently created Image:Annie IP's serious jokes Nr1.png, as an example, how to deal with the merging of several souces with different Licences? I'm not in a hurry on this, but think it might be good to know what to do in such case - whether this can be managed at all without especially asking single contributors (that bastard who insists in his copyright on that ridiculous little exemplum-thing, mainly!) and asking them to change their mind. tx, Annie IP 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My answer is threefold:

1. Oh dear !
2. the subject is complicated, it would be wise to request advice from people competant with such legal issues (I know some, I will try to ask; I am not competant at all, I just have vague notions which seem to be enough for my own usage about simple cases on Commons)
3. in the absence of more competant advise, my intuition is as follow:
   • Among the individual images here, some have multiple licencing (for instance the mouse is CC-by-sa-2.0-fr and CeCILL); in these cases, it is permissible to choose one of the licences, so take the least restrictive one; in this case CC-by-sa-2.0-fr
   • Now see the licences we have:
     • Image:Transi 6.jpg is CC-by-sa-2.0-fr
     • de:Bild:Wikireader icon.jpg is GFDL
     • Image:Exemplum JPEGis.jpg is copyrighted for any purpose
   • Identify whether some licences are subsets of others, and use the most restrictive licence of these ones. In this case, all the conditions required by the CC-by-sa-2.0-fr and "copyrighted for any purpose" are satisfied if we required that the GFDL be used. So logically, a good candidate for the final licencing is GFDL.

I hope I was not too confusing :p Rama 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: It is generally nor recommanded to use only the GFDL (or GFDL-styled) licences for images (see my rational); so this might be a good opportunity to ask the author whether a little adjustement in licencing is possible.

PS2: We were relatively lucky here because the licences are compatible (or so I think), so we can identify the common denominator and use this. There might be incompatible licences which would prevent such a composing (though I cannot think of an example right now). Rama 10:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First, many thanks for your quick and detailed answer on a probably delicate problem.

Second, I must admit I did not see from Image:Transi 6.jpg that it was CC-by-sa-2.0-fr, too. Would that be implicite to CeCILL? I avoid to read descriptions whenever I can, trying to "behave well" (well, not in Annie's case ;) and to do as most others propose to do, too. So, my question on this: is CC-by-sa-2.0-fr "within" CeCILL?

Third, I was not aware that GFDL was more restrictive than "attribution", thinking that me, Huitzlipochtli, should choose such in order to give me, Annie IP, serious reason for ranting about ;)

Concerning GFDL, it was bloody beginner "common IP" who had to inform his teuton friends at de:WP that it might not be very wise to "advertise" such any more, by describing it first and in a less irritating way in de:WP's Picture tutorial than cc-by-sa. They meanwhile accepted that, admittedly. I for sure will not personnally ask everybody submitting under GFDL to change their minds, but, in case some clever developer finds kind of serial letter which is automatically sent to all who, up to now, licenced their work under GFDL only, there might be some reaction and feedback, thereby reducing possible later noise about many of those items.

Concerning the display of licences, it might also be wise to display CC-BY-SA above GFDL in the double licence, for same reason, and one reason more: GFDL being by far larger, it requires more scrolling to see alternatives than vice-versa. Should be just a little exchange of lines in some template, which couldn't but help.

Last, I here too see some possible help (and for sure easier to check, because dealing with rather well-known factors) by some grafical License-decision tree. Or is there any such thing already?

Very last, about my recently chosen name: I described it on my Talk page, last lines, up to now not yet affected by flame. So, I ask you, do you think "Annie IP" a good pseudo for any IP, or might that be too much misleading towards "claiming to be a woman"? Alternatives I see, up to now, are Anni or Anny, or, in case none of those, "the common IP" (I think it's also English to describe an „ordinary“ item of a species, in biology (have no English example on this, by now, but would be like latin communis)). Annie IP 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

TX, by now, and good afternoon/evening, Annie IP 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: of course, if someone even more competent would have a look at our talk, this could not but help!

I may be wrong, but I think the text is attributed to Benjamin Franklin See there http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin Esby (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)