I tried to make the PDF of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter
It credits File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter
Breidenstein.jpg Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6-300_Twin_Otter_Breidenstein.jpg
On 8/24/14, 7:03 PM, Jeevan Jose wrote:
Try to download as PDF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
License: unknown
Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons
license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing,
rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!).
Thanks,
Mike
On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose
I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse.
Problem solved?
Thanks,
Mike
On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons
license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug
Mike --
Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license
Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative
Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis
of a GFDL
I don't mean to divert this thread into a discussion of the GFDL loophole,
though -- Jeevan's original question about PDF output is a good one, it's
important that all WM software honor attribution requirements (and,
ideally, non legally-binding wishes) appropriately.
Pete
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014
Hey Pete,
Thanks for pointing me towards that discussion - I hadn't spotted it, and I've
replied (and apologised for not noticing it) accordingly.
This is definitely a loop worth closing, as it's a right pain to deal with when
working with derivative images of Wikipedia page screenshots. For a
On 8/24/14, 9:34 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations
like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a
community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the
software.
I
Hi,
This is definitely a loop worth closing
This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all
list readers who might not check it out :):
please see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
--
Jean-Fred
Thanks Mark for pointing me to the new PDF exporter; hope it will improve
the accuracy of data gathering from file pages.
BTW, I improved the file page [1], and now contributor is attributing
properly [2]. But it still failed to fetch the license. So my understanding
is that the current script is
I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has
been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches
lately ;-).
Cheers,
Craig
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
11 matches
Mail list logo
