![]() |
Template:GFDL is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
I wrote out GFDL, because that's good practice.
The "see wikipedia:copyrights" I removed, because it's not a helpful link - it just says "uh, images can be under lots of licenses. Hope this helps!". Rather, we should say "see later on this page", where there'll be vital details, such as *what* version of the GFDL, if any, who owns the copyright, etc. Martin 21:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How did this get so bloated? I suggest we go back to this:
The disclamer thing has been covered elsewhere, we dont have to reapeat it all the time. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:03, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
I would like the GFDL template to look exactly as the text above. I have no idea why does it now have unlinked GNU Free Documentation License text and another sentence with the only purpose of linking to FDL text. Everything is subject to disclaimers, yet only GFDL template seems to repeat it. See also pd message is unclear section on Image copyright tags talk page. Rafał Pocztarski 21:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the license text more visible by adding a frame to it? For instance I like the layout the German Wikipedia is using: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:GFDL -- mkrohn 23:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
O.k. let's see: this is the one from "de" (without adjusted links, that's why they are red atm):
![]() |
Dieses Dokument wurde unter der Gnu Freien Dokumentationslizenz veröffentlicht. Sie haben die Erlaubnis, dieses Dokument nach den Bestimmungen der Gnu Freien Dokumentationslizenz, Version 1.2 oder später von der Free Software Foundation veröffentlicht, zu kopieren, zu verteilen und/oder zu modifizieren, solange dieser Copyrightvermerk erhalten bleibt. |
this is the one from "en":
and this is the new one for "en":
![]() |
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled " Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to disclaimers. |
The original "en" source code additionally includes a category link, please don't miss that!!! I have not copied it to this page. -- mkrohn 19:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How's this? It's more in line with the cc by sa template.
![]() |
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled " Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to disclaimers. |
-- Jia ng 08:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
![]() |
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled " Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to disclaimers. |
![]() |
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
I made a new version which uses a wikified link to the licence and removed the following text: "A copy of the license is included in the section entitled " Text of the GNU Free Documentation License"" -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:25, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
Cool, I like it. It's more streamlined. -- Sonjaaa 21:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC):Ia
The white box bothers me. Can it be made transparent? -- Farside 12:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the category from this template. The text was [[Category:GFDL images|{{PAGENAME}}]]. This category is approaching an unmanagable size. -- ssd 12:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Otherwise it breaks code like:
This is my summer photo. {{GFDL}}
-->
This is my summer photo.
![]() | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
![]() ![]() ![]() | If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
![]() |
And also
Template:PD-USGov,
Thanks,
— Matt 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since User:Mfc opposes the use of {{GFDL}} on all his GFDL-licensed image description pages (because it is too obtrusive and too much legalese), I created a slimmed {{GFDL-small}}, which can be used in such cases. The template includes the GFDL images category. Discuss this on Template_talk:GFDL-small. — David Remahl 17:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Probably not what you expected.:) Here's the reply for him from the talk page for that template: You should probably modify this so that it makes what you're asking more clear in GFDL terms. I suggest:
In general, it's also good on Wikipedia to identify photographers in a standard photo credit identifying the photographer. If you see an image for which we don't have the photographer properly credited, please add the appropriate credit.
In addition, in a moral rights jurisdiction for text, I expect that all authors of any substantive part of an article may exert their moral rights to require that their name be associated with their work. Typo corrections aren't the sort of thing which is usually substantive. Jamesday 22:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently:
Image:The GNU logo.png
just have to be changed to Image:Heckert GNU white.svg
but I don’t have privileges to do it myself. Please see
Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Sharp GNU Head.
Rafał Pocztarski 05:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
is the better option as far as commons is concerned. I'm just wandering around replacing the other GNU heads with it right now.
Janizary
02:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Acting as a developer I've removed both the image and category from this template until MediaWiki 1.4 is in service on this wiki. Their presence caused a denial of service attack warning and mass query kill on the main database server for the sites at a low traffic time. Mediawiki has some changes which should make it possible to add them back without DOSing the sites. Jamesday 11:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed at least one image that had an invariant section on it, but was tagged with this template ( Image:AsimovOnThrone.png). Since this template specifically says that there are no invariant sections or cover texts, I created a new template, Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants, which seemed more appropriate. This seemed like the best solution to me, but if there's another way that people want to handle this, I'm very open to suggestions. -- Creidieki 13:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think is a nonsense to merge the GFDL license whit a note about diclaimers. The license must be alone, with no modification. Does the GFDL allow this think? I say NO.
Please remove this message from the template, the GFDL must be the same here, at Commons and all the Wikimedia projects.
See also: commons:MediaWiki_talk:Licenses#Why_GFDL-en?
Thanks. -- Sanbec 08:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The GFDL specifically states
and that you must
I'm not sure, but I think that means you can't remove the silly disclaimers from this template. Life would be much simpler if that bit had never been added to this template, but it's too late to remove it now. dbenbenn | talk 22:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but I think that the old version looked better. -- Ixfd64 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
[[vi:Tiêu bản:GFDL]]
Thanks.
– Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The "subject to disclaimers" lead to compability issues when transferring images to other Wikipedia projects or to Commons. I thought all material on Wikipedia was released under GFDL, not under GFDL-en? Should other Wikipedia projects change their license to "GFDL-en " too? Can other Wikipedia projects also write their own "GFDL-en"? How do you treat works released on other Wikipedia projects without disclaimers when moved to Commons and used on English Wikipedia?
Fred- Chess 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Is an identical version and I propose that this page be redirected to it. This is a first step in gradual conversion of {{ GFDL}} to {{ GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. The disclaimer needs to be preserved as per GFDL, but any newer image does not have to have the license (and if it does there will be a template for it). -- Cat out 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add interwiki link to bs:Šablon:GFDL? -- Emx 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:GDFL. Thanks. -- 81.39.61.206 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}} please add es:Plantilla:GFDL, thanks, -- Cacuija ( my talk) 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please add the interwiki for Interlingua:
[[ia:Patrono:GFDL]]
The images covered by this template need to be thoroughly vetted. I have noticed several images that are either copyrighted by corporations (and thus may be covered by {{ promotional}} or {{ fair use}}. However, the most common scenario I have found is that people are too lazy to tag U.S. government images properly, and so public domain images that belong in {{ PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} (for example) are tagged with {{ GFDL}} because someone didn't want to do the work. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a series of interwiki edits to propose:
Jesse Viviano 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like my first request was misinterpreted. I meant that the Spanish and the Interlingua interwikis should be removed from this template because they have no disclaimers, and should be placed on {{ GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. Now, the interwikis go to nonexistent pages. Jesse Viviano 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add these interwikis. They have no disclaimers.
Jesse Viviano 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please update to include more interwiki links like the ones included on the commons version of the template. Thanks, Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Done -
Harryboyles
03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that (at least in my browser) our friend Heckert's head is a little smaller on this template than on the others. I recommend fixing the icon size for consistency's sake. MithrandirMage 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the protection tag and changed the template to use tables instead of div's for stack-ability purposes. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please change the template code to the following for purposes for {{ Imbox}} standardization. Kelly hi! 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
{{imbox | type = license | image = [[Image:Heckert GNU white.svg|52px|GFDL]] | text = Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the '''[[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]''', Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. }}{{image other | [[Category:GFDL images|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}{{free media}}<noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{Documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>
Because of some changes in GFDL 1.3 shouldn't this template be updated to warn about externally sourced GFDL images uploaded after Nov 1st 2008?. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How do you use this template without showing the box below saying "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license."? It is redundant when there already is an additional {{CC BY-SA 3.0}} template. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've implemented a tweak in the sandbox version, namely {{#ifeq:|{{{dw|no}}}|no|{{free media}}|}} instead of coding {{ free media}} directly. Specfiying dw=yes will supress the categorisation in Category:All free media, for derivative works where the subject shown is non-free, and thus can't be moved to Commons.
It would be appreciated if this straightforward change was implemented in the main template. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sandbox has updated version which needs review to ensure dw param passed to additional templates added by the migration code. Sfan00 IMG ( talk)
GFDL is not good for media per File:BD-propagande colour en.jpg and WMF decided in 2009 to stop using GFDL as a sole license. WMF did not forbid GFDL for media files but encourages people to use other licenses than GFDL.
English Wikipedia have removed GFDL from MediaWiki:Licenses and MediaWiki:Licenses/en-ownwork but it is still possible for users to add it manually.
WMF suggested that wikis restrict the use of GFDL and in september 2018 is was suggested to deprecate the GFDL license the same way Commons did. There was not concensus to forbid GFDL on English Wikipedia at that time.
As I understand it the 2 main arguments against was:
The counter arguments agains that was:
Does anyone know a more recent discussion of the topic? -- MGA73 ( talk) 19:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
GFDL restriction have now been added to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#GNU_Free_Documentation_License as a result of the discussion/proposal. -- MGA73 ( talk) 15:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)