Template talk:CC Image
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Upgrading license
Dystopos, I'm not sure it's legal for you to automatically upgrade the license on everything that uses this template. It's possible a user might object to the changes in the terms between versions. It's probably safer to make a new template a la "Template:CC Image 3.0". Then users can upgrade the license on their photos if desired. (But keep in mind I am not a lawyer and haven't read the full legalese of the license.) --Lkseitz 15:17, 27 February 2007 (PST)
- Distribution under later versions of the same license is allowed under the terms of version 2.5 (Full Code Paragraph 4b). --Dystopos 15:25, 27 February 2007 (PST)
- To clarify, the terms in the new version were already implied by the previous versions. The difference being they are now spelled out. (i.e. your "moral right" to claim authorship was never touched by v.2.5, and is now expressed positively by v.3.0. You can't cause a change to moral rights no matter how you license a work. The new version merely does a better job of communicating that they exist.) As to compatible downstream licenses, this was always the intent of BhamWiki, to be compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL (without being bound by its legacy issues). I had to make that explicit at BhamWiki:Copyrights because, in fact, they are not fully compatible (requiring dual licensing). If Creative Commons ever officially recognizes any license as being fully compatible, every single right pertaining to v.2.5 will be preserved. --Dystopos 15:43, 27 February 2007 (PST)
- Oh, okay. I guess that's what I get for not reading the full license. Thanks for clarifying. --Lkseitz 17:56, 27 February 2007 (PST)
- To clarify, the terms in the new version were already implied by the previous versions. The difference being they are now spelled out. (i.e. your "moral right" to claim authorship was never touched by v.2.5, and is now expressed positively by v.3.0. You can't cause a change to moral rights no matter how you license a work. The new version merely does a better job of communicating that they exist.) As to compatible downstream licenses, this was always the intent of BhamWiki, to be compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL (without being bound by its legacy issues). I had to make that explicit at BhamWiki:Copyrights because, in fact, they are not fully compatible (requiring dual licensing). If Creative Commons ever officially recognizes any license as being fully compatible, every single right pertaining to v.2.5 will be preserved. --Dystopos 15:43, 27 February 2007 (PST)