Template talk:WikimediaNoLicensing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:WikimediaNoLicensing has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit. |
What does this mean, relicense? Does it mean the right of wikimedia to change the license? please ellaborate. — マイケル ₪ 19:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- It would appear to mean that Wikimedia does not have the right to alter the GFDL terms of the license. If you just put contribution onto Wikipedia, you are releasing it, but retaining all the relicensing rights, i.e. you could also release your contribution under a totally different license. The idea of granting relicensing rights to Wikimedia is that it will give the organization the right to use another license in the future that might be less restrictive than the GFDL. Does that make sense? — © Alex756 17:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is this needed? It's misleading since it implies users need such a template, which is not the case, since the Foundation has no ability to relicense their contributions without permission anyway. Angela. 02:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, if someone wants to give their copyright to the Wikipedia foundation they can. This seems to make something negative that is obviously positive. I think it should not be used. It is just confusing. There is no need for a statement like this, so why should anyone be making it. — © Alex756 04:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alkivar's edit
I have reverted Alkivar's edit, as I believe his previous edit to be based upon a misunderstanding. I concur with Angela that while the wording may be misleading, this template is not against Wikipedia policy, but it merely unneccesary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also see discussion on Alkivar's talk page. GChriss 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
