r85589 MediaWiki - Code Review archive

Repository:MediaWiki
Revision:< r85588‎ | r85589 | r85590 >
Date:23:38, 6 April 2011
Author:neilk
Status:deferred (Comments)
Tags:
Comment:
Reverting r85523.

1) There should never be any reason to remove a license from the list of *available* licenses. Someone might want it, for some other site, even if it's not Commons.

2) Flickr uses the CC 2.0 licenses exclusively. Given that changing now would mean more meetings with Yahoo lawyers I doubt this will ever happen.

3) We can debate whether 2.5 licenses should be allowed, but I agree with MaxSem (in the comment thread re: r85508)
that we should have as many options as possible there. Actually the real question is why we don't have all the others there
too like 2.1, etc. I wonder if we can somehow do a catch-all for all versions.
Modified paths:
  • /trunk/extensions/UploadWizard/UploadWizard.config.php (modified) (history)
  • /trunk/extensions/UploadWizard/UploadWizardHooks.php (modified) (history)

Diff [purge]

Index: trunk/extensions/UploadWizard/UploadWizard.config.php
——@@ -49,6 +49,14 @@
5050 'icons' => array( 'cc-zero' ),
5151 'templates' => array( 'cc-zero' )
5252 ),
 53+ 'cc-by-sa-2.5' => array(
 54+ 'msg' => 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-sa-2.5',
 55+ 'icons' => array( 'cc-by', 'cc-sa' )
 56+ ),
 57+ 'cc-by-2.5' => array(
 58+ 'msg' => 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-2.5',
 59+ 'icons' => array( 'cc-by' )
 60+ ),
5361 'cc-by-sa-2.0' => array(
5462 'msg' => 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-sa-2.0',
5563 'icons' => array( 'cc-by', 'cc-sa' )
——@@ -120,7 +128,9 @@
121129 'subhead' => 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-subhead',
122130 'licenses' => array(
123131 'cc-by-sa-3.0',
 132+ 'cc-by-sa-2.5',
124133 'cc-by-3.0',
 134+ 'cc-by-2.5',
125135 'cc-zero'
126136 )
127137 ),
——@@ -129,8 +139,8 @@
130140 'subhead' => 'mwe-upwiz-license-flickr-subhead',
131141 'prependTemplates' => array( 'flickrreview' ),
132142 'licenses' => array(
133 - 'cc-by-sa-2.0', // Can we also use 3.0 here?
134 - 'cc-by-2.0', // Can we also use 3.0 here?
 143+ 'cc-by-sa-2.0',
 144+ 'cc-by-2.0',
135145 'pd-usgov',
136146 )
137147 ),
Index: trunk/extensions/UploadWizard/UploadWizardHooks.php
——@@ -260,6 +260,8 @@
261261 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-zero',
262262 'mwe-upwiz-license-gfdl',
263263 'mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us',
 264+ 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-sa-2.5',
 265+ 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-2.5',
264266 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-sa-2.0',
265267 'mwe-upwiz-license-cc-by-2.0',
266268 'mwe-upwiz-license-fal',

Past revisions this follows-up on

RevisionCommit summaryAuthorDate
r85508separate licenses for self + thirdparty, newer, more configurable, more inter...neilk02:25, 6 April 2011
r85523Removing 2.5 licenses added/configured in r85508. Unnecessary elaborate licen...siebrand06:48, 6 April 2011

Comments

#Comment by Siebrand (talk | contribs)   07:44, 7 April 2011

Hmm... So we're back to inclusionist vs. deletionist :).

If we're inclusive, we probably need all the ported license variants also. The current CC license options imply that the file uploads are with unported CC licenses (even though that is not explicit). A fairly complete overview of currently used CC license versions and variants can be found in extensions/WikimediaMessages/WikimediaLicenseTexts.i18n.php.

#Comment by NeilK (talk | contribs)   07:49, 7 April 2011

There is no way we can just dump all the ported variants into a checkbox list. Maybe there could be some way to combine a CC license + optional porting country.

I am not even sure what, legally, is the difference. I guess they are somehow adapted for each country's legal regime. Maybe if I understood this better I'd be able to make better choices...

Status & tagging log