MediaWiki talk:Licenses

Updating available licenses

I suggest to update the licenses available to the following combination

* Unknown|I don't know exactly
* Free licenses:
** PD|PD: public domain
** PD-self|PD-self: For works released into the PD by their creator who is also the uploader.
** PD-textlogo|PD-textlogo: Logos that only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text
** CC-BY-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
** CC-BY-SA-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0
** ID screenshot|Screenshots of iD published under ISC Licence
** ODbL OpenStreetMap|Open Database License: for maps from or based on data from openstreetmap.org
* Other licenses:
** Attribution|Copyrighted, but freely usable given the copyright holder is credited
** Bing image|major use of Bing aerial imagery
** Mapbox image credit|media consisting partially or entirely of Mapbox imagery

This adds iD, Mapbox and CC-BY and removes CC-BY-SA-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0. The list would still leave out some seldom used licensed (see also Category:Media license templates). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we should add JOSM's GPL license as well, I guess

* Unknown|I don't know exactly
* Free licenses:
** PD|PD: public domain
** PD-self|PD-self: For works released into the PD by their creator who is also the uploader.
** PD-textlogo|PD-textlogo: Logos that only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text
** CC-BY-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
** CC-BY-SA-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0
** ID screenshot|Screenshots of iD published under ISC Licence
** GPL|GNU General Public license (JOSM)
** ODbL OpenStreetMap|Open Database License: for maps from or based on data from openstreetmap.org
* Other licenses:
** Attribution|Copyrighted, but freely usable given the copyright holder is credited
** Bing image|major use of Bing aerial imagery
** Mapbox image credit|media consisting partially or entirely of Mapbox imagery

--Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be based on the legal interpretation that screenshots of open source software are governed by the source code's license, e.g. GPL. Is that actually the case? --Tordanik 12:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a good question actually. I assumed that in the last addition of the list. The previous one just lists the templates which contain domain specific content (like in Template:iD screenshot). It is probably best to ask the JOSM developers directly? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tordanik: After reading w:c:Commons:Screenshots and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL. I would say "yes, in general", meaning if the screenshots were not differently licensed in by the developer team in the beginning (this would be the case for OSM data modified with JOSM). Please note that I did neither read the official license nor talked to the dev people and it depends on the copyleft/share-alike clause of the specific license. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 20:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

CC0 missing

There is neither {{CC0}} nor {{CC0-self}} in the list. Wouldn't it be a good choice?!! --Chris2map (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it would. But there are more missing, I would add e.g. JOSM screenshot and other popular. maro21 23:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

CC0 is now available! --Chris2map (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)