| Site Notice |
|---|
|
Difference between revisions of "File talk:Right Arrow.png"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Licensing and Other Things) |
Greenpickle (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::What I meant is, they're all content templates, not specifically to indicate licensing. If you look at the file description, you'd see I said it's LGPL: where are generic licenses like fairuse, free and public domain? - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub> 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | ::What I meant is, they're all content templates, not specifically to indicate licensing. If you look at the file description, you'd see I said it's LGPL: where are generic licenses like fairuse, free and public domain? - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub> 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Not to make myself out to be a noob here, but: What is the difference between content licence templates and generic licence templates? {{User:Tacopill/sig}} 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC). | :::Not to make myself out to be a noob here, but: What is the difference between content licence templates and generic licence templates? {{User:Tacopill/sig}} 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::The templates in that category indicate the content of the file: in some cases it's always going to be, say, fair use, but in others, the template either assumes the file is copyrighted or gives a list of licenses it might fall under. This is ambiguous and not very flexible: if license is not defined by the content, it should be clearly stated on the description page what the distribution terms of the file are. Take this image: the obvious template, according to its content, is "Wiki File", but that assumes fair use, which is not the case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Also, what's with the silliness on {{tem|License/Wiki File}}? And {{tem|License/Copyright Nintendo}} is a different style to the others and overlaps with a lot of their use-cases. - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub> 09:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:03, 12 March 2011
Licensing and Other Things
Hey, where are the licensing templates? - GP talk 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also, is this okay? Just used what I had on my computer; Tango's was too small. Are we going for a certain colour? - GP talk 09:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The license are available in the drop down box on the uploaded page, as pictured to the right. Or, you may look at this related category.
- It's fine to upload this. One day, however, I do plan to replace it with something more original. Still, it will do for now. Thank you for uploading it.
- Tacopill (Talk) 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC).
- The templates in that category indicate the content of the file: in some cases it's always going to be, say, fair use, but in others, the template either assumes the file is copyrighted or gives a list of licenses it might fall under. This is ambiguous and not very flexible: if license is not defined by the content, it should be clearly stated on the description page what the distribution terms of the file are. Take this image: the obvious template, according to its content, is "Wiki File", but that assumes fair use, which is not the case.
- Also, what's with the silliness on
{{License/Wiki File}}? And{{License/Copyright Nintendo}}is a different style to the others and overlaps with a lot of their use-cases. - GP talk 09:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, what's with the silliness on
