Template talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0

Why does this link to the deed and not the actual license? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, all CC license template points deed, not actual license. --레비Revi 05:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

CC may prefer to link to that deed (human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license); but here there is a difference. We are maintaining the "File:" page per https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#3a2 "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." #3a1Aiii demands "a notice that refers to this Public License"; so we need a link to the "legalcode" on that resource. Providing another link (deed) where there is a link to the "legalcode" is misusing of that provision. Is it enough to satisfy those conditions by making a chain of links and provide all info on the 10th link? :)

When I see a picture in a Wikipedia page, now I have to visit three pages to see the "legalcode". When Media Viewer is launched for Wikipedia projects too; I have to visit one more page to reach there. This is indeed a misuse of the terms. JKadavoor Jee 06:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Kadavoor, that is exactly the problem. I support having all the license templates changed and more so now for 4.0 since you give away additional copyright-like rights with this license that are not explained by the deed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...change to text needed?

With the difference in terms (legal code) in v4.0 of the licences, the Commons Deed text for v4.0 has changed as well. Shouldn't there be a change to the text we display for v4.0? For those people in doubt, the Commons Deed text for the earlier versions has changed to that of v4.0 as well. But I find it strange as some of the text contradicts that in the legal code. I will write in to CC to enquire about this when I'm free, so there's no need to change the earlier versions first. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should update the template. There was some discussion of this earlier at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11#Creative Commons v4 licenses announced. --Avenue (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you want to change exactly? I guess you want to update these:

• share text: to copy, distribute and transmit the work -> copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• remix text: to adapt the work -> remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
• attribution text: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. -> You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• share alike text: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original. -> If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Also it looks like "remix" was changed to "adapt". Multichill (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but only for v4.0. I find it weird that CC changed the Commons Deed for the earlier versions. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The change of words like work to material and remix to adapt are only to make it more meaningful. So there is nothing wrong if CC improved their old deed pages. Jee 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We follow CC in this so it's all or nothing. Multichill (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A better link would be https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en, given that we're discussing the template for CC-BY-SA 4.0 (not 3.0), although the two texts seem to be identical (besides the title). So are the deeds for all earlier versions AFAICS. It probably makes sense to change them all at once, although we should notify people of this discussion more widely first.

I agree we should follow the text of the deed, but we should copy it in its entirety, not selectively. (Alternatively we could just remove all the verbiage, and rely on a link to the deed instead.) I notice that:

1) We currently omit the statement that "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license." and the following "Disclaimer" link.

1) We also omit the statement that "The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms."

2) We also omit the requirement that there be "No additional restrictions".

3) We also omit the two "Notices" at the end of the Deed.

4) The deed includes several links that provide further explanations or a disclaimer when clicked on. We omit all this explanatory text.

We should fix all these omissions. It might be easier to have the explanatory links take you to footnotes instead of pop-ups. It would be nice to hide these until they're clicked on.

We should also implement the changes Multichill lists above, although the last part of the remix text ("for any purpose, even commercially") should go on a separate line, to show that it applies to sharing as well. We have also moved the word "to" from "You are free to:" into the "share" and "remix"/"adapt" headings. This may not make any difference to the meaning, but we might as well fix this too. Also, our headings are in lower case, whereas theirs are in title case (with "share alike" merged to form the compound word "ShareAlike"). I'm not sure if this is meant to refer to definitions in the license, but we should probably copy their approach anyway. --Avenue (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Change "This File" to "This Material". :) Jee 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

+1. Thanks, I missed that. --Avenue (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Where it say that on the template it should link to the license not the deed given you are essentially replicating the deed with the template. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. We stretch the license conditions too far already, without adding another level of linking. --Avenue (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

+1. There is no need to a link to the "human readable summary" if we already provide one "human readable summary" in our "file" pages. ;) Jee 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I suggested changing our deed for v4.0 only is because the new deed contradicts many parts of the old licences. Such as, the old licences say "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).", while the new deed say "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use". And if you compare the v4.0 Deed with the old Licence Texts, you will see quite a number of contradictions as well. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not contradicting. As CC said, they intended so in 3.0; but clarified in 4.0. See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 to understand what are the modifications they made in each part of the license. (Try to rely only on the legalcode; deeds are only summary of the legalcode; they have no legal value.) Jee 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The deed seems to be identically worded (except for the license title) for all versions of the license, including 1.0. I haven't found any non-endorsement provision in the CC-BY-SA 1.0 license text, so I think there's a contradiction there. No doubt there are others. This is an argument against copying the deed, and for simply linking to the deed (since then the contradictions are more CC's responsibility than ours). --Avenue (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No longer required for re-users to mention/link the license?

After reading the full legalcode, I wonder whether CC 4.0 does no longer require for re-users of CC-licensed works to mention or link to the license (text), which was the first mentioned term/condition for the 3.0 licenses[1]. Did I overread something or is that really true? --Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See clause 3.a.1.C: "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must [...] indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License."

There is a similar clause (3.b.2) for sharing Adapted Material, which requires you include (a link to) the Adapter’s License (which could be a later version of the license), in addition to complying with 3.a. --Avenue (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Avenue!

By the way, this specific license term/condition is completely missing from our license templates, since ever. So, the same problem with our CC 3.0 etc. templates. Wouldn't now be a good opportunity to include this instruction into the license templates? --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a significant omission, but only one of many. If we copy the entire deed, as discussed in the section above, that would fix this omission and several others. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That would solve many issues indeed. Perhaps we can create a template that mimics the deed in all respects. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Or make it as minimum as possible: "This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. (Human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license.)" Jee 09:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We could make it even shorter; e.g. "This material is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (license text, brief summary)." If we're simply linking to the deed instead of copying it, there isn't the same need to mimic their wording, including the "not a substitute" part. --Avenue (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I think it is enough. Anyway we can't depend on the deed, completely. Jee 12:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not opposed to the approach. It keeps things simple. Some might argue that makes us a bit more dependent on the CC website and does not provide an easy to read summary on our image pages. People would have to dig one link in and that is sort of what we were complaining about with respect to that current license template. So we have two approaches:

• One line with the license name and a link to the CC Deed and another separate link to the fill license; or
• A replicate of the CC Deed on the image page with a link to the full license (as per the CC deed already).

Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That is OK as I incorporated in my uploads. But you can see I used the wordings in legalcode than deed. Eg: "ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." which is not exactly correct unless we click on the link and see "You may also use a license listed as compatible at https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses" So correct is "The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License." Further, if you are using a compatible license than exact license, "You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the Adapter's License You apply." So better, depending on the legalcode than deed. Jee 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So we have at least three options:

1. a one-liner with links to CC's license text and deed;
2. an essentially verbatim copy of CC's deed, with a link to the license text; and
3. our own summary of the license conditions (again with a link to the license text).

Option 3 would allow us to customise the summary for each version of the CC licenses, and we might be able to provide a more accurate summary of the license than CC's deed. This could take a lot of work.

Option 2 would be less work, and has the putative advantage (compared to option 1) of providing a license summary on the image page, instead of making readers follow the relevant link, although this would also take up a lot of space on the page. We would probably want to monitor the CC deed and update the template with any changes they make.

Option 1 takes up the least space on the page. The links could be directly to CC's website, or to locally hosted copies. (We already host a copy of CC-BY-SA 3.0.) If locally hosted, updates to the deed would affect only one page, not millions as in option 2.

On reflection, I strongly prefer option 1 over option 2, and option 2 over option 3. Options 1 and 2 leave Creative Commons with the responsibility for summarising their license, rather than attempting such a legally fraught business ourselves. Option 1 is also more consistent with {{GFDL}} and {{FAL}}, which do not attempt to summarise their respective licenses. Keep in mind that all these templates are often wrapped by {{Self}}, which states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" (my italics). Following that with a brief summary of the license invites confusion about what the copyright holder really agreed to, IMO, even if a link to the license text is included. --Avenue (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I prefer option 3 over option 2, and option 1 the least. I would like to go with option 3, and if that's the case, I would be glad to help with some of the work as well. But if you guys feel option 3 is too troublesome, then we can go with option 2 (which is currently what we are doing). Of course, we should include a link to the legal code as well, and the sentence that say the CC Deed is not a summary. As for the updating, I would be glad to take the job. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• I understand why AK likes option 3 but I am inclined to go with simplicity here. I also understand why Jee did what he did with his own license summary. I would like to create a situation that avoids more of that. So, while I prefer Option 1 for the reasons stated by Avenue, I suspect option two would suit more people. Our deed would have to be more compact that that of CC to suit those adverse to large image pages. I suspect the CC deed could be pared down somewhat as there is much wasted space. it would be good to keep the CC symbols for consistency. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Option one (preferred) or two is enough; leave option three for custom template fans like me. :D
• Or we can make two templates (or control with a parameter like option=1 or 2); so people can choose 1 or 2. I think people like me who use a custom template prefer the small one to satisfy the "at least one community accepted license tag" requirement. Not a big problem for me as I can collapse it to make the page shorter (as I did already). :D Jee 05:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea Jee. 👍 And I'm also another fan of custom templates. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• The basic wording of the template should not be editable (i.e. the license summary), as this would encourage people to add restrictions or odd attribution requirements. Customizable with respect to attribution name would be fine. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I think we (me at least) are a bit off topic now. I showed my template only to explain what is lagging here. As you know, I created those templates as a protest to strict custom templates with wordings like "This picture is not in public domain", "you are going to violate the copyright unless...", "you need to mail me if you want to use this picture" etc. That is why I use exact opposite words like "Thanks for make use of my works; it is always appreciated."
• Anyway, it is over and CC surprised many of us by stating a license may applicable even to its original material. So let us concentrate only on the common, generic template and try to educate our contributors and end-users what we are granting and how far they can use them without fear. There is no need to conceal anything. There is no need to cheat our contributors too. Jee 16:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I wasn't clear about why I object to option 3. It's not the amount of work involved as such. It's that (a) we aren't well qualified to be doing that work, so there's no guarantee we'll do any better than CC, and (b) placing our own license summary on the file page (especially wrapped in {{Self}}) makes us more culpable in any misunderstandings of the license that occur. Using CC's deed keeps the responsibility for this with CC, where it belongs. That's not to say we can't explain our views on the license elsewhere, where it can't be so easily confused with the license itself.

Saffron Blaze, I'm not sure what you mean by "pare down". If it's just reformatting the deed more compactly, fine, but if you mean removing items from the deed, I would see that as making our own summary (i.e. a form of option 3 again).

A template that can display either option 1 or 2 could be a good compromise. Or we could make the deed reader-expandable - i.e. default to option 1 with a "Show brief summary" link, that when clicked also shows the deed (copied verbatim as in option 2). --Avenue (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just meant content remains but the physical space it occupies is reduced... remove the fat as it were, as the CC deeds are rather wasteful of space. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree completely. --Avenue (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• CC has a crystal clear disclaimer: "Creative Commons is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. Distributing, displaying, or linking to this deed or the license that it summarizes does not create a lawyer-client or any other relationship." We too. So the person using it is the only one who responsible for it. Further, I don't think we need to refrain from "our responsibility" to "educate and protect each other" due to fear. Do something is better than do nothing. Jee 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that whoever applies or relies on the license is ultimately responsible for the result. But I'd strongly disagree with the contention that our current disclaimer is enough to absolve us of all blame for any misunderstandings, or that we do anywhere near as much as Creative Commons to give appropriate cautions to people who are considering relying on this license.

CC link to their disclaimer immediately after stating, right at the top of the deed, that "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license." You've left out the first and best half of their disclaimer: "This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material."

Compare that to our situation: we have no such cautionary statement in our summary of the license, and we link to our page of legal disclaimers only in the fine print at the bottom of each page. Our pageful of disclaimers doesn't give any advice to someone trying to understand a license, e.g. by explaining that you should carefully review the actual license. Instead it seems to be there merely to cover our collective posterior. IMO we are very much failing to "educate and protect each other" with our current template and disclaimer. We are doing something, but it doesn't seem much better than doing nothing. --Avenue (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Most people (including me) learn "something" about the license and its net effects only after their 100+ uploads here. It is pathetic. Jee 11:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete, fork or update?

Well, no changes were made after the discussions above, even though the need is clear.

I see that {{Cc-by-sa-layout}} is used by {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} and is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators.

{{Editprotected}}

Please decide on what the consensus is and edit accordingly. The current situation is untenable; we're grossly misrepresenting the license terms. As Jee noted here, "Unfortunately we copied the old template for {{tl:Cc-by-sa-4.0}} without making any changes. We discussed it Template talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0; but it ended without any solution/action. Many of our license tags are outdated[...]" :( Jee 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

--Elvey (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I still think our license should replicate the deed and link to the full license. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, if I remember correctly (as it was some years ago), even CC themselves conceded that their deed(s) rather mis/underrepresent the need to mention the license with the author credit, which is clearly stated in the legal code. --Túrelio (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Túrelio, fine. Make it so. As I urged before, edit accordingly. --Elvey (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, these interface messages are managed globally for all WikiMedia projects using MediaWiki defaults. Presumably you have a point (or more), but unilateral local interface tweaks are not a good idea to fix this. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)