GFDL

{| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="margin: 0 auto; border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | | style="font-size: 80%" | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
Subject to Wikipedia:general disclaimer. |} GFDL images

GFDL

I wrote out GFDL, because that's good practice. The "see wikipedia:copyrights" I removed, because it's not a helpful link - it just says "uh, images can be under lots of licenses. Hope this helps!". Rather, we should say "see later on this page", where there'll be vital details, such as *what* version of the GFDL, if any, who owns the copyright, etc. User:MyRedDice 21:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- How did this get so bloated? I suggest we go back to this: :''Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. The disclamer thing has been covered elsewhere, we dont have to reapeat it all the time. --User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason 18:03, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC) I would like the GFDL template to look exactly as the text above. I have no idea why does it now have unlinked ''GNU Free Documentation License'' text and another sentence with the only purpose of linking to FDL text. Everything is subject to disclaimers, yet only GFDL template seems to repeat it. See also Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#pd message is unclear section on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. User:Rfl 21:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) Would it be possible to make the license text more visible by adding a frame to it? For instance I like the layout the German Wikipedia is using: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:GFDL -- User:Marco Krohn 23:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Do that, i like the german one, but skip the "Copyright �" thing. --User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ User talk:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ [ Bjarmason] User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ 10:26, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC) ::I thought exactly the same about the "copyright" thing. Only problem with changing is that the template is - btw in contrast to the German one - protected, which is understandable. Any sysop around? :-) -- User:Marco Krohn 17:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::Well i am, just post the thing here and i'll update it ( i would unprotect it, but i do not know the specific reasons for it so i wont to not step on anyones toes, guess these copyright messages are protected now ) Make sure you get it right the first time though as obsoleting the proxy for everything that links to it will cause some DB load. --User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ User talk:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ [ Bjarmason] User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ 17:50, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC) ----- O.k. let's see: this is the one from "de" (without adjusted links, that's why they are red atm): {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CCCC99; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | | style="font-size: 90%" | Dieses Dokument wurde unter der GNU Freie Dokumentationslizenz ver�ffentlicht. Sie haben die Erlaubnis, dieses Dokument nach den Bestimmungen der GNU Freie Dokumentationslizenz, Version 1.2 oder sp�ter von der Free Software Foundation ver�ffentlicht, zu kopieren, zu verteilen und/oder zu modifizieren, solange dieser Copyrightvermerk erhalten bleibt. |} this is the one from "en":
:''Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. :''A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". :''Subject to Wikipedia:general disclaimer.
and this is the new one for "en": {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CCCC99; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | | style="font-size: 90%" | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to Wikipedia:general disclaimer. |} '''The original "en" source code additionally includes a category link, please don't miss that!!!''' I have ''not'' copied it to this page. -- User:Marco Krohn 19:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Updated it. --User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ User talk:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ [ Bjarmason] User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ 21:10, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC) How's this? It's more in line with the cc by sa template. {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CCCC99; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | | style="font-size: 80%" | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to Wikipedia:general disclaimer. |} --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 08:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Doesnt look that good, first the logo is too wide and too small and it's not an official logo unlike the CC logos, if you look at the [http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html GFDL] page you'll see that the official one is the GNU head. --User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ User talk:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ [ Bjarmason] User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ 15:37, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC) == new version == === Current version === {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | | style="font-size: 90%" | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License". Subject to Wikipedia:general disclaimer. |} === Proposed version === {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #F1F1DE" |- | | style="font-size: 90%" | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to Wikipedia:general disclaimer. |} === Comments === I made a new version which uses a wikified link to the licence and removed the following text: "''A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License"''" --User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ User talk:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ [ Bjarmason] User:�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason/ 21:25, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC) Cool, I like it. It's more streamlined. --User:Sonjaaa 21:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC):Ia :I agree. -- User:Marco Krohn 12:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) The white box bothers me. Can it be made transparent? --User:Farside 12:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Category == I have removed the category from this template. The text was GFDL images. This category is approaching an unmanagable size. --User:Ssd 12:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Categories may one day have a use other than for listings in the category: namespace - this page was never going to be small, but you don't break the back-end of a system, just because the front-end is working. ed_g2s">User:Ed g2s • talk">User talk:ed_g2s 15:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Could someone add a blank line to the top?== Otherwise it breaks code like: This is my summer photo. --> This is my summer photo. And also Template:PD-USGov, Thanks, User:Matt Crypto 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- Since User:Mfc opposes the use of on all his GFDL-licensed image description pages (because it is too obtrusive and too much legalese), I created a slimmed , which can be used in such cases. The template includes the GFDL images category. Discuss this on Template_talk:GFDL-small. — User:Chmod007 17:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I don't see the need for two different versions. Either the one or the other, but not both. If the smaller one is legally sufficent, which I can't judge, than it's fine with me to replace this template with the small one. Otherwise I object introducing a second one--what happens if another user wants another template for his images? Also it makes automatic classification of content more difficult. -- User:Marco Krohn 19:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Presumably, the checking of the GFDL box when submitting a work for which you hold copyright is legally sufficient, which is what User:Mfc argues. I also want to limit the number of copyright tags; however, if someone _definitely_ does not want the GFDL template on his/her image description page, then automatic classification becomes _impossible_. Personally, I find the verbose copyright status blobs informational, and I think that the image description pages should be used mostly for book-keeping. In contrast, Mfc thinks that they take up too much space and detract from the information about the images. — User:Chmod007 19:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Oh, and I believe the category system should be the main way of extracting lists of images with certain licensing properties, not the tags in and by themselves. — User:Chmod007 20:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Modification of the GFDL is prohibited, so adding the disclaimers to the license invalidates the license. Fortunately, the license grant is really GFDL and it's just the template which is wrong, so it's not really a mass copyright infringment. But it's nice to accurately describe the license, as required by it. Alternatively, a new, non-GFDL (and inherently incompatible with the GFDL), license could be created which incorporates the disclaimers. User:Jamesday 03:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::I should clarify this a little: ''Warranty disclaimers'' are fine in association with the GFDL. However, the ''Wikipedia site disclaimers'' which the GFDL notice currently links to appear to exceed a warranty disclaimer and hence appear to be an attempt to modify the GFDL. A GFDL-specific disclaimer, limited to ''only'' what fits in a warranty disclaimer, would be fine. User:Jamesday 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Could you please comment my reasoning at User talk:Rfl#My personal license on the additional restrictions added to the GFDL (“the author demands that his name be quoted under the image wherever it is posted”) in the User:Halibutt/GFDL template? Can those images be included in the :Category:GFDL images? Thanks. User:Rfl 13:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) Probably not what you expected.:) Here's the reply for him from the talk page for that template: ''You should probably modify this so that it makes what you're asking more clear in GFDL terms. I suggest:'' *''That you use a copyright notice, which the GFDL says must be preserved and distributed with the work. A notice of the form (c in a circle character) 2004 (your name) would suffice in most countries. If you want a valid copyright notice in the two minor countries which require it for a valid copyright notice, also include "All rights reserved".'' *''You may also use moral rights and require that in moral rights jurisdictions your name be associated with your work. In those jurisdictions that is a right distinct from copyright and does not interfere with the license.'' ''In general, it's also good on Wikipedia to identify photographers in a standard photo credit identifying the photographer. If you see an image for which we don't have the photographer properly credited, please add the appropriate credit.'' In addition, in a moral rights jurisdiction for text, I expect that ''all'' authors of any substantive part of an article may exert their moral rights to require that their name be associated with their work. Typo corrections aren't the sort of thing which is usually substantive. User:Jamesday 22:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) :To be precise, it was not a reply from me, but a comment from you ;) . Also, I agree with your ideas, but I still have no idea how to include them in the comment. Any suggestions as to the wording? User:HalibuttUser_talk:Halibutt">User:Halibutt|User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 14:16, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) ::Doesn't matter now, I hadn't noticed that you inserted the remark in my tag. Thanks for your help! User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 14:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) ==Sharp GNU Head== I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently: old→ ←new Image:The GNU logo.png just have to be changed to Image:Heckert GNU white.png but I don’t have privileges to do it myself. Please see Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Sharp GNU Head. User:Rfl 05:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) :It has already been changed by User:Quadell. Thanks. User:Rfl 05:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==Image and category removed== Acting as a developer I've removed both the image and category from this template until MediaWiki 1.4 is in service on this wiki. Their presence caused a denial of service attack warning and mass query kill on the main database server for the sites at a low traffic time. Mediawiki has some changes which should make it possible to add them back without DOSing the sites. User:Jamesday 11:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GFDL

#REDIRECT: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

GFDL

#redirect Template:GFDL

GFDL

#REDIRECT GNU Free Documentation License

GFDL

GFDL is now a disambiguation page because it also stands for Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. If you are in the habit of linking to this page when referring to the GNU Free Documentation License, I would suggest that you start using the full name instead, or at least an unambiguous redirect like GNU FDL. --User:Michael Snow 02:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) *This should not be a disambiguation page. It should be using primary topic disambiguation. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 16:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) **GNU Free Documentation License is only the primary topic associated with GFDL in a navel-gazing, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references sort of way. For the average reader who has no familiarity with free software or copyleft licensing, there is no reason GFDL should go directly to one or the other. --User:Michael Snow 17:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ***The average reader of Wikipedia does have familiarity with the GFDL. Furthermore, we already have a multitude of links to GFDL. If you want to change this, you need to get consensus, and then fix all the links, first. You have done neither of these things, but have merely unilaterally broken the hundreds of links and then put a note on the pump telling people ''they'' have to fix them. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 19:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ****There's no particular reason why the average ''reader'' (not ''editor'') should be familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License. I have for quite some time now been in the process of fixing or removing undisambiguated links to GFDL, and nobody has yet objected to this. I did not tell people that ''they'' needed to go back and fix the links; if you read the note above that I originally left on the pump, I am telling people what they might do in the future to avoid creating these links, not asking anyone else to go back and fix the old ones. --User:Michael Snow 19:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) *****One reason why the average reader is likely to be familiar with the GFDL is because ''this site is licensed under the GFDL''. As for your change, get consensus first. Then fix the rest of the links. Then you can make this change. Otherwise I will continue to revert it. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 19:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Well, how would you like to figure out consensus? Should we try Wikipedia:Requests for comment perhaps? As for fixing the links, I'm not inclined to bother with all the links that are part of old talk page conversations. Almost all of the others are fixed already. A few still show up in ''What links here'', even though they're fixed, because they're transcluded through templates like Template:FOLDOC and the articles haven't been edited since I updated the template. --User:Michael Snow 19:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I tried the "null edit" trick on the first couple of these and it didn't seem to do the trick. --User:Phil Boswell | User talk:Phil Boswell 13:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC) *You can show that there is a consensus how ever you want. RfC might get more people than just the two of us in the conversation, and if a bunch say they support this change and none say they disapprove of it, then I'll concede. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 23:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Why not keep the redirect and add a note about the disambiguation to GNU Free Documentation License? I see no point in making such a highly linked-to page a disambiguation page. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 04:18, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC) :The new disambiguation note explains the context a little better than the old one did. I still think, however, that considered in encyclopedic terms (rather than internal links or other factors related to editor convenience) there is little justification for claiming that GNU Free Documentation License is the "primary topic" associated with the abbreviation GFDL. On these terms, I believe GFDL should be the disambiguation page, and that not doing this subtly deviates from NPOV in the way that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is supposed to prevent. --User:Michael Snow 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Considering that Wikipedia styles itself "The Free Encyclopedia", I think it is entirely reasonable to consider GFDL as a primary disambiguation topic (or redirect). There is a tad of bias in privileging the article, but I think that is inherent to the enterprise of building an encylopedia based on GFDL. I don't see that this bias violates NPOV though, it is merely a recognition of the way things are in the current context. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 17:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC) :::Even if you exclude the word "Wikipedia", a Google search for "GNU Free Documentation License" gets 50 times more hits than "Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory", so it seems clear to me which one ought to be the primary page. Having a redirect point to the more popular page is helpful to readers, not POV. It's no different from having Birmingham, England at Birmingham. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 01:37, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) ::::My perspective is that GFDL has one particular meaning among the small segment of the world that is strongly interested in things like copyleft, and a different meaning among the small segment of the world that is strongly interested in things like meteorology. I don't see a particular reason to assume that one segment is larger or more important than the other, and it should be quite apparent why a Google search is not representative for these two subjects (also, attempts to exclude "Wikipedia" are chancy at best because of how our mirrors are indexed). Birmingham on the other hand is a far more widely familiar name. Anyway, I'm not going to insist on this further, but neither am I inclined to change my opinion. --User:Michael Snow 07:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) *disambiguate. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 16:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) *Redirect to GNU-FDL. Neutrality\">User:Neutrality_(User_talk:Neutrality)">User:Neutrality|Neutrality\">User:Neutrality (User talk:Neutrality) 18:38, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) *This should redirect to Gnu Free Documentation License which should in turn have an immediate link to a disambiguation page. This is a perfect case for a primary topic. User:Morven 17:23, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) I like the article as it is - GNU FDL article with the disamb ontop in the first line. --User:ShaunMacPherson 02:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) *Disambiguate and fix links (which will sadly be a big job). Also, should the 'vote' end up on redirect, perhaps since there's only two articles on the Wikipedia:disambiguation page we could change the text at the top of the page to ''GFDL redirects here. GFDL also stands for The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a division of NOAA.''? --User:Fvw 01:07, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC) **If we leave it as a redirect, I prefer the text currently there. --User:Michael Snow 02:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) *redirect to GNU FDL, by far the more common use. User:Wolfman 04:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GFDL

#REDIRECT Template talk:GFDL

Gfdl

#REDIRECT GNU Free Documentation License

Gfdl

#redirect Template:GFDL

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

G

GA | GB | GC | GD | GE | GF | GH | GI | GJ | GK | GL | GM | GN | GO | GP | GR | GS | GT | GU | GW | GX | GY | GZ |

Words begining with GFDL:

GFDL
GFDL
GFDL
GFDL
GFDL
GFDL
GFDL
Gfdl
Gfdl
GFDL-AeralPhoto-MlitJp
GFDL-OpenGeoDB
GFDL-OpenGeoDB
GFDL-presumed
GFDL-presumed
GFDL-self
GFDL-small
GFDL-small
GFDL-Stanley
GFDL-tutorialCT
GFDL-xlsc
GFDL/temp
GFDL/temp
GFDL_(disambiguation)
GFDL_(English).ogg
GFDL_1.2
GFDL_1.2
GFDL_1.2_images
GFDL_footer
GFDL_History
GFDL_History_(unofficial)
GFDL_History_(unofficial)
GFDL_images
GFDL_images
GFDL_images_by_Keith_Stanley
GFDL_image_description
GFDL_resources
GFDL_text_corpus
GFDL_upgrade
GFDL_upgrade