Template talk:Non-deriv-non-com

I see no reason why this template is a copyvio. Anonymous101  17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This template is licensed under the GFDL, which does not allow migration to the CC-by licensure. Wikinews content is published under the CC-by licensure, including templates. -  Amgine | t 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you link to the GFDL page. Also, does that mean you want Ambox deleted, it is GFDL but it is one of our most imprtant templates. Anonymous101  17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that templates (nor tables or infoboxes) or anything constructed with the mediawiki software constitutes copyrightable material. --SVTCobra 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are we even having this discussion? The template is unused and for a type of media we are not allowed. Zap it. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But if we delete this template for copyvio as its GFDL than whats to stop someone deleting Ambox as its GFDL? Anonymous101  17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GFDL. I would suggest that Wikinews develop template system when and as they are required, so they can also be maintained. (That's been a problem in the past, which is why there are several different systems in use in different places/times.) -  Amgine | t 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the page that is licensed under the GFDL, not the GFDL.I shuold have explained myself more clearly.Anonymous101  17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The page associated with this talk page clearly specifies otherwise. Anonymous101  17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

FFS!
It still says "Wikipedia" in the template text. We are not a frickin' sandbox for playing with templates. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when is mentioning Wikipedia a reason for deletion? Anonymous101  17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was highlighting this to emphasise this is someone "playing" and not making useful contributions. We are not allowed ND-NC content under the licensing resolution so this template is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are allowed this license under fair use as long as there is a rationalAnonymous101  18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No we're not. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AN acceptable fir use rational. Yes we are. Anonymous101  18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course we are. If a relevant, news-worthy and illustrative image were available online under ND-NC, we could use it. Logos, publicity images, a breaking news story... We're a news source, so it would easily justify under Fair Use. -  Amgine | t 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An image is either available under an acceptable free license or it isn't, it is unfree. At that point it is irrelevant whether it is licensed NC-ND or not since this has no bearing on deciding whether an appropriate rationale can be provided and whether it falls within our fair use whitelist criteria. Adambro (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you're mistaken. Our FU is an EDP. -  Amgine | t 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recall saying it wasn't? Adambro (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
 * A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status.1
 * Emphasis mine. -  Amgine | t 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * &lt;could come up with a use for a chocolate teapot&gt; -  Amgine | t 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Brian, the purpose of the template is to tag images that we are not supposed to have so it can be speedied (it's an SD template). Of course, having multiple templates for speedying images on Wikinews is probably overkill. We probably just need one because who is gonna be able to keep track of all the various template names. --SVTCobra 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)