Commons talk:Licensing

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Shortcut

• CT:L

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page's subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}.

For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 60 days may be archived.

Other archives

Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, incl. comments added in 2014:

• ADRM
• Review of license templates
• U.S. patents
• Ecoport copyleft
• Museums Bilder (in German)
• Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed
• Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

Conspiracy of democracy

I what can you do about it Jesse peers (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jesse peers: If you are asking about something regarding licensing here on Wikimedia Commons, please be more specific in your question. Otherwise, I think you're in the wrong place. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jesse peers: Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all the other ones.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for a more positive wording

Current wording: GFDL is not permitted as the only acceptable license where all of the following are true:

• The content was licensed on or after 15 October 2018. The licensing date is considered, not the creation or upload date.
• The content is primarily a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video.
• The content is not a software logo, diagram or screenshot that is extracted from a GFDL software manual.

Proposed wording: In order for GFDL to be permitted as the only acceptable license, one more of the following are true:

• The content was licensed on or before 14 October 2018. The licensing date is considered, not the creation or upload date.
• The content is not primarily a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video.
• The content is a software logo, diagram or screenshot that is extracted from a GFDL software manual.

I'm definitely open to a more positive wording of the second bullet point, describing what is acceptable content instead of what is not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel that this might actually be easier to understand. I think the point of dot 2 and 3 is to say that if the work originates from either a manual or software then GFDL is okay so you could perhaps just merge those two dots and make it a little wider. --MGA73 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, to avoid any confusion: if someone edits an old GFDL file, the updated version is also valid. --MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)