Contents

File talk:Cc-sa white.svg

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the license to {{PD-ineligible}} and {{trademark}} per the commons file (and remove the automatically detected notice). Thanks! HouseBlaster^talk 03:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster - are we sure the cc license is void here, or is this just also belong to those other designations? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Legally, it would be void. Any CC license can only be applied by the copyright holder. Because the file is ineligible for copyright, there has never been a copyright holder. Even if there was one and they had done so, clause 7(b) of the license states that the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work) (emphasis mine). HouseBlaster^talk 20:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster thanks for the note, so the claim is that Rei-artur erroneously declared the license back in 2006? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Yes. The tag on Commons appears to have been corrected by Yann (an admin on Commons) in 2015. It appears the confusion was caused by the note at the time on CC's website which licensed everything on the website under CC BY 2.0, unless otherwise stated. However, that does not change the fact that this individual file is too simple to be eligible for copyright. HouseBlaster^talk 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Do copy the code from c:File:Cc-sa white.svg to fix the SVG errors. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]