Category talk:License migration redundant
Can someone explain this in English - without abbreviations and numbers?
"This is a category for GFDL images that are eligible for migration to CC-BY-SA-3.0 but where migration would be redundant because the copyright holder has already licensed the image under CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-SA-3.0" Ileanadu (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- GNU Free Document License (GFDL) and Creative Commons (CC) are licenses. Those licenses are useful to explain how people can re-use the images. Jiel (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Most images here are not really eligible for migration[edit]
Um, I think we have misunderstood what this category means. This is for "GFDL images that are eligible for migration to CC-BY-SA-3.0 but where migration would be redundant". But it seems what we are actually doing is "GFDL images that are redundant for migration because it already has CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-3.0", which is broader because the de facto includes ineligible images. Should we fix this? pandakekok9 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- For example, this 2018 photo is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. Obviously, this image is not eligible for migration because it's uploaded in 2018. But why is it in this category? (I fixed it btw) pandakekok9 10:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
