Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0/General comments

General support and opposition

Support

1.  Support I support a straight upgrade to the latest license.
   • Fair enough, but that's not what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
2.  Support I'm TheLBall and I approve this license.
   • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
3.  Strong support Yup.
4.  Support- - I encourage the change to CC 4.0! -i have read it and think it is great.
   • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
5.  Support Being clearer and more international in scope are surely good things. Iadmc (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
   • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
6.  Support Yes--Walts0042 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)d
7.  Weak support - This does not seem to change much, but I think we should use the latest Creative Commons license because Wikimedia may get in trouble otherwise. --RafChem (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
   • First of all, Wikimedia won't get in trouble for sticking with the existing terms. Secondly: fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
8.  Support - I am pro this move simply because it will help consolidate Wikipedia with general best practice and the latest, and commonly-used, CC 4.0 standard.--O-Jay (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
   • First of all, CC BY-SA 3.0 is still very common, and still best practice insofar as it enables interoperability with other CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed resources (e.g. Stack Overflow). Secondly: fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
9.  Support - It will really be a great help and support to the world at large.
10.  Support - It is great to hear that wikipedia taking a step towards licensing. Because their are several articles like movies which have a suspense stories but their suspense is revealed in the wikipedia articles. If people read it on the wikipedia who will watch the entire movie to catch the suspense? It also same for the suspense books, if the content of books is on the wikipedia articles then it is the violation of the copyrights of author. So, I thank wikipedia if they make it upgrade to creative commons 4.0 nikhilkale564 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
11.  Support - Great improvement, would be great to have the liscense available in multiple languages.
12.  Support Sounds good.
13.  Support Great improvement!
14.  Support I've read it all and I think it's an improvement from the previous terms.
15. This is a very important change. Internationalization without ports—one of the newest changes for the Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike License—is absolutely necessary for the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects.
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
16.  Support I (and 22 others) agree. We use wikipedia for academic purposes, but we can't use the licenses. This would be a great improvement to Wikipedia. Jerryzhu2004 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
17. Este es un cambio muy importante. Internacionalización sin cambios locales — uno de los cambios más nuevos para la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución–CompartirIgual — es necesario absolutamente para la Wikimedia Foundation y sus proyectos. Signed off by:/Firmado por: 2601:602:101:8358:950A:90AD:9BB7:9138 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
18. Seems good to me, especially because of the internationalization ThomasBur (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
19. I am against this decision. Period. (Disapprove.)
20.  Support For those items that are not otherwise encumbered.
21. I support this change since it brings more clarity to the license and also includes internationalization.
22.  Support It's an improvement) for those reasons. Nikolaiho (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
23.  Strong support Important to start using a creative commons license that is clearer, includes databases rights and is therefore more suitable for worldwide use. Mtmlan84 (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
24.  Strong support wikipedia provides information that i have not always been able to access.
25.  Support As far as I can tell the complaints in the oppose section have been either entirely wrong or misunderstood. For example, this vote isn't about changing the license of an existing content, but more about what any new content will encompass. So it does not make sense to oppose this. Also, the CC license does not necessarily apply as well to images and videos, as pointed out below. So the "privacy" concern, which was a rather tenuous and unconvincing argument, is not valid. Finally, some who are in opposition have expressed antipathy towards 'all' copyright, which clearly includes open/copyleft licenses like CC-SA. But opposing those because you want "maximum openness" makes little sense, as openness is the entire point of copyleft licenses like CC-SA. Copyleft is literally as open as you can get and certainly more open than the public domain. Because of the way legal systems work, things in the public domain can be simply stolen/claimed/removed without any right to challenge. Copyleft is as open as you can possibly get,legally enforcing openness. I would not wish Wikipedia to lose copyleft and that must never be allowed to happen. I don't object to CC-3 and CC-4 being copyleft, but rather support Wikipedia's use of them because they are just that. I would not contribute to Wikipedia if the content wasn't copyleft licensed. These are my main opposing arguments for this change. I trust the preceding paragraph makes it obvious why I am far from convinced by them. I therefore support the move to version 4. Edit: I'm the guy who originally wrote this paragraph, and I just want to say that someone has tampered with it. It's been edited to make the grammar way worse and change the wording.
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
26.  Strong support Czuję, że społeczność naprawdę chciałbym to tak pójdę z nim
27.  Support Appears to cover all the bases. Bring it on! Mashford42 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
28.  Strong support Free the information for everyone!
29.  Strong support Nyess --68.148.52.51 15:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
30. I  Support it would be great
31. I  Support this move clarity and accessability improvements are great.
32. I  Support this because it might encourage more people to share and find knowladge, knowing they will get credit for doing so.
33. I strongly  Support this - Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
34.  Strong support -- Yes, this sounds like a positive thing. I support it.
35. Support I support strongly the proposed changes and believe they are overdue.
36.  Strong support -- Yes, this sounds like a positive thing. I support it.
37.  Strong support -- I strongly support the change. Although I agree that waiving moral rights is a critical point in principle (as many opponents emphasize), I think that a contribution to Wikipedia should always be "encyclopedian", and therefore not personally or morally preserved!
38.  Support I think you should look at it positive, the site itselfs remains the same but for authors this can make a difference, so defenitely worth it!
39.  Support I agree to the change
40.  Support Sounds great! Good job adding clarity to it and letting us know about the change.
41.  Support Sounds great! -Stormo
42.  Support Sounds good to me; Thanks for the opportunity to review the proposed change.
43.  Support Sounds like a versy sensible change to me. Thanks for the open consultation.
44.  Support This has been a difficult one and taken some thought and consideration, One will go with agree and will also consider it as a yes. However do feel we need some form of consideration with regards Copyright and Extraterritoriality status with Wiki.
45.  Support I agree to move to Creative Commons 4.0 and think it is overdue
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
46.  Support These terms are fair and indeed will increase the amount international content.
47.  Support I'm inclined to trust Wikimedia's preference on this. My only slight concern is as discussed in Waiving moral rights means waiving right of attribution. Wikipedia:Moral rights appear complicated and, in many circumstances good, but in these circumstances of attempting to share knowledge for the benefit of all, not important.--Jojairus (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
48.  Support I agree --Aberl Julian Johannes (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
49.  Support I agree to the change --DerHisto (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
50.  Support I agree to the change because an international and more readable and accessible license strongly correspond with Wikipedias goals. The license also gives a bit more freedom to re-users. One thing that I am not decided on is the 30-day correction time. One the positive side of things, it gives people, who may not have been aware that they violated the license an opportunity to correct the mistake - this would, of course, be assuming good intent -, but those without good intent could just hope they are not discovered and if they are, well, they won't get into any trouble, because they still have the opportunity to fix it. There is already enough violations of the license, we don't need to encourage more. I agree to the change anyhow, though my last point should definitely be considered in the final decision if there are more opposition. --GABRIEL FILMSTUDIOS (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you (mostly) approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
51.  Support Why Not? Makes sense to me. I think CC should become the standard for licensing all works. A world where everything can't be reused is terrible. Totally Swich! --Johnnyg150 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
52.  SupportI support this cuz im smart and dont want people stealing my work-TheGuyFromM.I.T.
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot ([[User
53.  SupportI very much support this. Cavestory116 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
54. (Italian) Mi piace tanto questa idea. Spero venga approvata. Se ne parla anche sulla it.wikinews qui
    • (English) I Like this proposal. On it.wikinews we talk on it here.--Ferdi2005 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
55. Sigan adelante con la idea, es maravillosa. Héctor Angel
56.  Support For me it is a very good idea to change the licence to Creative Commons 4.0. --NiridyA (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
57. За. —Niklitov (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (Member of Wikimedia RU)
58. I recommend it. Tyseco (talk).
59. I agree with the changes since the scope of work is going to be broaden--Owula kpakpo (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
60. Seriously, why not?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Wikipedian on Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
61. I would appreciate the change to v.4.0 --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
62. I think this is a "no brainer", aka, obviously a good idea. --Bodysurfinyon (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
63. It can bring some practical benefits for more openness and involving more commons to take part. Therefore, I say 'Yes'. But, I suggest to conclude all licenses before into this new category as parts belonging to this one, and give some declarations. It would not waste resources and energies Jason M. C., Han (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
64. I believe you should go to Creative Commons
65. pienso que seria de gran aporte para los usuarios que buscamos contenidos bajo licencia, y que no tenemos la intención de afectar a los demás, sino darle crédito al autor de la obra y Poder reutilizarlo. 186.149.201.230 01:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
66. Yes absolutely! Upgrade Upgrade!
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
67. My name is Charles Kickham. I live in Hallandale Beach Florida. I like to be called Charlie. I support the move to Creative Commons 4.0. Good Luck!!!! Lol!!!! Thank you. Sincerely, Charlie Kickham.
68. The licence should be updated to all of the Wikimedia projects, I support the change. Else it will not solve lot of problems.
    acagastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 03:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
69. For Aaron Swartz and For an Open Web idealism, let's support it!
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Reducing the copyleft aspect would potentially work against Aaron's ideals. Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
70. i think it is an important step forward. i come from an Oriental culture where traditionally, knowledge has been always in the public domain. Copyright and commercial exploitation of knowledge is an Western, capitalist concept.
71. fully support, donate every year to Wiki and think this is a good move in the right direction
72. I agree to move to Creative Commons 4.0
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
73. it's an Upgrade , an Improvement ! Wikipedia should've been available under CC 4.0 long ago. But it's not too late . let's do this ! :) MohammadtheEditor (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
74. I really hope the censorship on many topics goes away one day on Wikipedia. Some topics facts are dead wrong and certain people or paid companies do this a lot! Changing the facts is a form of bullying! We the people desrve the truth about things. And yes I support the move to creative commons 4.0.
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
75. Yes, I will go with it. It's time to upgrade Creative Commons 4.0 - Mindcap (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
76. I think the upgrade is for the better. So, go ahead and upgrade to CC4.
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
77. It's is good to have a new CC4. I think we should do that 27.3.254.167 11:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
78. Update is not bad IMHO, but the authors shouldn't forget about their earlier slogan: "Free encyclopedia". Thank u. 212.193.78.27 11:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
79. I would support the change to 4.0. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
80. 4.0比3.0更加完善，可避免钻空子等现象发生。G760420431 (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
81. Oui bien Tvtabit (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
82. I agree to licensing under creative commons.. :)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
83. Provided the team thinks this is a stronger - more robust - free (as in free speech) version of clauses for open management, it seems pretty much a right move. Creative Commons are widely recognised here (Western Europe), largely accepted, a good stable starting point to expand :) Nice free day to you all!
84. Cool, please try it. I'm totally on your side as far as this project is getting better for mankind. -Daisuke from Tokyo
85. I think it's good to use the new CC4. We should do that.
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
86. Yes. this would be free of use.
87. Yes. Now, let's move on. --Elitre (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
88. Admittedly, I have minimal comprehension of the language set forth to describe the proposed change. But from what I gather it is merely an upgrade from currently used practices and procedures, generally improving accessibility for international audiences and simplifying annotation by regular users. It sounds good to me. I support the proposed upgrade. - Gale B Hagerty--Galehagerty (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
89. I think it's great policy to be changed time to time according to the world's progress 2405:204:A401:43F7:0:0:196E:50B0 16:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
90. I've got no problem with the proposed change. Seems reasonable, so I support it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
91. I support it because of the international clarification.If a user who's language is not available in the licence does something that violates it,he/she would blame the licence for not having international clarification.So licence 4.0 would prevent this happening.
92.  Support—Christopher.ursich (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
93. Estoy de acuerdo con la Creative Commons 4.0. --Micnous (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
94. I think it's a very good idea. Go for it! SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 13:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
95. Any Wikipedia ill improve clarity and international accessibility sounds like a good thing to do.
96. I support the upgrade. In particular the translation to non-English languages is an important improvement.
97. I support the upgrade.
98. I welcome the upgrade to CC BY-SA 4.0. A top-notch BY-SA license will help Wikimedia better support its mission of creating and disseminating libre knowledge. --Isacdaavid (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
99. Strongly support adopting the updated Creative Commons 4.0. I think the move to Creative Commons 3.0 was one of the best decisions of the Wiki community, and it should be updated. Forpeterssake (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
100. I support the change. --Bezanson (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
101. Support Before people blindly support or oppose, I think they should see the actual changes (which can be seen here). So, stop hearing or reading theories and vote what you think. --QEDK (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
102. Support Oefe (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
103. +1 Mitar (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
104.  Support Wikimedia projects need a modern copyright standard, and they've proven that Creative Commons is viable for everyone to use worldwide. Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International has demonstrated its own stability 3 years after its release, though when we pushed for 3.0 there was only a 2 year span. I feel that giving the new version this much time to work itself out has really done well for the global community, as Porting finally becomes International. I can't wait to edit with this new version. Good luck, team. FosterHaven (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
105.  Support Of course! The CC 4.0 licenses are issued in 2013. Why did we wait so long?--Ctac (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
106. You have my support for this change, it is a good change to all of wikipedia
107. support
108.  Support Sounds like a good step forward, it's better to use the latest license version than the older one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
109.  Support Hi I agree that u should upgrade btw halp I need help!!!!!!!!!
110. As long as the proposed change represents progress in openness and not suppressing similar efforts — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.12.37 (talk)
111. Support --BarrierBuilder (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
112.  Support About time :) Thanks for explaining the diff for people new to the idea. –SJ talk  22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
113. I fully support this, and it is nice that it will be translated for other users.
114. Agree David S. Hwang (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
115. Support. For the ones asking what the point is of switching, it is because the 4.0 license specifies that re-use must be under 4.0 or later. While we publish under 3.0, this prevents us from re-using 4.0 content that is licensed out in the world, so we're preventing an ever-increasing amount of content from being used here. Crow (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
116.  Support --QuasarTE (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
117. As a coauthor of this license, I have been looking forward to this for a long time. ;-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
118. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Certainly update to the newest cc license. I'm not even sure it warrants this much discussion.
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
119. This changes are very important to make a good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FernandoObregón2301 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016
120.  Klaas `Z4␟` V: : jawohl, yes, surely, oui, bien, sí, certo, jazeker 04:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
121. absolutely! information should always be free and accessible to everyone! freely available information leads to critical thinking rather than just believing everything you're told. getting more people to think for themselves is the only way we'll ever be able to bring everyone together.
122. please mention wikipedia info is not 100% correct
123.  Strong support let's move forwards. Also, Wikipedia is well known as a Abmahnfalle in Germany right now. You cannot rally translate this: for example, people upload pictures and search for use that doesn't fulfill all the requirements. Those people then send mails via lawyers and demand - legally! - large amounts of money. CC 4.0 seems to help against this business model. --Sargoth (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
124.  Support - reasons: I (we, or many of us) use 4.0 almost everywhere, including commons; the language is simpler; international adaptation is much better; sui generis is important to cover; possible further restricting moral rights is important to cover. --grin ✎ 08:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
125. Sounds good to me. Deryck C. 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
126.  Support內容清楚，強調條目的所有權是維基媒體基金會的。--香港中立人 (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
127.  Support --Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
128.  Strong support Why not? It doesn't affect me and other contributors too much. LC_talk 13:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
129.  Support Support upgrading license per readability. I'm also going to address some of the Oppose votes in this comment.
     "It seems to give another non-profit power and control over wikipedia, in the long run."-We are not giving Creative Commons control over Wikipedia. We are using one of their template licences. Besides, we've been using the CC license for years, and we aren't controlled by Creative Commons.
     "IDK if Wikipedia should do this."-If you're not sure about your position, you should be in Neutral, not Oppose.
     "The juvenile delinquents who sold us computers and software always ask for an "upgrade" that diminishes application functionality and restricts and eliminates rights first purchased by the user, they have now turned their smartphones and computers to the task of advertisement platform to sell the unneeded and unwanted. Please WIKI don't go down that evil path. Extraneous Note: By the way, same thing happens with learning curves, up the hill,, up the hill again, and again, and again until the last becomes insurmountable so that the functionality of the hardware and software is not only degraded it becomes totally dysfunctional. You could chart the economic outcome along the glut of plder, less gymnastic, elders are there."-This is totally a non sequitur. Software upgrades are totally unrelated to updating Wikipedia's licence.Joshualouie711 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
130.  Strong support Diptanshu^Talk 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
131. I fully support this.
132. I think this is a great thing for Wikipedia to do. I fully support it.
133.  Strong support --Galessandroni (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
134. I support. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
135. I strongly support this. This would be a great idea for wikimedia.  Strong support EatePurple (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
136.  Strong support -- Ulilux
137. I support at 100%, and think it would be a great improvement. [Maël Shanti]
138.  Support Technology changes, the way we use it changes, the licenses should change as well. Also: "New is always better. B. Stinson". --Joseph (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
139.  Support Clearer and more usable is better!
140.  Strong support -- Tensor
141.  Support --TerraCodes (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
142.  Strong support Makes complete sense —Galaktos (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
143.  Support An obvious choice -FASTILY 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
144.  Support upgrading for clarity. Doesn't change the core issues. --Theredproject (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
145.  Support absolutely
146. Strongly  Support.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
147.  Support Don't see any downside. -- ChamithN (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
148.  Support It's the sensible thing to do. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
149. I agree with the upgrade. Ndan4life (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
150.  Support These terms are fair and indeed will increase the possibility to translate the license in other languages than english
151.  Support If all the pages/articles be translated in other languages (automatically?) if this is how I interpreted it, then this will be a great upliftment
     • That's not what it would mean at all. Please read the proposed new terms. Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
152.  Strong support Localising the license would help with Wikipedia's localisation, considering that Wikipedia is offered in many languages. Vicr123 (talk) :)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
153.  Support ~Cybularny ^Speak? 13:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
154. За--Vasyan Nyasha (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
155.  Strong support - Totally agree
156.  Strong support - I agree
157.  Strong support - Don't see any downsides in keeping up with the newest version of the CC license. --gzost
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
158.  Strong support - Considering the newer license is not only more up to date but also more understandable, there really shouldn't be any opposition to this at all. Keeping the creative commons library up to date and running is one of the best ways to promote the public domain and keep the sharing of ideas alive and well. --Agentfly42
159. Hello. At personally i think this update is pretty good. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.238.200.20 (talk)
160. yes i do believe that this update is necessary as it will avoid propaganda of wrong information which will improve efficiency and clarity of wikipedia
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
161. I also support changing the license to version 4.0 -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
162.  Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
163.  Support Why not? 211.30.223.204 22:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
164.  Strong support This upgrade makes sense since CC 4.0 improves and clarifies terms of the license and increases access to a wider global audience. --˘ | ˘ Hwajae^{talk • contribs} 01:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
165.  Support Sounds good. 68.82.219.24 05:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
166.  Support More flexible attribution requirements and opportunity to correct minor license violation in 30 days is more suitable to web environment than before. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
167. I TOTALLY AGREE
168.  Support. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
169.  Support While certainly specific topics could be debated (and I hope the comments on the pages here will be followed up by Wikimedia), the overall picture I get i very positive. To me, the choices proposed seem reasonable. We will always need to trade off personal rights vs. usability of the content. E.g. the waiver regarding database rights seems important to me as it enables to much more easily create follow-up works. Please note that it's not only about legal rights and duties but also about practicability (e.g. while getting consent in every case seems author-friendly, it would not work practically and such things could break the whole collaboration model). The balance chosen here seems good to me. To opposers, please note that the formal setup differs a lot in each and every country especially between "copyright" jurisdictions and "authors' rights'" jurisdictions - the proposal needs to work for both of these systems and may therefore contain topics that could be deemed superfluous or misleading in one country or another (while still being crucial for the system to work world-wide). Buan~dewiki (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
170.  Support Xbony2 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
171.  Support ChristianKl (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
172.  Support -Paul1337 (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
173.  Support I had a few concerns about compatibility, but they seem to have been addressed adwquately. - AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
174.  Support -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
175.  Support: none of the oppose rationales sway me. — Bilorv (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
176.  Support --Artoria2e5 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
177.  Support --«izoozo» ^talk 21:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
178. I  Support This would be great for educational purposes!
179. I  Support --Aldotron (ディスカッション) 01:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
180.  Support --Higa4 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
181. I Template:Strongly support this. Ensuring the freedom of this information is always something worth
182.  Strong support. There's no reason not to (from my understanding). -- TheZcuber (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
183.  Support why not Jpgibert (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
184.  Support I see no reason to not support this change. A better international version of the CC-BY-SA license can only be good. I agree with how 4.0 actually handles database rights (where applicable) and am mostly for waiving the personality, privacy and moral rights (again, where applicable). However, the current FAQ and Legal Note DOES NOT conclusively cover what is covered under privacy/personality/moral rights and that should be added for clarity purposes. Ciridae (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
185.  Strong support - Who wouldn't? --Breaksreak (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
186.  Support --B Astutus (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
187.  Strong support I've multi-licensed all my attributions throughout WikiMedia sites since GFDL and CC 2.5. CC 4.0 was a natural progression, and I continue to support it. It will be nice to see this simpler, more standardized version of the Creative Commons license become the standard, just like 3.0 supplanted 2.5 and GFDL so long ago. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | com | b:en ) 09:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
188.  Support --Theredmonkey (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
189.  Support Sounds like a simple 'upgrade', thus I don't see why we should do this. Trijnstel_talk 10:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
190.  Support upgrading to CC-BY-SA 4.0 Atsme^📞📧 21:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
191.  Strong support Yes for the CC-BY-SA 4.0 -- issimo 15 _!? 07:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
192.  Strong support. I'm not an expert on Creative Commons, but based on what I do know (and this blog post: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/), the 4.0 version is better for organizations with an international scope. -- Ogie1002 09:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
193.  Support - Seems a good idea! --Yodin^T 10:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
194.  Support -- The changes will not affect most users, but will simplify the actual license text, making interpretation of it more consistent. A review of oppose ivotes suggests that many of those opposing don't understand the entirety of the changes, and are either expressing dissatisfaction with licensing terms in general, a lack of knowledge about current licensing requirements, or frustration at changing what does not appear (to them, anyway) to be broken (fear of change, perhaps). I am also concerned about the high number of unsigned comments (both for and against), and this leads to the conclusion that many of those who are commenting are unfamiliar with the way the various Wikipedia projects are supposed to work in general. For those who just want to read Wikipedia, this change will not affect how you use Wikipedia. Likewise, those who simply want to edit articles and share their knowledge with the world will be mostly unaffected by this change as well. Finally, content that is already part of the affected projects will remain intact. New changes including new pages will have revised licensing terms. Those who reuse content elsewhere will need to read, understand, and comply with the new terms, but this is not an onerous task for those who are reusing the work of others, especially those who are profiting from same. Etamni | ✉  11:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
195.  Support -- I strongly dislike legal stuff because I have a hard time understanding it (senseless) having the opportunity to correct license violations is great, specially in cases where we do not provide sufficient attribution at first, but are willing to correct the mistake once notified. vicsar
196.  Support - I trust the legal team at Wikimedia, and am glad to follow their recommendation. The changes, as described in their summary, look sensible and minor. --denny (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
197.  Strong support - The legal team seems to have strong, and well-reasoned, answers for the various objections raised, and this simply makes sense. Revent (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
198.  Support - Sounds reasonable. Dodoïste (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
199.  Support - It's about time we moved on to 4.0 Ronhjones (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
200.  Support - Its ok, but I think they need to be more clear about it --Santosha86 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
201.  Support -- totally in keeping with what the spirit of what Wikipedia is.--KTo288 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
202. The 4.0 version seems like the most logical step/progression for the Wikimedia information presentation. Up-to-date information and added clarity will be greatly appreciated! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by GW BUDDY (talk)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
203. right, it's good for change. i'm ok 113.171.185.13 14:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
204. I am in support with the proposed amendments.. thank you 122.170.190.237 08:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
205. I would like to see this implementation due to the upgraded requirements. I have always loved WikiMedia products, and I want to have their content free to use with more requirements so that everyone can easily get access to it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.135.6 (talk)
206. The more modern the better — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.160.10 (talk)
207.  Support An international license for an international project. Simplifies copying of facts from Wikipedia to other databases. – Gorlingor (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
208.  Support it would be great -- Bonafide2004 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
209.  Support: A reasonable adjustment in an area of continuing volatility (EU etc). AllyD (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
210.  Support Definitely a better licence for wiki text. And I've been using it for my images for a while. -- Colin (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
211.  Support It's OK Darkshiren 15:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
212.  Support I completely agree with this, 4.0 and Share-Alike will only benefit us.
213.  Strong supportDuman Aras (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
214. Yes, Free knowledge, free world ! I support to be under creative commons. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.201.119.12 (talk) 2016-10-13T15:31:28 (UTC)
215. I don't know why this is even being contested — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.186.170 (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
216. I live in china,but I can not read chinece words,I hope the size of words can big and clean,sometimes I can chang some word--Juntao wang (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
217.  Support It will be great
218.  Support 08:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
219.  Strong support Thanks to whomever put the diff together, very helpful! Lirazelf (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
220.  Strong support It's an improvement) for those reasons. Kautuk1 (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
221.  Support, per many above. And honestly, the nature of many of the oppose comments only strengthen's my support. Resolute (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
222.  Support It's important to keep the Wikipedia license up-to-date and compatible with the most recent free (libre) content JavierCantero (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
223.  Support, maybe this could improve EU-Database + GPLv3 issues; IANAL. 2A03:2267:0:0:B084:6C34:302E:64D2 20:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Please strike this if Be..anyone shows up, on my say-so this won't happen.
224.  SupportS Marshall (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
225. Change it. It's by keeping up with time that we can progress further and make wikipedia better. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 112.118.110.131 (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
226.  Support Lin Zhinan (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
227. I agree
228.  Support It brings more clarity to the license and also includes internationalization. Gtaf (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
229.  Support Berthgmn (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
230.  Strong support for two main reasons: first, common sense attribution. a long standing problem especially in germany are cease and desist orders for a failure of attribution. second, porting to countries juristdications was ill, no other license needs this and there was no reason CC would need it. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
231. I think it's a great idea to update the licence — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwertyuioplol (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
232.  Support Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
233.  Support Francvs (talk) "One monkey don't stop no show." How would Wikipedia be better off if much of the world moved to the new license, and Wikipedia stayed behind?
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
234.  Support -- the wub "?!" 18:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
235. i strongly agree with your new 4.0 code i strongly agree with your new 4.0 version of operation and legal methodology — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staff612024c99je (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
236.  Support --Kcdills (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
237. Support.. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.214.190.129 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
238.  Support --Nnnn20430 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
239.  Support I have read about the differences, and I think that they only help us to further our goals of sharing free knowledge. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
240.  Strong support An international license for an international project. I agree. Good step forward! --Lapp (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
241.  Support let's keep up to date. Royalbroil 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
242.  Support Sounds like a good idea to me.
243.  Strong support--Mario-WL (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
244.  Strong support. MB298 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
245.  Support Haxwell (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
246.  Support Peter Pen (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
247.  Support Elfi (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
248.  Support I think CC 4 would help us further the Wikipedia cause. --208.87.239.180 17:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
249. I totally agree to upgrade. We should accept new changes wholeheartedly and openness. This will bring more clarity. I think there is no such issue to oppose it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjforbes (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
250. good idea 109.155.82.243 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
251.  Support Walley (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
252.  Support Freedom matters Danialbehzadi (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
253.  Support CC is a well acclaimed licensing tools, Wikipedia will benefit from it --Bujatt (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
254.  Support Wiki content is already licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0. The discussion at hand is not whether to impose attribution requirements or whether to license under the Creative Commons (it already is!) or whether to switch to a different licence (different subject!). The discussion at hand is whether to simply update to the 4.0 version of the current licence. It seems to me to be common sense to keep up to date with the Creative Commons' licensing, and I have not seen any reasons to ignore the revision and remain on the old 3.0 version. RunasSudo (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
255.  Support I agree 100% with RunasSudo right above. --Hispalois (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
256.  Support I have read the comparison and support the changes. Constant314 (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
257.  Support Vlk (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
258.  Strong support These terms look good.
259.  Support Good idea love it.
260.  Support - I agree with this idea, all the wikimedia pages will be up to date with the creative commons licences. Epic Fails (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
261.  Support About time!
262.  Support per my comments at Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0#What;s really the issue here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
263.  Support MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
264.  Support I see nothing wrong on it. --PabloCastellano (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
265. I think this is a good idea. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.51.37.168 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
266.  Support Didn't read all of that but... I support! New terms of use... Yay
267. I'm with it, anything to make Wikipedia a more reliable source. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.30.161.195 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
268.  Support Look Good. Upgrading license is better.--Ranjithsiji (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
269.  Support. Allan Aguilar (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
270.  Support Lots of work to come, but worth it.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
271.  Support --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
272.  Support IANAL, but this seems to support openness and sharing of information. Captain panda 03:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
273.  Support. Ayub407 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
274.  Support Robert.Harker (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
275.  Support I support this change because CC-BY-SA-4.0 slightly improves on CC-BY-SA-3.0 in a number of respects, with one exception: it isn't donor compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0. For better or worse that exception makes for an extra important reason to upgrade: so that CC-BY-SA-4.0 text can be incorporated into Wikimedia projects. An alternative would be to get CC to declare CC-BY-SA-4.0 donor compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0 (see CC-BY-SA-4.0->GPL-3.0 compatibility for mechanism). Mike Linksvayer (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
276.  Strong support Haquino (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
277.  Support – The 4.0 version resolves several long-standing issues with 3.0 (and earlier), at no apparent cost. The opposes below mostly seem confused, making incorrect assumptions like that the ShareAlike portion is being dropped, or that it was not there before and is being added, or that WP having no license at all and just being public domain is an option, etc. People need to actually read proposals before commenting on them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
     • I just really think that's the right idea, yeah. I'd certainly support using the new license – at least for now, and we can see what happens, then.
278.  Support because we have written an article in CC-BY-SA-4.0 and we would like to reuse it to extend the corresponding Wikipedia article (i.e. All recent articles from LinuxFr.org are under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and cannot be used to complete a wiki under CC-BY-SA-3.0). --Oliver H (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
279. i Reckon it would be great to update wikipedia. it seems as if nothing will change, with the basic editing and all. Im with it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by TYT Sirius (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
280.  Support Banjo (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
281.  Support Braveheart (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Considering how some users abuse the 3.0-license, changing the license to 4.0 is the only viable path IMO.
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
282.  Support In spite of the confusion it has generated in the discussions, I think it will be less confusing in practice. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
283.  Strong support -- 2001:8A0:7F2E:E601:C8F1:55AC:7633:8DC7 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
284.  Support --Benrusholme (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
285.  Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
286.  Support I've read through the objections, and I see little merit there. We should keep up to date. Almonaster (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
287.  Support Urhixidur (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
288.  Support Clearer language and other improvements sound good t o me.
289.  Support Although I rather had seen CC-BY 4 instead of CC-BY-SA 4. MacFreek (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
290.  Strong support I'm surprised that text on Wikimedia sites are not licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. If we don't accept this change, we won't import CC-BY-SA-4.0 text from other websites, because CC 3.0 with copyleft is not compatible with CC 4.0 with copyleft. 4.0 is also more international and clearer than 3.0. There is also a feature which is important from CC 4.0 that is not available in CC 3.0. It is giving a reuser 30 days to fix their mistake (commonly not attributing correctly and not stating the license). It is common for reusers of Wikipedia to not attribute through hyperlink, commonly because they don't know how to attribute. If we don't give these reusers a chance to fix their unintended mistake, reusers may think that Wikipedia is so complicated. It makes no sense if we don't migrate to CC-BY-SA-4.0, since CC-BY-SA-3.0 can be relicensed under 4.0 for derivative works. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
291.  Support Reasonable upgrade. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
292.  Support. Don't see why not. Fume-la (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
293.  Support --Joi (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
294.  Strong support Makes a lot of the de facto ways it already works, in the US, more explicit and clear. 2601:602:C303:C670:A87D:A958:6379:B134 08:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
295.  Strong support Didn't read all the stuff but looks good in my viewpoint. 09:51, 1 November 2016 (EST)
296.  Support There seems to be no real downside and this will need doing now and then. -- Idyllic press (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
297.  Support This seems to mostly be a usability and clarification upgrade. The matter of moral rights, from my limited reading on the topic, seems to be a non-issue. While some technical aspects of the rights handled in v3.0 vs. v4.0 are different, those are largely due to increased clarity of (rather than a change to) the intent in v3.0. Tfocker4 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
298. It would be cool since people could use it for more and more things. I definately agree on this creative commons thing. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.115.240.34 (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
299.  Support I'm a new user but to me this seems like a good change. thank you KIRTIS (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)*  Support I'm a new user but to me this seems like a good change. thank you KIRTIS (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
300. Yes. It is long over due — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olileanyao (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
301. best update to Wikimedia ever
302. I'm in favour of any change leading to increased openness and ease of use. This proposed change sounds like another step in that direction.Consequently I  Support the CC licence upgrade Redwidgeon (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
303.  Support Got a chance to read only the gist... sounds good as long as it sticks to basic tenets.
304.  Support I think the v4 licence adds value to an already good usage. I support the use of CC-By-SA particularly because the work is too valuable to be made a commercial commodity even as a derivative. --Crimperman (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
305.  Support In may opinion it is next important step in development of the general Wikipedia idea.
306.  Support, more simple and opened to those not skilled enough with english language so as to go deep into the license. Comme moi. Cordialement et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
307.  Support Crucial that Wikimedia Foundation shows their renewed commitment to CC license principles. Keep it going! Hakuin Ullman (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
308.  Support - and consolidating (please help) here. --Krauss (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
309.  Support All for it!
310.  Support Why not? Jc86035 (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
311.  Support good update Dbastro (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
312.  Support good update IMO -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
313.  Strong support Not only is it a great improvement, CC4.0 essentially supplants CC3.0. It would therefore be folly for Wikimedia not to adopt it and instead deliberately work under an obsolete licensing protocol out of sync with how CC operates going forward Ultracobalt (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
314.  Support -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
315.  Strong support -- It makes sense that we should always use the latest version going forward, without this process. The discussion has attracted ignorant 'answers', which is damaging. Adroit (talk)
     • Fair enough if you approve of CC BY-SA 4.0, but that's not quite what the proposed new terms would give you. They would also impose this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That clause overrides important attribution provisions present in CC BY-SA 4.0, and would in effect create a confusing crayon license. Far from a straight license upgrade! Zazpot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1.  Oppose I like the simplified and internationalized license, it brings the understanding of it throughout the world with different languages. Though the license itself does bring much painful internal changes. I suggest to think twice before making the change since most are happy with 3.0. BrendonIrwan
2. Strong oppose I think Wikipedia has enough b.s. Anymore b.s. might result in a lot of people gagging to death because b.s. stinks. Do you like b.s.? This new version 4.0. promises to give you some more b.s., if you vote it in. It will also make things even more complicated than they already are. See, there's some pros to this new version. That is, if you're a fan of absolute b.s. Infopage100 (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
   • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Overall, that seems to me to amount to a way to reduce the risk of "b.s." in the long run. Zazpot (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
3.  Oppose The reasons for BY-SA are not strong. If one seeks openness and freedom then CC0 is ideal, CC-BY is next best. SA is actually quite restrictive as it prevents use in most commercial works.
   • The reasons for BY-SA are not strong. False. Wikipedia already uses CC BY-SA, and has strong reasons for doing so, including the fact that many editors would be unhappy to work without attribution or at the risk of having their contributions subsumed into a proprietary product. If one seeks openness and freedom then CC0 is ideal, CC-BY is next best. False again. CC0 would allow the creation of closed forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Regardless, as Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0, it cannot migrate to CC0, as that would breach the terms under which it has licensed the content from its contributors. Zazpot (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Why would you do that?
   • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
5. I oppose! Period. 'Nuff said.
   • Why? Zazpot (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Proponents have not yet made a compelling case for the change. What bad things are currently happening that motivate the change? What exactly is broken? Prove it is broken before taking action to fix it.
   • (I wish you had signed your comment so I could ping you to see this reply.) Creative Commons has stated that the 4.0 version of the licence was written to adapt the license to the practicality of enforcing a CC licence in multiple jurisdictions that each have their own version of copyright law -- some with conflicting provisions. It also clarifies that some practices are permitted, such as linking to an attribution page, instead of forcing re-users to list the attributions on the same page as the content. (Imagine if each contributor had to be listed on the same page as content on Wikipedia -- such a list could easily be longer than the article!) Etamni | ✉  10:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
7.  Oppose Same as above. I fail to understand a reason for the upgrade. Also, I don't see how we can do a site-wide license change when only a very tiny part of users will see this discussion and even lesser users will actually vote on this. In lieu of a more friendly word, this looks like a waste of resources to me :-\ -- Evilninja (talk)
   • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Those are the advantages. As for your concern about the license upgrade: CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows adapted works to use a later version of the CC BY-SA license, so there's no problem on that score. Zazpot (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
8.  Oppose almost everyone who opposes this is giving reasons, most of the support is given without any explination
9.  Oppose too much DRM. well you get what I mean. it would just make it harder for things to work.
   • No DRM would be involved. How would a change from CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0 "make it harder for things to work"? Which things? Zazpot (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
10.  Oppose Due to copyright law being extremely broken internationally broken (I.E.: copyright after the person is dead, copyright for multiple decades), I cannot support this. As an author, reader, and user of information, red tape just hurts the flow of information, and the people that it's supposed to protect. Keep things open.
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. The CC BY-SA licenses are designed precisely to ease the flow (sharing; reuse; collaborative editing) of information. CC BY-SA 4.0 removes some hurdles to this that CC BY-SA 3.0 does not account for, so probably you ought to be supporting the proposed change. Zazpot (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
11. Tentatively  Oppose the ToS changes. I'm not OK with abandoning copyleft for data, though I am OK with a move to CC BY-SA 4.0. CC BY-SA 4.0 fixes a problem in earlier licenses with respect to sui generis database rights (SGDR) that the proposed ToS changes UNfix! I read the justification at Luis Villa's blog (linked to from FAQ Why do the proposed amendment to the terms of use mention sui generis database rights?, above), and notice that there are no examples presented to back his claims.

    What could convince me to change my !vote? A real or realistic example where straight CC-BY-SA-4.0 is a problem, but this weird special version wouldn't be, that I would actually want to support. Also, it's undefined what will actually change, UI-wise, which is important. See #Elvey (was #Elvey) for discussion. --Elvey (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC). Pinging Joe Sutherland (WMF) as a courtesy, apropos change above.

12. It seems to give another non-profit power and control over wikipedia, in the long run. 2601:1C2:1300:D091:1FA:2FFD:DACE:D94D 05:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • How so? Zazpot (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
13. IDK if Wikipedia should do this68.12.229.92 03:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
14. Wikipedia works fine the way it is. Don't try to fix things that aren't broken. That's what government does and look where that's got us. Just leave Wikipedia as it is.
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia works as well as it does precisely because of good governance, including the decision to adopt the most appropriate licensing scheme available: GFDL to begin with; and then CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL when that became possible. Migrating to CC BY-SA 4.0 + GFDL appears to possess some small but concrete advantages, and it is right that the community should consider benefiting from them. Zazpot (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
15.  Oppose because of waiving sui generis database rights and moral, personality, and privacy rights. —MarcoAurelio 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
16. Segregation of knowledge commons is tomorrows biggest industry. Goodbye By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
17. Thw old knowlegr base (which is older,let say, years) sould not to be licensed
    • That is a muddled objection. If it wasn't licensed, Wikipedia would be impossible because it would be unlawful for the Wikimedia Foundation to distribute the contributors' copyrighted work, and unlawful for other editors to collaboratively edit it and re-license the resulting derived work. Zazpot (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
18. The juvenile delinquents who sold us computers and software always ask for an "upgrade" that diminishes application functionality and restricts and eliminates rights first purchased by the user, they have now turned their smartphones and computers to the task of advertisement platform to sell the unneeded and unwanted. Please WIKI don't go down that evil path. Extraneous Note: By the way, same thing happens with learning curves, up the hill,, up the hill again, and again, and again until the last becomes insurmountable so that the functionality of the hardware and software is not only degraded it becomes totally dysfunctional. You could chart the economic outcome along the glut of plder, less gymnastic, elders are there.
19. I agree withthe below comment. Bschandrasgr (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)kn:ಸದಸ್ಯ:Bschandrasgr
20.  Oppose - Don't fix what's not broken. And user who gave something free under a lower license, must that all be changed? Let it stay like it is. - Richardkiwi (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows adapted works to use a later version of the CC BY-SA license, so there's no problem on that score. Zazpot (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
21. Don't do it would be a waste of time and it might screw up peoples accounts — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demoscout (talk)
    • How could it possibly screw up people's accounts? Zazpot (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
22. We risk striking discord with EU-law if we forcibly upgrade any content licenced under CC-3.0 due to the clause concerning personal and privacy rights. At the same time any benefits are at best hypothetical, seeing as we are entirely unable to police the breaches of licence that already exist. Hence we are stuck with a very time-consuming task that has very little positive impact, and which potentially could get us stuck in a whole slew of legislative battles. Neither am I comfortable with signing off my moral rights or with decreasing the attribution requirements of my work. CFCF 💌 📧 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose - I do not understand why creatives should waive their "moral, personality, and privacy rights". I don't exactly understand what these rights entail, but Wikimedia projects have a 15 year history of free content without waiving those rights. Over the last several years, I have approached multiple third parties regarding free-use media releases for Wikimedia Commons, and have always recommended CC-BY-SA 3.0 because it retained these rights. If content can be shared freely without waiving these rights, they should be retained. - hahnchen (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
24.  Strong opposeI dont like this - this is going to be bad for everyone - Georgy
    • In what ways would it be "bad for everyone"? Zazpot (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose - Authors should not waive their "moral, personality, and privacy rights". European folk have (due to past history) a very strong interest in preserving privacy and moral rights. These must not be abused. After review of the changes in detail there could be major problems which might (Germany!) cause the wiki to be taken down or ISP in EU not to permit access if these fundamental moral, privacy rights are abused or attempted to be given up in CC by SA 4. Stick to CC by SA 3. And convert it for international use rather than jump to a disputatious version 4 which might cause EU abandonment of wiki. eionmac
26.  Oppose- I do not want to signoff my moral rights and to endorse unjustified significants changes like you suggest
27.  Oppose- I disagree with the idea of applying creative commons(CC). Since the wiki is made by many people it is not one's information. The Ideas and Concepts that are updated here aren't for financial advances either. Making CC will also make people to put their names on the webpage which is very vulnerable to the Crackers(Vicious hackers). Also this will discourage people to use the wiki because putting a name on the web will lessen the trust in the either way when the writer is not famous in that subject and this will also make people to be discouraged to change, edit wiki because the original writer is famous professor. Kevin
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia already uses CC BY-SA 3.0. It has strong reasons for using BY-SA, including the fact that many editors would be unhappy to work without attribution or at the risk of having their contributions subsumed into a proprietary product. And the concern about contributors having to provide their names is inapplicable to this discussion, because neither CC BY-SA 3.0 nor CC BY-SA 4.0 would require contributions to be onymous. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
28.  Oppose- I disagree, moral rights are very important and applying the creative commons would strip us of our moral rights. We are human beings and we deserve to keep our moral rights.
29.  Oppose- It should be public domain, since entered by public
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
30.  Oppose Moral rights as defined by the Berne Convention include:
    • the right to claim attribution for your work
    • the right to publish a work anonymously or pseudonymously
    • the right to protect a work from being used to denigrate the author

    These rights are separate from the copyright to a work and can never be transferred, but the author can waive them at any time. The Creative Commons 4.0 licenses make you do that. Update 3.0 license and use that instead. Nlaylah (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

31.  Oppose "The ported versions of CC BY-SA 3.0 were substantially similar to each other, but included some legal modifications to reflect the local jurisdiction." So the translated one will force some pointless laws upon all of the internet not that specific country.
32.  Oppose because of the already-mentioned waiving of sui generis database rights and moral, personality, and privacy rights. --Robkelk (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
33.  Oppose the wrong way!!! It will be better: the new whole work that included free licensed parts, must be also free under the same license. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
34. Just a simple NO is my hope... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.76.74.204 (talk)
    • Why so? Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
35. absolutely not 2602:304:B162:1000:645E:1307:9B3:A8F9 20:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why not? Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
36.  Oppose erneute Zwangsumlizenzierung gegen den Willen der Urheber - und dann gleich so schön schwammig formuliert, daß man sich das in Zukunft ganz spart. Welche Katze im Sack wird damit erkauft? Richtig, niemand weiß es, weil niemand vorhersagen kann, ob CC-6 nicht vielleicht PD sein wird. Möglich ist alles. Nachdem mal die komplette Wikipedia unter GFDL stand und man heute nur noch mit Mühe einen Verweis darauf findet, ist sowas auch keineswegs an den Haaren herbeigezogen. Falls es dauzu kommen sollte, werde ich Texte mit Schöpfungshöhe nur noch unter GFDL veröffentlichen - also nicht mehr in diesen Projekten. Bei Bildern halte ich es wegen der Zwangslizenzänderung ja schon lange so. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
37. No, not a good idea
    • Why not? Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
38.  Oppose В 4-ой версии отсутсвуют внятные и понятные условия использования. У меня такое ощущение, что Фонд Викимедиа пытается обмануть редакторов ВП. По крайней мере меня лично они точно пытаются обвести вокруг пальца... С уважением, 0x0F (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
39. Strong oppose - Changing to Creative Commons will impede the flow of information, not promote it. Wikipedia contributions come from all strata of the public and therefore should belong to the public as a whole. The goal of Wikipedia is the free flow of information, not attribution of information to specific authors or ensuring that subsequent information is passed on under copyright. The very act of copyrighting the information on Wikipedia goes against these founding principles. Furthermore CC 4.0 is the most restrictive CC copyright to date and even forces contributors to waive their moral rights which would be deeply unfair to the personal interests of the individual contributors. I also find retroactively changing the license that people had previously published under (essentially without the individual contributor's consent) to be unfair and in very bad taste.-- BaronVonchesto (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
40. Strong oppose we want free flow of information 10 October 2016 .(talk) .
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
41. Strong oppose This revision contributes to authors losing even more rights and makes it much more difficult to persecute use without proper attribution. Also, we could lose the freedom to intervene/caucus if further changes/revisions restrict our rights even more. --212.201.68.244 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Nobody should be persecuting anybody. As for the rights issue: IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
42.  Oppose per Nlaylah. I choose to contribute anonomously, so I'm particularily concerned about waiving my moral right to do so, which this new licence seems to require.—Godsy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
43.  Oppose. Tried to remake up my mind three times, but still: I don't think WMF should relicense the work we volunteers have done over the years on a basis summarizable as "we think we can". This is beside other things also a matter of respect. And, moreover, I simply prefer certain details of our current license to certain details of the proposed license. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 20:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think WMF should relicense the work we volunteers have done over the years on a basis summarizable as "we think we can". CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows adapted works to use a later version of the CC BY-SA license, so there's no problem on that score. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
44.  Oppose Wiki is made by many people it is not one's information to be licensed at all. Alex Khimich (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
45.  Oppose I do not support this change, free information should be left as it is.
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
46.  Oppose If it isn't broken, don't replace it!
47.  Oppose There is no practical reason to make this change -- there is no problem to be solved by changing the license. Jarmihi (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
48. 2606:A000:6959:9C00:B1F1:386F:1B95:3A2F 13:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) (NCFriend)
49. Strong oppose J'utilise la Cc-by-sa 3.0 pour mes textes et je ne suis absolument pas décidé à changer pour une licence qui présente quelques différences. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
50.  Oppose Relicensing and the waiving of certain rights - both ideas are bad. And the very biased introduction text raises suspicion. That's not a promising start of a decent conversation. Brisbane (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
51. No, as this website has helped millions of people complete their reports and other people could simply be easiealy sued — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.232.195.244 (talk)
52.  Oppose; upgrading and waiving sui generis database rights are two independent decisions. 177.156.4.90 03:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
53.  Oppose for the reason outlined below: --G(x) (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. The license just wrote away the moral rights to the extent permitted by law. I find the moral rights, though not explicitly and universally recognized, is the right that should be upheld. Otherwise, the author would be subject to detrimental criticism without an opportunity to disprove.
    2. The concept of automatic reinstatement of license upon rectification of violation may prove to be troublesome to enforce, as the provision does not address whether it will prohibit the claims to be brought during the violation up until the license is restored.
54.  Oppose A more restrictive license adds nothing to a free encyclopedia on the contrary, difficult to use and creation and also requiring publishers to give up their moral rights, which is unfair and unlawful. Petronas (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
55. Strong oppose The more you continue to increase the number of rules, the less you will find contemporary witnesses who are ready to write entries.
56.  Oppose The required waiver of certain ancillary rights (including but not limited to moral rights), in my opinion, is a major misstep for Creative Commons. I unfortunately cannot support such a change. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
57.  Oppose We need to abandon CC-BY-SA in favor of the Peer Production License. --L3lackEyedAngels (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
58.  Oppose No need
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
59. Strong oppose! Stay with 3.0 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.246.83.64 (talk) 2016-10-13T17:24:35 (UTC)
60.  Oppose for now until WMF satisfactorily explain why it is necessary for contributers to waive their moral rights. Yes I've read the explanation that this is to make reuse easier, but I have yet to see a concrete example of how my moral rights have got in the way of reuse of anything. SpinningSpark 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
61.  Oppose I believe that Wikipedia should be in public domain
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
62.  Oppose Version 3.0 is sufficient.
63.  Oppose Freedom also means to respect the decision by earlier uploaders on their free choice for a license. Having said that, I do appreaciate the option to choose for CC-BY-SA-4.0 - Perhaps though, Wikimedia should be a more active participant in the process of creating new Creative Commons versions. Our community is significant in size and steady in it's presence. It could assist in the creation of new CC versions that are more widely supported. --OSeveno (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows adapted works to use a later version of the CC BY-SA license, so it is mistaken to suggest that upgrading to 4.0 in any way disrespects the wishes of users who contributed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
64.  Oppose as many above. After the incredible GFDL-to-CC switch the next slapping into the face of the contributors. WMF lacks respect for the work of the authors. NNW (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows adapted works to use a later version of the CC BY-SA license, so it is mistaken to suggest that upgrading to 4.0 in any way disrespects the wishes of users who contributed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
65.  OpposeWiki content is freely donated and should be in the public domain. Creative Commons, GNU, etc. are all complex schemes designed to create restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge. So-called "free" licensing schemes merely create opportunities for litigation that is anathema to the concept of the res publica.
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
66.  Oppose I think that Wikipedia must be in public domain ! IuvenesIos (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
67. Would the world be better off if the Bible, Plato, Mark Twain or the US Constitution were licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 or 4.0? What a silly question. "Free" is free and anything else is not free.
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
68. Strong oppose - This was created by the public and should remain in the public. Any other licensing has not been tested well enough by court systems. In the long run, any other licensing schema besides public domain would hurt the potential for Wikipedia to remain freely accessible to all publics.
    • That is a muddled objection. First of all, CC licenses have so far held up well in court. In any case, Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
69. Strong oppose Is not necessary. Why we not stay at 3.0? -- Freddy2001 ^talk 11:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
70.  Oppose – I don’t see the point, why we should stop using 3.0. Were there any problems with 3.0? – KPFC (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
71.  Oppose Stay for now, at least until the proposal is improved.--Rainer (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • What kind of improvement do you have in mind? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
72.  Oppose --Olei (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
73. No! 141.62.193.34 09:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why not? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
74. A simple no it mean more lock down control the very creation was to be free . — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.67.32.72 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
75. Strong oppose due to waiving of moral rights without sufficient explanation of why this is necessary in practical terms, and moreover because I am opposed on principle to the 30-day automatic reinstatement window. BethNaught (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
76.  Oppose Why 6.0? Wikipedia is a public page were anyone can post and share information. In 6.0 it will be a Private project
    • What do you mean, "6.0"? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
77.  Strong Oppose The proposal does not mention some other major changes in 4.0, including a waiver of moral rights. 4.0 also is an invitation to ignore license terms. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    • 4.0 also is an invitation to ignore license terms. How so? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
78.  Strong Oppose There is no need for change. This process strikes me as needless bureaucracy for the sake of it. Stop wasting all of our time and let us continue to contribute under familiar and proven terms. Content is free enough right now, with no demonstrated problems. We've all had enough of lawyers, let them rot and stop giving them business. Pratyeka (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. In other words, it is designed to make it less likely that litigation would occur in relation to content uploaded to Wikimedia Foundation projects. So, please consider revising your position. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
79.  Strong Oppose. --Mautpreller (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
80. This not a great idea 163.150.228.198 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why not? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
81.  Strong Oppose Why changing when what we have is enough? I don't see any value of it.117.2.36.3 02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
82. Strong oppose cc4.0的相关的释权条款相比3.0完全不能被接受Edisonabcd (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why? Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
83. Strong oppose Stuff on wikimedia may be other people's work, so it's not fair if you copyright it.
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
84. Strong oppose CC3 is about copyright and only copyright. It had never occurred to me that someone would attempt to use the "or any subsequent version" loophole in the license wording to sign away other rights on my behalf, without my informed consent, such as personality rights or moral rights. I'm not OK with this. Who is to say that a subsequent version isn't going to sign away more of my rights, assets or possessions? I'm also not OK with the manner in which CC4 is weakening or undermining the provision that, if someone violates the licence terms, their use of the licensed material ends immediately and unconditionally (now - not 30 days from now, maybe, if they feel like it). Those rights matter as they're all that's preventing others from stealing my Wikivoyage contributions, copy-pasting them into Wikitravel without attribution and digging en:voy: a little deeper into the duplicate-content search penalty hole which is already hurting a good project. CC4 is flawed, fatally flawed. I want nothing to do with it. All that Wikimedia going from CC3 to CC4 would accomplish is to force re-users of Wikimedia content to also adopt CC4 instead of CC3. That's not a step forward and I strongly oppose this. K7L (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
85. Strong oppose Stuff on wikimedia may be other people's work, so it's not fair if you copyright it. Therefore: please erase the images that I uploaded (and all my edits) - or we'll make a deal: 90% of cash for me, 10% for wikipedia. Quite fair, isn't it? Tonton Bernardo (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a muddled objection. Wikipedia cannot avoid copyright law. If you mean Wikipedia should adopt a CC0 license: well, that is a non-starter, because Wikipedia is already using CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, migrating to CC0 would breach the terms under which the Wikimedia Foundation has licensed the content from Wikipedia's editors. Moreover, CC0 would allow the creation of proprietary ("closed") forks of Wikipedia, whereas BY-SA ensures any derived works must be free and open. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
86.  Strong Oppose Me too! I don't think this change is even necessary.
    • IIUC, CC BY-SA 3.0 implicitly waives various rights to the extent necessary for the license to work as intended, and completely fails to account for database rights. CC BY-SA 4.0, by contrast, explicitly waives those rights to the extent necessary for the license to be meaningful. Performing that waiver explicitly reduces confusion and legal risk for all involved. That might not be strictly necessary, but it does seem worthwhile. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
87.  Strong Oppose --Haeferl (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC) like Martina Nolte
88.  Strong Oppose Important thing is to see who squeals the loudest after the transition is rejected and find out why and what their motives are. Like the TPP, this has some benefits but some traps for the unwary also.
89. Strong oppose waiving of database rights. Like Wikidata, another giveaway to Google by a COI-ridden Board of Trustees. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 20:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
90.  Oppose The way I read CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0 only permits upgrading to CC-BY-SA 4.0 on the condition that you violate the terms of CC-BY-SA 4.0. That is, CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 are not compatible with each other, so upgrading like this is not legally possible. Additionally, the notion that any edit automatically relicenses the entire page (as stated in the FAQ) is not correct, and it would be extremely difficuly for a content user to tell if a page (or a portion of it) has been relicensed. See my long comments on Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0 for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
91. --198.232.211.130 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
92.  Strong oppose First: please extend the period for discussion! With that out of the way, CC BY-SA 3.0 is a superb license that has served Wikipedia (and many other resources) very well for several years. In my opinion, CC BY-SA 4.0 is even better. By explicitly accounting for database and moral rights, it reduces the legal uncertainty relating to those rights, compared CC BY-SA 3.0. This reduction in uncertainty should make it a little easier for anyone wishing to use the licensed material to know where they stand, and therefore to be able to comply with the terms of the license. Upgrading Wikimedia Foundation sites to CC BY-SA 4.0 would therefore be a small but excellent step forward for free culture in general, and for affected Wikimedia Foundation projects in particular. However, the proposed new terms are not just about changing from CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0. The new terms also introduce this unnecessary and objectionable clause: "Where you own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be reused freely without attribution." That is very different in spirit to CC BY-SA 4.0, and I am not OK with this clause. I feel comfortable waiving those rights only to the minimal extent required by CC BY-SA 4.0, and no further. Despite having read Luis Villa's blog, I am unconvinced that it will be ultimately advantageous to free culture for WMF project contributors to completely waive such rights. Doing so may yield small gains in utilisation of WMF project data in the short term (months; years), but leaves that data open to co-option into proprietary projects that might end up supplanting the source (i.e. our community) in the long term (years; decades)! Remove that clause from the terms, and my strong oppose becomes strong support. Zazpot (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral comments

1. I am user still not an editor or contributor. I have used the site since conception. It works! It is a great success so do not make it complicated and change the success of the site. Nothing is ever made perfect by committee vote. Never works in the long run. So be smart and keep things simple and always seek to remove complications before making changes. There are less variables. Things get lost in translations. So trying to manage under multiple CC licenses, languages, and satisfy people who feel ripped off sharing knowledge which is an emotion in itself that boggles my mind. That is the point of sharing knowledge and contributing to a greater understanding. It is a privilege, an honor and is good enough reward in itself given from a free heart. Keep up the good work and avoid the pressure to change what works. If you do then you stop being who you are and that would be your end.
2. I don't truly know what impact this have on Wiki...
3. Having looked through the faq and legal note sections, it seems some of the changes are decent, although most of it seems to be directly punishing regular users such as myself (That is my take on this, but should not be construed as true). But since i don't understand this stuff to well, i am going to remain neutral on this subject. AryaTargaryen (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
4. I think Wikipedia should be Public Domain. (For some reason, Wiki editors will bash and harass me for stating my opinion, but this is my opinion.) Allen750 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
5. I'm not sure....
6. It sounds good at first but the negative voters have good points too, that should be considered. Theoretically, people can go into the history tabs and look up who changed what. I'm also wondering how it would work, if, for example, one editor corrected another's grammar or punctuation. Does this embarrass the original author or give final credit to the one who fixed it? Also, suppose the attribution were voluntary, does that make some authors look more like braggarts? With all the focus on backing up Wikipedia copy with original source documents, does this mean more copyright issues? What about the deletionists? When they remove things because somebody has not proven that the Pope is Catholic to their satisfaction and they remove things, do they get credit too? Or what about the serial taggers? UNREFERENCED, for example - tagging instead of fixing? Could the attribution include credit for these guys as well, so they will be known as people who criticize but can't be troubled to fix it, like look it up in a search engine and find some back-up?--Achim Hering (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
7. There are pros and cons to doing this, and those who understand the CC BY-SA licenses & contributions more should have more input on the matter. I'm choosing to remain neutral because, while I enjoy the ideas, concepts and contributions of people who actively support these licenses, I don't personally understand the actual license(s) enough to have a concrete opinion.
8. Honestly, I feel like this would make no big difference, or maybe I'm just missing something.
9. It seems to me that Wikapedia generally has been a helpful source of information. My questions are: who do the changes help and how, who do they hurt and how, and what will be the near-future scenarios, both if Wikapedia is kept the same and if it is changed? The structuring of changes has to be motivated by these things. The finer details are better filtered out until these points are made in the clearest and simplest language.
10. Neutral Moral rights as defined by the Berne Convention include:
    • the right to claim attribution for your work
    • the right to publish a work anonymously or pseudonymously
    • the right to protect a work from being used to denigrate the author

    These rights are separate from the copyright to a work and can never be transferred, but the author can waive them at any time. The Creative Commons 4.0 licenses make you do that. Qzekrom (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

11. Neutral I'm not conversant with the finer points of these copyright issues, but would like to see this wiki-world continue to have ease of access and free use of the material for as expansive a variety of uses as possible. I certainly think the fair use provisions are essential, so that those who make changes to the materials will also allow others to make changes as well. At the same time I have appreciated using the materials and would hate to see that use curtailed. Keep on Carrying on.
12. Neutral What I see is that there exists a strong reason for upgrading the license to 4.0, which creates some more benefits. However, the explanation is just too little, and that, when there is not a solution for everything, I would continue my neutral as Wikimedia and its sister projects needs these changes.--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 13:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • If you see a reason, discuss it! --RafChem (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
13. Neutral I'm not against the distribution of my contribs. to the new license, but changing license may cause confusion because articles are edited or used frequently. For example, if one rollbacks an article after license change, it should be distributed to new licenses, but previous contributors may not agree with the license change.(Clearly, withdrawal is not allowed so it may cause problems.) In addition, some wikis depend on the materials of wikimedia projects such as English wikipedia and choose the SAME licences(CC-BY-SA 3.0) for convenience. Although there are no fundamental changes of user rights, forking wikimedia contents to such wikis will become violation of license if license is changed.
    • My opinion is... if wikimedia foundation want to change distribution license, it should make templates in their existed articles to introduce that "This article is distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0" and allow users to select options distributing under current license or new license. --Lee131011 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
14. I've never felt the need to protect my "intellectual property," I'm much more interested in freely available information with the protection for rights of those who need them. I'd be inclined to support the proposal, but until I get a better sense of what Copyleft licenses protect and don't protect I'll have to stay neutral. I trust the Wikipedia community will make the best choice. Mahnut (talk)
15. Neutral I believe that as Wikipedia currently is, it is very useful. The fact that it is able to be edited by many people means that it is able to cover and discuss many topics, by people with many differing mindsets and areas of expertise. However, the fact that many people edit it also means that writing can be choppy and have differing reading levels. i believe that a reasonable compromise would be to have 'moderators' that review articles and help them flow. Forgive me if i am incorrect in suggesting this, i do not write articles. I am just a bored student wasting their time.
16. plutôt Neutral, non que ça ait grande importance, dans des cas de ce genre la logique veut que le changement rallie une large majorité parce que le nouveau est majoritairement ressenti comme préférable à l'ancien. Disons que je n'ai pas d'opinion sur cette question, sinon que la licence choisie permette de diffuser librement les contenus que j'ajoute au projet, de ce point de vue la licence actuelle, celle précédente et celle future se valent. Pour moi, ce que je verse dans le projet qui provient d'une source externe et dont je suis l'auteur est systématiquement mis dans le domaine public... Olivier Hammam (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Moving to its own section on the discussion page. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)