Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Resolution restricted-by-sa

Link to previous discussion

Per [1], low and high resolution images fall under the same copyright law, so this attempt at a bespoke license that depends on the resolution is not valid. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per Mike Peel. Questionable as a valid licence. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 18:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Weak keep this template is used on 170 files by User:Saffron Blaze, who is no longer active. The images include many high quality images. Deleting the license would mean deleting those 170 images. This is an license template written by User:Saffron Blaze and in general I am quite opposed to creation of such home-brewed templates. The license does not claim to be creative commons license, so FAQ page about creative commons licenses is not relevant. Some years ago when I looked at this license I checked our COM:LIC policy and the only thing we have about resolution is the following sentence: Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version. which suggests to me that licenses like this are not against our policy. If we decide to change the policy I would be fine with this deletion, but at this moment this license is not against our policies. That said I think such licenses are a bad idea and having it around might encourage others to use it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jarekt: Is there any way to contact them to ask them to change the license to a more standard one? I see they've also released images under CC-BY-SA (e.g., File:Broadway Tower.jpg, and if they could migrate these images to that licence then that would be much better than deleting them. We shouldn't encourage more uploads under this pseudo-license though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photographer asked to be contacted at http://www.mackenzie.co/pages/contact/ but he did not replied to any request in last 2 years. He seem to be a professional photographer and possibly unwilling to change license. I think a better way would be to forbid such licenses in new uploads, but that would require change to out policy. I would leave old images alone. --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jarekt: Trying to send a message through that webpage doesn't seem to work, sadly. Per [2] they seem to be also known as "W. Lloyd MacKenzie" - but I can't find any more information than that. I'm OK with forbidding new uploads using this template, but I am also worried about how we confirm that the previous uploads using this template are OK... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked around and both User:Colin and me were pleading with Saffron Blaze to relicense his works here and here. He was quite disillusioned with CC movement and how often his images were used without proper attribution and refused to change the license. By the way here is the link to the previous discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep es ist eine offizielle, keine Privatlizenz, sie existiert seit 5 Jahren. --Ralf Roletschek 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ralf Roletschek: It's not a standard license, and it shouldn't be used today. That the template was created 5 years ago makes no difference here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Warum existiert eine Lizenz jahrelang, wenn man sie nicht benutzen darf? --Ralf Roletschek 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Es gibt viele Gesetzt, die Jahrzehntelang niemanden interessieren bis sie einer Person auf fallen, die sich öffentlich beschwert. Das ist ein normaler demokratischer Diskurs. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ralf Roletschek: Agreed, hence this nomination to delete it to avoid the misconception that using this license is OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Having resolution restrictions in a license is against the mission of commons. And there are many technical and juristic problems. There is no definition for "resolution". What if some up scales the image? What about creative filters on these image? And what if someone uses these template on a SVG file? --GPSLeo (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep and deprecate. For various reasons given above, we shouldn't be encouraging the use of custom licenses. The ShareAlike provision is especially odious, as it prevents these works from being remixed with other works under a standard CC-BY-SA license. However, I wouldn't go so far as to delete this license entirely, which would have the effect of orphaning many existing works, including those by Saffron Blaze who is no longer contactable. Given that journalists often ask people on Twitter "can I use your image" and proceed to print it in next day's news, which is presumably a form of licensing that the newspaper's lawyers signed off on, I think we still ought to consider this a valid license legally speaking, but discouraged and therefore banned for future uploads just like GFDL-1.2. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Poorly written licence:

1. It talks about "the licensed material" but it doesn't say what the licensed material is. Is it an image, a work or something else which has been licensed?
2. It seems that all conditions in the "expectations" section are necessary conditions, but it doesn't say if it is sufficient to satisfy only those conditions or if there are additional unspecified necessary conditions.
3. The reference to "the terms and conditions of this public license" suggests that there is a longer legal text somewhere, but I can't find any such legal text.
4. Who is the licensor? Is the licensor authorised to license the image?
5. What is the resolution? Is it the pixel count? Are you suddenly violating the licence if you use the zoom function? What is the resolution if you make a paper copy of a picture? Is it the number of cellulose molecules?

Note that 1 and 4 are clarified if this template is used together with {{Self}}, but the images with this licence generally do not seem to use {{Self}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question The license says "Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work." What is a higher resolution? The template does not define that. So basicly it is either an invalid and meaningless requirement that we can just remove or it makes the use so uncertain that we have to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting question. Let's say that the file uploaded to Commons is 500x500 pixels. Elsewhere, you find a copy which is 1000x1000 pixels. You take the top left corner (250x250 pixels) and throw away the rest. Fewer pixels than the copy on Commons, but you have informtion which is not on Commons. Are you in violation of the licence or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stefan2 I think it is about pixels. But the license does not say "higher than the one uploaded here". So if I'm a super professional photographer I would perhaps think that 1000x1000 pixels is low res. Perhaps I would only think that pictures 10000x10000 pixels are higher res. And what if I uploaded a 1000x1000 pixels and put on the license. Then I could think that 1000x1000 pixels is higher res so I only accept that someone use 500x500 pixels.
    • I'm not a native English speaker so if everyone else think that of course the meaning is that the license means that you may use the uploaded version any way you please and every smaller version but not anyone higher res than the one uploaded here (in case you find one somewhere else on the net) then I would say we should depreciate the template but keep the files already uploaded if they are useful. --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MGA73: So the problems uncovered so far, go way beyond just the question regarding resolution. I would normally agree, if it was a valid licence, that we should keep the files if they are useful. However, as Stefan has explained above, point-by-point, and I've stated below, the language used was unclear, includes poorly defined restrictions, and really does not provide any definitions. It is tantamount to a void contract, IMO. As I also stated below, this is why there are usually lawyers involved in the drafting of such things--to ensure as much as possible that it is valid and not void. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the main risk is for modifying and remixing the content, because the wording is not clear what kinds of modifications are acceptable. I don't think there is any issue with Commons (or any reuser) using the image as-is or downsampled. As I said above, a simple tweet is sufficient permission to run a picture in a newspaper, and that is far less precise than the wording here, so legally speaking licenses don't have to be vetted by a lawyer to be considered valid. So the question is what to do with licenses that meet the technical requirements but violate the spirit of Free Cultural Works. As with GFDL-1.2, I think the answer should be to retain existing images but prohibit new uploads. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Edit conflict) OK, so try this: I hereby license all text that I have contributed to this page (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Resolution restricted-by-sa) under the {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}} licence. Now try to figure out if you're using a higher resolution than licensed or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's definitely problems with licenses being applied to works they are not designed for. The GFDL requires reusers to do something on the "Title Page" when making a "Modified Version" of the "Document". But so long as GFDL is accepted as a grandfathered license for images before 2018, I see no reason why this one is any worse. Besides, this license was designed for images, so in that sense I think reusers of images under this custom license are actually on firmer legal ground than reusers of GFDL images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep and deprecate. While use of this is no longer palatable for many in the community, it was acceptable in the past and I see no need to punish contributors who made use of it. Simply forbid its continued use. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the question isn't whether it's "palatable" or not. The question is whether it's a valid as a licence and whether it was ever valid to begin with. Per Stefan2 above, the tag uses unclear language, includes poorly defined restrictions, and really does not provide any definitions. A licence is a contract at its core, and so the language used in a licence must be clear, defined, etc. And this is why there are usually lawyers involved in the drafting of such things--to ensure as much as possible that it is valid and not void. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 04:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so lets take the examples mentioned:

1. "the licensed material" - I think it is very clear that it is the file that is uploaded and where the license template is added.
2. "expectations" - I think of course it is sufficient to meet the terms listed. If the author expected re user to meet any other terms they would be listed there.
3. "the terms and conditions of this public license" - why should it suggest there is a longer text somewhere? Is there any rule saying that terms and conditions HAS TO be long?
4. "Who is the licensor?" That is in my opinion of course the photographer/author. If the author = uploader then there is no problem. If the author is NOT the uploader then there is a problem. Same problem we have if uploader added any other license. Then we tag with "NPD".

The only problem I see is what the term "higher resolution" means and if it is legally binding to add such terms. --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, poor written, poorly defined. You can attempt to infer, but does not make it any less unclear. And while there aren't any rules saying that terms and conditions HAS TO be long, it has to, at bare minimum, define itself properly and be clear. It doesn't and it isn't. Short licences, like {{PD-self}}, for instance, or even {{Copyrighted free use}} and {{Attribution}} are clear and unambiguous. {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}} is not. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nat We agree it should not be used for new uploads. What we discuss is what to do with the old files. Keep or delete. If you go back to when Wikipedia started many files was uploaded with no formal license. In many cases it was assumed that then uploader agreed to GFDL. Before we got OTRS we had many "funny" permissions granted but there was consensus to {{Grandfathered old file}} and I bet you can find many DR's closed as keep even if things are not 100% clear. If we are not sure we could add a text to the license saying:

"This license is depreciated because it is unclear so it is not legal to any files uploaded after 2020-05-01. It is believed that it is okay to use the file unchanged but it is not clear I you can improve the resolution or if you can use files in higher resolution if you find them anywhere else on the internet. So make sure to read the conditions carefully if you decide to reuse this file in a modified version."

(And that text we can make a long and formal as we like). --MGA73 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't support the mass deletion of images. The text that you wrote is not bad, may need some tweaking, and a clear mention that copyright law treats lower or higher resolutions of a work the same work. So, thank you MGA73.

On the issue of the files, I would say, grandfather any file that carries only the R-R-BY-SA tag or migrate them to the most restrictive acceptable Creative Commons licence at the time of uploading. BUT if the files have valid licences (such as at bare minimum {{FAL}}), then the R-R-BY-SA tag should be removed and just replaced with a {{Non-copyright restriction}} tag that should state something along the lines of "Although this work is freely licensed, please do not use a higher resolution of this work than the version published here: {{{url}}}. This restriction is independent of its copyright status." (if we go with this, then don't use the text as is, as it clearly needs some pondering). --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 20:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was exactly what I was trying to express (but done much better!). — Huntster (t @ c) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just delete these template and insert the full content of these template, and the the additional reuse warning, to the pages where the template was used. Then it is not nessacery to check the version history to see when the template was added. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: I just re-read the above text that you wrote, and to be be clear, "This license is depreciated because it is unclear so it is not legal to any files uploaded after 2020-05-01." would be an incorrect statement. Regardless of the upload date, the R-R-BY-SA cannot be ever considered as valid as a licence due to its unclear language, poorly defined terms, and an unenforceable clause. If we are to include a message on the template page, I would suggest:

@Nat: Looking good :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Creative Commons FAQ entry about using a CC license specifically for a low-resolution version of a work may be of interest. In particular, it mentions the possibility of a work's licensor applying additional contractual restrictions to a CC-licensed work. From what it would seem, allowing additional contractual restrictions on CC-licensed works that are uploaded to Commons would not be a good idea. For point number 2 above, perhaps something like the following may work:

2. may be legally unenforceable. Depending upon the jurisdiction, copyright law may treat low-resolution and high-resolution copies as the same work.

--Gazebo (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gazebo:  modified per your suggestion. Thanks! --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep and deprecate We don't want new material with this tag, while keeping old one is OK. Yann (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Notice: You may be interested in participating in Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Ban certain custom licenses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete as other note, it is poorly written. The "the licensed material" is not defined. On a CC licence, that's "the work of copyright", which is the image at any resolution. What "resolution" does the licence refer to? Doesn't say. What do we do if someone uploads a higher resolution image? The restriction "Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work." is just legal nonsense. They could have written: "this licence only applies to the file 3000x2000 2.1MB uploaded to Commons on 25 May 2000" but you can't just impose random restrictions on people doing other things with other files. If folk are reluctant to delete this because the images are great and in-use, I can understand wanting to bend the rules, and would at a minimum want this template to contain a big Deprecated banner to stop anyone else using it. -- Colin (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Amazed to note you folks are still going on about that license. Say whatever you want to say about the wording, but the intent was clear. I won't reiterate it as it is archived several times. I'd be amendable to adding clarity if that helps alleviate some of the angst over it, but I suspect the argument over clarity is just a means to another end. With that said, I won't be aggrieved in the least if you delete them all. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saffron Blaze: Thanks for joining this conversation. I wasn't around for the previous ones, sorry. Is there any chance you could change the images to use a more standard license, such as CC-BY-SA, please? That would solve this issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral While I think that the spirit of this licence maybe good, as it would encourage some organisations to try out free licences, and see that they do not "destroy their business". It is unlikely to be legally enforceable. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Now that we have Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013.05.18.-35-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Krabbenspinne-Xysticus audax-Weibchen.jpg there is a precedent that we can use. Apparently the text outside the licence is only a request. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 02:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question If "licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work" obviously mean not resolutions higher than the shared file, what about upscaling of this copy? Does that count as "higher resolution"? That prevents some forms of remixing. -Geraki ^T_L^G 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I believe that this is a poorly written way of saying that, if we use a plain reading of the text we get that the licencee may not use the higher resolution version, but may make a higher resolution version, and then they have to relicence it under CC-BY-SA. The bigger question is that the licencee then is not required to pass on that same restriction that has been added outside of CC-BY-SA licence. So the licencee of a licencee, who has not agreed to this term may use the higher resolution version. And if the original licencee has upscaled the work, then even if they will be required to pass on the additional restriction, the originally higher resolution version may actually be smaller than the upscaled version. In other words, the only reason why I do not vote delete is because I agree that something in the spirit of this licence should be available... but as it currently stands it is a good attempt, but completely unenforceable. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question I had been under the impression that this restriction being spelled out in a license was unnecessary because a lower-resolution copy of an image isn't the same work as the original-resolution image, and only the lower-resolution one is the one being freely licensed. Is that not how it works? My reasoning as to how this applies to a scenario: Alice takes a photo (work A), and makes a lower-resolution copy of it (work B). She publishes both, the high-resolution work A with no license (all rights reserved) and the low-resolution work B under a license that requires derivative works to be released under the same license. (Work B could be considered a derivative work of work A, but she's free to release it under a free license because she's the only person who's had creative input in the chain of derivation, and if she hadn't released work A at all, then work B would have been the original release.) Bob then takes work B and creates a derivative work of it, including upscaling and interpolating it to a higher total size (resolution) than work A, and necessarily releases it under the same license because it's a derivative work of work B, not of work A (directly, anyway), and this is fine. However, if Carol now comes along and takes work A (the high-resolution copy released nonfreely by Alice) and creates a derivative work from it, involving resizing or cropping it to be smaller than work B (the low-resolution copy released freely by Alice), and releases that at all (i.e. regardless of license she applies, or lack thereof) without permission from Alice, that's a copyright violation because it's a derivative work of a work (work A) that wasn't released under a free license. Right? (Note that I haven't specified any particular license here, because I thought somebody said above that CC (sic) is not a file license, but I can't find anyone saying that now—maybe I read it in a similar discussion on another page.) ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭ 23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That is how almost everyone on Wikimedia Commons interpreted it, until CC came out with guidance that low-res and high-res versions are the same work. While that guidance has no legal bearing in a court of law, it is nonetheless the expert opinion of one or more lawyers, so it deserves to be treated at least as a serious legal possibility. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @PointyOintment: Think about the reason behind {{PD-scan}} if somebody scanning a public domain work were creating a new work rather than being a simple representation of an already existing one, we would have to delete lots of stuff on Commons. So it is actually beneficial for our project that the law is most likely the way it is. One other thing that people do not talk about is the state of this licence in "sweat of a brow" countries. Some countries (for example UK) add copyright protection not only to creative elements, but also to the elements which took effort to make. So let's say that in order to make a small resolution of one's image a person has gone through different algorithms, perhaps running metrics to see how much entropy is preserved, etc. I would assume that those countries would actually allow for the scaled down version to be considered a different work. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, deprecate if kept. Licenses apply to works, not files. Poorly written, if any meaning of it is valid then it restricts some sorts of remixing. -Geraki ^T_L^G 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question If it is decided that this template should be deleted (rather than deprecated), am I right in expecting that one of the following things has to happen to each and every file on which it is currently used?: a) the file gets relicensed (assuming the copyright owner is contactable and willing), b) the template gets substituted into the file's description before it is deleted, c) the file is deleted for having no license. ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭ 23:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends, if the file is available under a different licence, then there is little problem, we can remove this template or substitute it into the page (maybe somebody will find it useful to agree to these terms even if Commons as the project will decide that they are not acceptable). If this is the only licence on the file, that is where we have a problem. I am actually opposed to grandfathering old files in the event we decide that this is an unacceptable licence (note, I still think that we should try to find a way to make it acceptable, but that doesn't stop me from thinking hypothetically). This is not the same thing as grandfathering files without OTRS before that system was implemented, because those still serve the mission of the project, and it is not the same thing as grandfathering GFDL, because in that case it is a free licence, just one that the majority of users found distasteful. In this particular case the argument is that this is either a non-free licence at all or not a licence at all. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Invalid restriction, invalid license. --Krd 10:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krd: Now that we have Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013.05.18.-35-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Krabbenspinne-Xysticus audax-Weibchen.jpg it is clear that the restrictions that users place are only requests. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Since it appears that it is likely that this vote will go towards deletion I have started another similar deletion request. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013.05.18.-35-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Krabbenspinne-Xysticus audax-Weibchen.jpg. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Restrictions in this template are giving me a BY-NC-SA place, so not allowed here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liuxiny970226: Is this a joke? There is no mention about NC in that licence. BY-SA licence is very explicitely Commercial Reuse friendly. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, reluctantly. Saffron Blaze's pictures are of high quality, including the 170 (per above) uploaded with SB's custom resolution-specific license (File:The Eagle's Nest Trail.jpeg and later uploads). But the CC licenses were carefully constructed by expert lawyers over many years and iterations. I think it unlikely that this informal license will work as well; it may be legally meaningless. While I'm not opposed to contributors writing their own licenses, I think the amateur licenses should need professional legal review (the WMF has some experts) and acceptance by the community, before they are used. If anyone can upload under amateur-written un-peer-reviewed licenses, many of those licenses will have bizarre and unintended effects, and we will waste a lot of time figuring them out. We will also sometimes have to delete large number of images uploaded under problematic amateur licenses, upsetting contributors who would otherwise have used a standard license. Sadly, I think we need to sacrifice these 170 images to this principle, in order to avoid worse consequences down the road.

I have no objection to anyone adding normative requests for notification etc., but these should not be legal conditions. Finally, I think we need legal advice here. HLHJ (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is a consensus that this license cannot be used in the future and should be deleted. A noticeable notice should be added to the license explaining the decision taken here, then all instances of the license should be substituted, and at last the license should be deleted altogether. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]