Wikiversity talk:Free license content

Commented out
I just commented out the link to the wikipedia essay that says you can't revoke our license. It's actually not true, because Wikipedia uses a license that it doesn't actually own, therefore it's bound by the terms of that license. On that license is proviso that say "the copyright holder can revoke or change the type of license being used. So, it can actually be done. It would be more precise to say that even though we can revoke the license, Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikiversity is under no obligation to host that content.  Necromonger  Wekeepwhatwekill 19:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two different aspects to this. According to, "the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time;".


 * The first part of this is that the license is perpetual. While a licensor may release their work under a different license or stop distributing the work themselves, Wikimedia has already accepted their work and redistributed it with a perpetual license. The licensor cannot take back their work and prevent Wikimedia from redistributing it. is more explicit that the license is "irrevocable".


 * So, the interpretation of Creative Commons licensing is correct in that someone publishing their own work elsewhere could change the license on that work. But for contributions to Wikiversity or Wikipedia, revocation of "our license", the license that Wikimedia accepts when the work is published, cannot be revoked. It's not a Creative Commons license issue at that point, but the Wikimedia application of the license. See for more information. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)