I really, really wonder if characters like this should be here? The whole point of "public domain" is FREE TO USE (which, by very definition, means "without restrictions" so...) and these types of characters are NOT that! Thoughts from others?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:50, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Since I've had this argument with you before (as I recall, you kept deleting the "Open Source" tag from my characters because they didn't use the arbitrarily worded "paragraph" that you favor), I must assume that you are either a) ignorant as to the nature of the CC-BY-SA license, or b) are prejudiced against it.
CC-BY-SA is one of two licenses, along with CC-BY, which is considered a "Free Cultural Work " It is routinely accepted as an Open Source/Open Content license in virtually every other community that cares about such things and, more to the point, is considered one of the most free of those licenses.
The license for this character imposes no restrictions on use, including commercial use, outside of the requirement for attribution and that it be released under the same license, meaning that no later works can be copyrighted. Since you are OK with the requirement for attribution in "the paragraph", I cannot fathom why you are not OK with this, unless it is because you would prefer that people be able to write stories with these characters and then copyright them, thus preventing other people from using those stories in the future. The Share-Alike (SA) provision actually makes this license, in my view, far superior to "the paragraph" since it keeps all derivative works firmly in the land of open source. If you only want characters on here that can have later appearances copyrighted, then be my guest, and delete all of my characters, and all the other CC-BY-SA licensees. You should also announce this policy on the front page, or in some other conspicuous place, so that people who are interested in Open Source content creation beyond your very narrow definition will know not to bother.
Whatever you decide, please stop insinuating that this very simple, straight-forward CC-BY-SA license is putting all kinds of bizarre and restrictive burdens on others usages. Your favored "paragraph" is much longer, more confusing, and more legally questionable than this license. Illuminarch (talk) 13:38, September 8, 2016 (UTC)
Lol - I've never said "bizarre" or whatever else and I've never insinuated anything. I've flat-out said: I think it's weird to say any sort of restriction. I don't agree with attribution either but, I know briniging that up is gonna get everyone in a mess so, I let it go. The paragraph is the paragraph, it's not going anywhere. So, I went with "the rest" and your precious share-alike was one of "the rest." I'm also not "deciding" anything, that's why I started a discussion. If I had ever planned on simply "deciding" on my own, your characters already wouldn't be here but, they are. Ta-da!Cebr1979 (talk) 17:17, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
"If you only want characters on here that can have later appearances copyrighted... You should also announce this policy on the front page, or in some other conspicuous place, so that people who are interested in Open Source content creation beyond your very narrow definition will know not to bother" Oh, dear. You should really read the FAQ section I keep directing you to (where it has stated since 2009 and was not written by me) that "each story these characters appear in is copyrighted to its creators." You should also stop with playing the victim. You're more dramatic than daytime TV. "Policy?" Hmm... looks to me more like we're having a discussion. Should a "policy" arise from this discussion, common sense would dictate said policy would be noted somewhere, no? You don't think so? I do. "...and all the other CC-BY-SA licensees..." Well, my first sentence in the beginning of this thread. Like, the very first. Numero uno. Stated, "...characters like this..." It did not state, "I'm picking on Illuminarch and want his characters gone but, not any of the other share-alikes, only his." But, I'm glad you told me to remove the others should yours get removed. I wouldn't have figured that out on my own... o_O Also, since your first response to me in this thread uses the word "ignorant," you can take your bruised feelings from your post below and find some place without sunshine to shove them. Breakfast was great, no need to ask.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:47, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding "the other CC-BY-SA licensees": If you wouldn't mind helping me out with something, Illuminarch (or anyone else who sees this...): Other than yours, which other characters on here have that? I'm trying to get some stuff done and I'm going cross-eyed looking through all of these profiles individually. Thanks in advance if you have the time and are willing. :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 22:27, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
We have plenty of characters on here with weird copyright situations. Since the creator is actually eager for people to use them I don't really see them as a problem. JoeFrankenstein (talk) 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
"We have plenty of characters on here with weird copyright situations..."
...and people wonder why I get frustrated. Yes, Joe. We sure do have "plenty of characters on here with weird copyright situations!" Do you not understand the very purpose of this entire thread?Cebr1979 (talk) 14:04, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

It’s the equivalent of a CC BY-SA license. It’s free and open, and new users can alter the character however they like but need to continue the trend of freeness and openness. Wikimedia allows such licenses. It’s fine by me. They can even completely remove the character from the Ascension Epoch universe. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 08:58, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

When talking PUBLIC DOMAIN, though... Should there be any restrictions at all?
Does that not completely defeat the purpose?
If you could use "Jack Horner" BUT: only if you let others build upon whatever pants you put him in and every single time you use him... even 100 years from now... you have to credit his creator (whom I know is "unknown" but... you know what I mean...)...
It's just so bizarre!
Are they really "free to use" or are they "you can use them but, only if you follow my rules?"
The whole point of "public domain" is: EVERYONE owns them so NO RULES!Cebr1979 (talk) 09:02, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
I mean, I'm fine with including characters that require "the paragraph" and I'm okay with characters that require creator credit but... anything more than that and we start making a mockery of everything "public domain" stands for!Cebr1979 (talk) 09:06, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

If there’s not even a need for attribution, I guess that’s the equivalent of the public domain, but when most of the OS characters require attribution in the form of a whole paragraph of text, they’re not properly in the public domain. We’re really now the Public Domain and Open Source Superheroes wiki. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 09:09, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

“No rules” would also mean no need for attribution, and we’d need to remove a tremendous number of characters from the site. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 09:10, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Since this wiki was founded, it's always been the Public Domain and Open Source Superheroes wiki. That obviously wasn't the name but, that is how the place was set up.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:13, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Jenny Everywhere was the first (or maybe the second) female character added to this wiki!Cebr1979 (talk) 09:16, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
(Addendum: Second. Miss Masque was the first.)Cebr1979 (talk) 09:21, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Requiring that a character be “shared alike” still falls within the boundaries of an open source. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 09:18, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Does it fall within "public domain" as in "do what you want?"Cebr1979 (talk) 09:21, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Do we let pages sit around and tell people what age group is only allowed to read the stories the character appears in? Do we tell people they have to remember to include a zip code? Do we tell people where to post the finished or unfinished product? Like, we're already beyond ridiculous!Cebr1979 (talk) 09:28, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Why are you equating a CC-BY-SA license with these examples? Do I require the ZIP code be posted? Do I make specifications about which "age groups" a story must appeal to? No, I do not. So, if you have a problem with those characters, then why not start this discussion on their talk pages? Better yet, start a general discussion that would be called to the attention of every member on the Wiki. Starting this discussion here not only seems like you have some sort of axe to grind with me, but also suggests you are not interested in getting the opinions of most of this Wiki's contributors. As it is, I only discovered this discussion because ElyaqimNYC typed "Ascension Epoch" in his comment, and I was alerted by Mention. If you are actually interested in building consensus, then this general, far-ranging issue should not be debated on the talk page of a particular article. Illuminarch (talk) 15:31, September 8, 2016 (UTC)
The point is that being in the public domain and having an open source are two different things. There is an overlap when an open source carries no restrictions, not even on attribution, but otherwise, none of the open source characters is truly in the public domain. And the counterexamples you bring up don’t even seem to really have an open source to me, and thus probably shouldn’t be here (except that in the case of Rooby, the site for reposting seems more a preference than a requirement). —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 09:52, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
"...none of the open source characters is truly in the public domain..." Cue the broken record here but... Yep! I've had this talk before! Lemme find it!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:09, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Here it is!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:14, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
"...probably shouldn’t be here..." Ok, so... are we in agreement or no?Cebr1979 (talk) 10:44, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
On characters with restrictions on the audience age and on the postal code, yes. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 10:57, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
But how do we make that work? For me: the paragraph and (even though I don't agree with it, personally) creator credit are as far as I wanna go! Anything more than that? Not for this wiki, is my thought.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:06, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
I guess that would be your prerogative as administrator, but the “share alike” restriction would not place a character outside the open‐source designation (as opposed to the postal‐code restriction and audience‐age restriction) as far as I’m aware, so you would be allowing some open‐source characters and not others based on the presence or absence of a share‐alike criterion. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 11:46, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Well... No and no!
I've already told you I'm not gonna be "that type" of admin who just says this or that, that's why I've started this talk and... "so you would be allowing some open‐source characters and not others based on the presence or absence of a share‐alike criterion..." I don't really get that? What I'm saying is (and what I've said is): I'd be allowing open source characters based on the presence or absence of "the paragraph" and/or creator credit.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:57, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • You would be allowing some open‐source characters and not others based on the presence or absence of a share‐alike criterion.
  • “Well… No and no! … I’d be allowing open source characters based on the presence or absence of ‘the paragraph’ and/or creator credit.”
You seem to be making some distinction between my statement and yours but I don’t see much of a difference between them (i.e., we seem to be in agreement). Either way, some open‐source characters would be allowed and others not. I personally think that’s reasonable and if you and others in this discussion want it, then go for it (although I would recommend a clarifying statement somewhere that certain kinds of open‐source character are not allowed). —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 12:26, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Well, ya! The defining statement would be: anything more than the paragraph and creator credit is a no-no!Cebr1979 (talk) 12:30, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
technically "the paragraph" isn't even legally binding. It's the equivalent of a pinky promise by the creator that they won't sue later. Creative Commons licences are actual legally binding terms of agreement that say that as long as you abide by the license you can't be sued. So I don't see why creative commons characters would be a no-no when from a legal stand point they would be the safest characters to use. JoeFrankenstein (talk) 12:01, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with JoeFrankenstein. And not only that, but the meaning of "the paragraph" is open to argument in court. Certainly it's not written in legal language and crafted by lawyers the way a Creative Commons license is. What does "All Rights Reversed" even mean? Nothing, in legal terms. It's a cute slogan, but it has no statutory meaning. Illuminarch (talk) 13:39, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
Going back to our FAQ, I'm not here to discuss laws. I'm discussing ease of use with these characters. If you want characters that require your changes being used by others, fine. So be it. I asked if they should be here and apparently you people think they should. Well, voila: I guess they remain.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:00, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of Edit on 9/9/2016

Cebr1979: Your comment for the reversion you made of my most recent edits is both rude and unhelpful. What, specifically, am I not allowed to do? I have looked at the FAQ , and the closest thing I can find is that this:

Also, please do not post which Creative Commons Liscense a character is using by name or link to the public deed.

If this is your complaint, so be it. If it is not, then please specify what it is I am "not allowed to do."

While we're on the subject, if the FAQ is binding, then please explain why you have removed the "Open Source" tags from my CC-BY-SA characters, when the FAQ says, with regard to Creative Commons entries :

This category is not for all Creative Commons Liscensed characters, only certain ones.

This category is only for the  characters with any of the following licenses: 
( CC BY-ND ) Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 
( CC BY-NC ) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
( CC BY-NC-SA ) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 
( CC BY-NC-ND ) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 

This category is not for characters with the following Creative Commons Licenses: 
( CC BY ) Creative Commons Attribution 
( CC BY-SA ) Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 

Some of the characters  in the Category:Open_Source_Characters section have one of these Licenses. 

To my eyes, this states pretty clearly that CC BY and CC BY-SA characters belong in the Open Source category. I asked you this over a year ago on my talk page , and you never gave a satisfactory response. Since you now want to jettison all CC characters as being insufficiently "open source", and since you are now the Wiki administrator, the least you can do is explain your reasoning. Illuminarch (talk) 16:35, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's what you're not supposed to do: name them or link to them. I did explain to you the open source thing a long time ago: if there are restrictions (other than the paragraph - which is not "my paragraph," by the way hahaha), they don't go in there. That's the explanation and it's never changed. Are those words too big for you?Cebr1979 (talk) 16:51, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
I'll take that share-alike thing out and then there will be less confusion in the future.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:00, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
Actually... No, I won't because I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. I took your CC-BY-SA characters out of the O/S characters group because they don't go there and there's nothing, anywhere that says they do. They go here... which is where I put them. Apparently the words were too big for you. I'll re-write it for you later today and leave an easier version on your talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:07, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
See: one is a subcategory of the other. I vaguely remember explaining that to you before but, that's not important. What matters is that you're getting it explained to you now. Cheerio! I'm heading out for breakfast.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:17, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that you are temperamentally suited to the role of administrator. You seem unable to communicate with people who disagree with you without insulting them, you don't want to clarify the forum rules when they are obviously confusing or misleading (otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation), and you have no grasp of basic wiki etiquette. I would rather see these pages deleted than put up with your insults. Illuminarch (talk) 17:39, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
...and I'd rather see them deleted than have to put up with your -what do I even call it?- logic, I guess? that just because something doesn't go over there, it must go where you want it. That's so non-sensical, it made my head spin. Saying the share-alike attribution doesn't go in the CC category in no way, shape or form means they must go in the OS one. The fact that both attribution licenses are stated to not go there and the fact we have a creator credit sub-category of the OS one... Sorry if you think I came off as insulting, I can certainly be blunt and sarcasm is my favourite language but... I don't really know how you got from A to B with that whole thing (this time or the last time we discussed it) other than applying "I want my way so I'll come up with a way to get it" logic (which really isn't logic).Cebr1979 (talk) 17:46, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've updated the Creative Commons section in our FAQ. Please read it. However, in short form: share-alikes and attribution can stay but, that's it. No more non-commercial or only using a character in an all-ages story or other weird nonsense. I've deleted the pages with those stipulations (except I did leave the one that requires a zip code be mentioned because that's not too far off from creator credit so... and Ultraterrestrial, Tarraya, and Rooby the Human Robot have also remained 'cause... they're not too far off from share-alikes and I guess I'm in a good mood). Cheers, all! :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 07:18, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.