FANDOM


This is not a creative commons character. It's open source. Being released under a creative commons licence does not necessarily make it a creative commons work. Anyone can anything with this character, they simply need to credit the creator. This is no different than Captain Prodigy, Fraulein Efeu, or Cosmic Custodian (Earth-i).

Being released under a creative commons licence does  make it a creative commons work. Creative Commons is a waiver of certain specific rights, and by virtue of waiving those rights, the character becomes open-source.
This page specifically waives those right by stating and becomes a Creative Commons work:
Felidae by Vito Delsante is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.vitodelsante.com.

A Creative Commons character, should be defined as one that has certain rights waived by a Creative Commons license, like Felidae, which certainly meets that description.

Creative Commons is the easiest tool to waive those rights, to create Open Source characters, but not the only one. Open Source by nature includes Creative Commons and (L)GPL.
CodeAndReload (talk) 16:55, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

the character becomes open-source

Yes! Exactly!

Being released under the creative commons licence that Vito Delsante used is exactly what makes this character open-sourced! Once it is open sourced, it cannot be un-opened'.

This character is free to be used by anyone for anything at anytime.

That is the very definiton of open-source.

The Apollo City/Heroes and Henchmen characters remain creative commons characters because they were released under a different creative commons licence. Stating they cannot be altered or used in any way for monetary gain prevents them from being open-sourced.

Simply stating a creator must be credited does not change make the same preventions.

I really think you are making a big deal about something that doesn't need to be a big deal. The notes section of each character specifically indicates how each character needs to be used. I have copy and pasted those disclaimers PER VERBATUM from the site the characters were created on. The characters creators wrote those disclaimers themselves and you are changing them and making them more confusing.

Disclaimers for open-sourced characters are nothing new. They have been in the notes section of the characters profile for as long as this site has had open source characters. Other than crediting the creator, there is nothing different about Felidae over the original open-source character, Jenny Everywhere. The world has used her for over a decade now and the notes section of her profile has gotten the world by just fine.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:38, May 27, 2013 (UTC)


The deed-less version of the template the way it was used in this revision only adds a link to the public deed similiar to what was on vitodelsante.com and the categories.

I wasn't trying to change them and make them more confusing. The information is reworked from the Creative Commons public-deed when passing the deed parameter.

The notes section was left intact PER VERBATUM on that revision with some more semantic links to the vitodelsante.com WordPress categories. I don't know why the link to the actual license should be left off of the page. If a character is released under a certain license, it deserves at least a mention on the page.

As for why a character released under a Creative Commons license shouldn't be listed in a category for for listing of characters released under a Creative Commons license, I can't see.

  1. If you are browsing a Creative Commons category, don't you want to find a list of characters that have one of the Creative Commons license (cc-by, cc-by-sa, cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc, nd) ?
  1. A character should be left out of the category, because the description of how the license works is in a context with the character?

CodeAndReload (talk) 18:38, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Again, dude: Confusing!

What permissions beyond what scope need to be asked for? She can already be used by anyone for anything at anytime and anything can be done to her that anyone wants to do with her whenever they want to do whatever they decide to do what they want to do with her when they want to do it.

Why do you feel the need to add more?Cebr1979 (talk) 18:50, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

As for why a character released under a Creative Commons license shouldn't be listed in a category for for listing of characters released under a Creative Commons license, I can't see.

That is exactly what you are not understanding.

I did not create the Creative Commons Characters page for characters who are released under a creative commons licence. I created it for characters who remain somewhat-licenced due to stipulations on how they are used.

The Vito Delsante characters were released via a licence, yes. However, they were fully released and have nothing to do with said licence anymore.

The Apollo City and H&H characters are not the same. They were never really "released" per say... The licence used simply granted them "visitation rights" (for lack of a better metaphor).

This is explained in the Creative Commons page I created:

"Creative Commons Characters are characters created specifically for, or later made available for, use by anyone provided they follow one or more restrictions, as guided by the various Creative Commons Licenses (which can vary from character to character)."

I then went to the Open Source Characters page and edited the description that was there. It now reads: "Open Source Characters are characters created specifically for, or later made available for, use by anyone. The main difference between "Open Source" and "Public Domain" is that "Open Source" characters usually have a stipulation of including this paragraph (or a minor variation of) when they are used:

"The character of (Character Name) is available for use by anyone, with only one condition. This paragraph must be included in any publication involving (Character Name), in order that others may use this property as they wish. All rights reversed."

At times, no paragraph is needed however, at other times, creator citations (or other minor details) may also be needed. Each character must be checked individually." I'm not sure why this has to become more complicated?Cebr1979 (talk) 19:02, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

I did not create the Creative Commons Characters page for characters who are released under a creative commons licence. I created it for characters who remain somewhat-licenced due to stipulations on how they are used.

So it is for, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc-nd and cc-by-nd then?

I added the sentence 'Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.vitodelsante.com.'  because it was from Vito's website to be PER VERBATUM.

I'm confused, are you against or not against having a category for characters that fall into one of the six Creative Commons licenses and a category for each license? If it is an issue with that category, I'd be fine with Characters with a Creative Common License, instead of Creative Commons Characters, if that helps.

The ability to find characters with any of the six licenses or a specific license would be pretty handy.

As for the license, it because important in terms of compatible licenses for things like the GPL, because a waiver of rights other than what the organization lists is not necessarily considered compatible. I'm sure there are other considerations. CodeAndReload (talk) 19:25, May 27, 2013 (UTC) ==



It is for characters who are still protected by the Creative Commons licences. Felidae is not one of those characters. None of the Vito Delsante characters are.

Anymore. They've been fully released. They're open source now.

"The ability to find characters with any of the six licenses or a specific license would be pretty handy."

Yes, it would. That's why I started the Creative Commons page. You seem to have taken an interest in it. You're welcome.

In the future, please only add characters that still fall under a Creative Commons licence. You know, characters who have not been made open-sourced.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:45, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

As for the license, it because important in terms of compatible licenses for things like the GPL, because a waiver of rights other than what the organization lists is not necessarily considered compatible. I'm sure there are other considerations.

Again, dude: Confusing. Vito Delsante himself has said the character can be used by anyone for anything at anytime.

Definition of open-source.

I'm not against having anything in relation to any of the creative commons licences. If you want to start something like that, great! How can I help? I'd love to be a part of it! I mean that!

But Felidae (or any of the Delsante characters, for that matter) is not one of the characters that should be involved. She was released, fully and completely. She's no different than Rooby the Human Robot. In fact, she's even more open-sourcier than him! Lol

As for the GPL... Who cares? So long as Vito Delsante is credited, anyone can do anything at anytime with this character. Do you know someone at the General Public Licence who will have a problem with Vito Delsante being credited? Could I have their name and number?Cebr1979 (talk) 19:59, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna still disagree that the Delsante characters, were released under a cc-by-sa license.

As for how to help, the six license categories should be grouped into a 'by license' category, along with Share Alike and No Derivative Works like 'by date' and 'by publisher' are.

I'm going to start applying the template to the Apollo City characters, draft an OCAL template, and then eventually apply the CC template to the Heroes and Henchmen, and Vito Delsante characters. CodeAndReload (talk) 20:55, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

If you add the Delsante characters, I'll just take them out because you are being ridiculous.

The licence you keep quoting is the Share-Alike one: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

Delsante could care less if you share your resulting work of the characters he created. That's part of the boat you keep missing. ANYONE IS FREE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THESE CHARACTERS AT ANYTIME.

ANYONE IS FREE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THESE CHARACTERS AT ANYTIME.

ANYONE IS FREE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THESE CHARACTERS AT ANYTIME.

THEY ARE OPEN SOURCE! HAHAHACebr1979 (talk) 21:10, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Look, I did it all for you and it couldn't have been more easier.

Unlike your multiple pages that will give creators a headache because they will have to click a bajillion different links, it's all right here on one easy page: http://pdsh.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Characters

I just wanted to point something out to you here, I found this in the talk page of the Green Lama character bio:

"Thanks for bringing this to our attention.I have double checked the copyright records and confirmed the renewal status for Double Detective Magazines where Green Lama's literary appearances occurred. Our goal is to keep people informed about the copyright status of these characters and clear up misconceptions, so the changes to the page seemed appropriate. However, I did adjust the formatting to match the rest of the website by moving the content into the Notes section of the page instead of the character biography. Crimsoncrusader 00:19, April 17, 2012 (UTC)"

I'm not sure why having the info in the notes section is not good enough for you and you feel all of this extra stuff needs to be done (causing a potential creator an endless amount of wasted time following 6 or 7 different links that I've already summed up on one page) but... it seems like it's good enough for our admin... Why not you?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:01, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

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