[00:01:11] 3MediaWiki-extensions-TimedMediaHandler, Multimedia: Attempting to play a video when fullscreen mode is previously enabled on an element nested below the element will cause the video to be played but not being visible - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89684#1042631 (10Rillke) - We could possibly use ht... [00:15:09] That files with multiple licenses ("[object]: PD-old; photo: CC BY-SA 4.0", …) have the least restrictive license displayed in the MV is a known issue, right? Couldn't find a related bug … [01:43:38] 3MediaWiki-Uploading, Possible-Tech-Projects, Multimedia: Add support for KML/KMZ filetype - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T28059#1042735 (10Rschen7754) It is hard to say, since this is (according to my understanding) a security issue, and because it is not clear how Wikidata will affect this. [02:41:25] FDMS: showing the most permissive license is a feature [02:42:08] not being able to differentiate between a license for the photo and a license for the object is a shortcoming of the current Commons metadata system [02:43:25] see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Machine-readable_data#Copyright_information_of_underlying_content and the complete lack of interest that generated [02:43:25] tgr: So … will this be fixed? [02:43:59] you should probably be asking that at #wikimedia-commons :) [02:44:43] I certainly don't plan to make sense of license-object relations with the way they are recorded now on the description pages [02:46:12] on one hand I agree, but on the other one right now there are just lots of copyvios being committed by the MV itself [02:46:52] which could be solved by switching from displaying the least restrictive to the most restrictive license [02:47:28] I don't think that would improve anything from a legal point of view [02:48:03] we could just not show a license when there is more than one [02:48:32] but that would kind of suck, given that in most cases those are just harmless multilicensed images [02:48:38] exactly [02:49:11] it would be better if someone fixed the templates [02:49:22] which is IMO not that complicated [02:49:53] this is why I actually looked for the bug in phab: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Crystal_Clear_app_email.svg&diff=150281674&oldid=147810908 [02:49:57] no template [02:50:51] but what kind of damage would it cause to switch to displaying the most restrictive license? [02:51:02] oh well, something like that is never going to be handled correctly [02:51:26] people would get lots of less-than-user-friendly licenses, like GFDL [02:51:56] sometimes we would show non-free licenses over free images which have been multilicensed CC-NC [02:52:44] and it would be still a copyright violation, technically, any time we get the license wrong [02:53:26] well, the least restrictive license still has to be compatible with all the others [02:53:33] *least restrictive free license [02:53:55] NC/ND licenses should of course always be ignored [02:54:25] not really [02:55:04] scultpure is CC-NC, photo is CC-BY, claims FOP -> we show CC-NC for the photo, we just committed copyfraud [02:55:38] a sculpture cannot be NC if there is FOP [02:55:57] the sculpture itself can [02:56:23] … how? [02:56:54] sorry [02:57:04] of course, 3D restrictions, … [02:57:38] well, FOP means you can make a photo [02:57:52] it does not stop the original artwork from having copyright [02:58:33] very true [02:58:42] that copyright is usually included in the description in a way that *probably* does not use a license template [02:58:59] but I would be willing to bet there are exceptions to that [02:59:32] anyway, telling reusers to use GFDL is an act of hostility [02:59:40] I would really rather avoid that [02:59:42] indeed [03:00:12] it would be useful to be able to use