File:GLAMhack23 Local Contexts.pdf

This file is licensed under/contains material licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 (see page 11, "INDIGENOUS DATA GOVERNANCE"), but that violates our licensing policy as it does not allow for derivative works or commercial use. On top of that, it does not appear that uploader is actually the author of this work, so the stated license of CC-BY-SA 4.0 cannot be accepted on the basis of own work.

I also have significant doubt that the logo for "Local Contexts", which is present on every slide, is freely licensed; no valid free license appears in the pdf for it and I cannot find one. The File:Local Contexts.svg on Commons is extracted from this document, which would be circular in nature and ultimately misleading if this document is not COM:L compliant.

See also: Ticket:2024032910006194. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Keep dear Red-tailed hawk, the slides have been produced in the frame of the project Open Science for arts design and music (I am the PI) and the GLAMHack (as written in the title); both projects release all their content under CC BY or CC BY-SA. Please note that the slides are released with an open license, not the logos; the license does not apply to the logos (as it happens with all the documents with the Wikimedia marks); the local contexts marks are logos. best regards, iopensa (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iopensa:

1. Would you please explain the text on page eleven ("Indigenous Data Governance") that says This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (emphasis mine)? These restrictions are incompatible with hosting on Commons, as Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses explicitly notes, so we'd need evidence that the licensing condition that is stated in the presentation itself is not the only license under which this has been released.
2. You have written above that the slides have been produced in the frame of the project Open Science for arts design and music (I am the PI) and the GLAMHack (as written in the title). I don't see your name in the presentation anywhere; can you expand upon what you mean by this?
3. You have written that the license does not apply to the logos (as it happens with all the documents with the Wikimedia marks). Perhaps that is true, but the Wikipedia puzzle globe is released under the free license of CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported, so I'm really not sure why the two cases are analogous when Local Contexts claims to reserve all rights to its logos, notice icons, and template texts. That is, unless I'm confused here: are the logos, which are prominently displayed on several slides, in the public domain for lack of originality?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination, under an unacceptable license for Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)