Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucent Public License
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:JLaTondre. — JIP | Talk 05:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a copy and paste of a license template. -- Kjkolb 03:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyvio. - Sensor 04:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's not from a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant; a copyright violation is a copyright violation, regardless of who the copyright is owned by. However, as it happens, I don't think this is a copyright violation, since the article is copied from opensource.org, and they state that the contents of their website are licensed under Academic Free License v. 2.1, a quote of which is as follows: "1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following: A. to reproduce the Original Work in copies; B. to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work; C. to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public; D. to perform the Original Work publicly; and F. to display the Original Work publicly." So I think that's actually quite acceptable to display that... (Well, as it were, not quite, because the article didn't include proper attribution and whatnot, but I just added the missing copyright notice just to keep things simple.)
Anyway, I don't think there's any way an article like this is going to be rewritten into a non-copyrighted form, so I think it should just be deleted. This is pretty damn far from encyclopedic material and should be deleted, but a copyvio it isn't, as far as I can tell. -- Captain Disdain 07:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- (Grgh... I must've been real tired when I wrote that; it's barely comprehensible.) Ahem. I'm changing my vote to keep per JLaTondre's excellent rewrite -- it's not a hugely notable subject, but it's notable enough, and seems pretty solid now (particularly as the license obviously has some controversial features). Wish I was wrong like this more often. -- Captain Disdain 09:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the speedy delete criteria is for commercial content providers and that is what was voted. -- Kjkolb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant; a copyright violation is a copyright violation, regardless of who the copyright is owned by. However, as it happens, I don't think this is a copyright violation, since the article is copied from opensource.org, and they state that the contents of their website are licensed under Academic Free License v. 2.1, a quote of which is as follows: "1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following: A. to reproduce the Original Work in copies; B. to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work; C. to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public; D. to perform the Original Work publicly; and F. to display the Original Work publicly." So I think that's actually quite acceptable to display that... (Well, as it were, not quite, because the article didn't include proper attribution and whatnot, but I just added the missing copyright notice just to keep things simple.)
- Comment: it's not from a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is copy/vio-Dakota 06:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Lucent Public License is listed on Open-source license. That page also contains links to several articles on such licenses (including the Academic Free License referenced by Captain Disdain above) and there is a Category:Open source licenses. I have attempted a rewrite to make it encyclopedic. It still needs work, but hopefully it's enough of a stub to keep. If not, than it should be a Redirect to Plan 9 from Bell Labs which refers to the license vs. a Delete. JLaTondre 03:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the above, and the massive rewrite of the article, keep. It's one thing to blindly cut & paste the text of the license; it's another to explain what the license is, which is what the new version of the article does. - Sensor 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please it does not look like a copyvio to me Yuckfoo 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As above. `Trollderella 19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.