![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 September 25. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software license, used on only a handful of projects - most of which are minor coding projects by the license author. Only secondary source is a post to debian-legal several years ago inquiring as to its suitability as a DFSG-approved license; there are no reliable secondary sources. External coverage appears to consist entirely of user-generated content or blog posts, from a look at Google. Previous AfD basically predicated the keep on the one source which says that the FSF has looked at it, but given that the FSF's job is to look at licenses this is hardly a stand-out feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 September 25. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software license, used on only a handful of projects - most of which are minor coding projects by the license author. Only secondary source is a post to debian-legal several years ago inquiring as to its suitability as a DFSG-approved license; there are no reliable secondary sources. External coverage appears to consist entirely of user-generated content or blog posts, from a look at Google. Previous AfD basically predicated the keep on the one source which says that the FSF has looked at it, but given that the FSF's job is to look at licenses this is hardly a stand-out feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply