The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keepErik9 (
talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
But the no-derivs licensing is worthless; it's no better than releasing only under
GFDL. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not worthless at all. In maybe most applications, the GFDL makes reuse impossible - is anyone really going to reprint the whole license just so they can use one bit of text? On the other hand, many people probably want to reprint an article in a book without changing it, and this license would allow them to do that. If this license is being used as it says, then it is making our articles freer, even if only marginally so.
Weak keep. This template says explicitly that it's a part of a dual license rather than a sole license, though it needs to do so more prominently. So long as it's used as a grant of supplemental rights, along with an acceptable free license, there's no policy violation here. However, this specific licensing isn't really something that ought to be encouraged by Wikipedia, so this is a weak keep at best. —
Gavia immer (
talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NOHARM; just because it doesn't violate policy doesn't mean it should be kept. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I fixed it up to be like our other dual-license templates, and specifically mentioned that its alongside the GFDL. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as valid use. The GFDL is substantially less free than most other free licenses due to the requirement to reprint the license verbatim. Therefore, multilicensing with a CC licence of any time is fine.
Stifle (
talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keepErik9 (
talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
But the no-derivs licensing is worthless; it's no better than releasing only under
GFDL. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not worthless at all. In maybe most applications, the GFDL makes reuse impossible - is anyone really going to reprint the whole license just so they can use one bit of text? On the other hand, many people probably want to reprint an article in a book without changing it, and this license would allow them to do that. If this license is being used as it says, then it is making our articles freer, even if only marginally so.
Weak keep. This template says explicitly that it's a part of a dual license rather than a sole license, though it needs to do so more prominently. So long as it's used as a grant of supplemental rights, along with an acceptable free license, there's no policy violation here. However, this specific licensing isn't really something that ought to be encouraged by Wikipedia, so this is a weak keep at best. —
Gavia immer (
talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NOHARM; just because it doesn't violate policy doesn't mean it should be kept. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I fixed it up to be like our other dual-license templates, and specifically mentioned that its alongside the GFDL. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as valid use. The GFDL is substantially less free than most other free licenses due to the requirement to reprint the license verbatim. Therefore, multilicensing with a CC licence of any time is fine.
Stifle (
talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.