Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8 edit

Template:DualLicenceWithCC-ByND-3.0-IntEng edit

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 keep Erik9 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DualLicenceWithCC-ByND-3.0-IntEng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As evidenced by User talk:Unionhawk/Archives/2009/May#No-derivs licensing, it's kind of pointless to have a template that lets you release contributions under an invalid license. (The no-derivs condition is not allowed on Wikipedia.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but this is a dual-license with a valid license. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:11, 9 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 per my comments above. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:21, 12 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.