Talk:License compatibility

Link problem

The first reference link has a problem. It goes to a landing page that has a link labeled "read the entire article here" more or less. The problem is, that link just redirects to the same landing page. There's no apparent way to actually navigate to the complete article.

This link needs to be fixed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.163.126 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Results of combining licenses

How does license "merging" work? Is it correct to say that when two or more licenses are combined, the resulting license is the union of all the single licenses' restrictions? --Abdull (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Some licenses don't allow additional restrictions, and thus can't be combined at all with others that impose them. RossPatterson (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Combining GPL and BSDl

The related statement in the article is not correct. The BSD license does not permit sub-licensing, so the license of all downstream code is granted by the original contributor only. Relicensing is forbidden by law (by default) and as it is not explicitly permitted by the BSDl, the license for BSD code cannot be changed to GPL without explicit permission from the author.

A work that is a combination from BSDl code and GPL code thus would contain parts that are not licensed under GPL. A problem, that could be solved by thinking of a "collective work" created from the BSD and GPL parts..... --Schily (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this up as well. I think the parenthetical should be removed or supported with a cite, as I am reasonably certain it is untrue. If a GPL licensed project reuses some BSD licensed code, the BSD licensed code does not itself become GPL licensed -- the author(s) of the GPL project are not copyright holders on the BSD code, and cannot change it's licensing terms simply because they desire to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.113.22 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Combining LGPL and GPL

GPL and LGPL code cannot be combined without problems, so the article is wrong here:

The GPL and the LGPL are incompatible. A combination is only possible as the LGPL permits to relicense the LGPL code under GPL. This however is an irreversible change to the local copy of the library under LGPL. After you did that, you cannot use the same library anymore with other code that is not compatible to the GPL, as your local copy of the license is now under GPL. Schily (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The article states that already, doesn`t it? "[...]and LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole)." --89.0.18.35 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the article does not explain why GPL and LGPL are incompatible to each other. Schily (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The quality of the article is not sufficient

Most claims in the article are from laymen and have only references to claims from other laymen.

According to Eben Moglen, the FSF webpages about license compatibility was written by Richard Stallman (a legal layman) and contains false claims based on false assumptions on license compatibility. An attempt from Moglen to ask Stallman to fix the false claims did not result in changes on the FSF website.

As a result, most of the claims in the article are based on unreliable sources and need to be removed.

I recommend to rewrite the article by removing claims from laymen like e.g. David Wheeler that are not verified by citations from reliable sources from experts.

Regarding reliable sources, there are some lawyers that publish in the open and that can be seen as reliable sources:

• Lawrence Rosen, who wrote a free book on OpenSource Licensing and who acts as advisor for OpenSource.org

• Lothar Determan, who is a pofessor of law (it seems simulataneously) at FU-Berlin and University of San Francisco. His published papers have many citations to other papers from other experts.

• Andreas Metzger and the related lawyer's office that supports Harald Welte.

Schily (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide formated references so that the different and conflicting existing interpretations are represented better. cheers Shaddim (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC) (PS: Please resist the urge to change the article yourself, I know you are yourself personally involved in this license debate. Please wait on feedback from other non-involved WP authors but you are very welcome to provide independent material on this discussion page.)

Your formulation is suitable to convey a completely false impression. In the past, I have been forced by OpenSource enemies (Debian) to inform myself about legal facts in this area and I did this by talking with various specialist lawyers. So I call me an informed person. How would you call yourself? Are you suitable to discuss this topic? Schily (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure your are more knowledgeable than me. But that's not the point, you are involved personally what is according to WP policies a risk/problem. Therefore, we should act carefully here, to fulfil the neutral-point-of-view policy. Best regards and open for your proposals. Shaddim (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that I am less biased than other people who already added text here. Schily (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Then, let's keep us this high standard and just improve the text. Propose references and texts and we will balance the text. Shaddim (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I started with some annotations.... in general, the main articles appears like a novell and not like a WP article. A WP Article should not be mainly a collection of opinions but a collection of verifyable facts. Schily (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. The main goal of wikipedia is reproducable, check able content not the "truth". There is in many domains no conclusive decision available what is correct or wrong; like this complicated license compatibility domain (court rulings are missing). So the best what we can do represent the various positions of relevant specialist and organization in a transparent and balanced way, so that reader can make up their own mind. While some of your annotations are correct, at least one is unneeded: there is only the position of the FSF is given, no better source required .Shaddim (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are mistaken: WP aims to be an encycloipedia and an encyclopedia is not a comment or the opinion of the authors. In an encyclopedia, authors need to step back and just point to verifiable and credible sources. Schily (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Also please note that the FSF must be seen differently from entities like "OpenSource.org" as the FSF is a vendor of licenses and thus cannot make neutral claims. It is also important to regard the remark from Moglen who explained that in special the claims on license compatibility on the FSF website are incorrect. Schily (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Schily, you have not to tell me about the many existing conflicts of interest here: rest assure that I'm aware of them, e.g. the FSF's interest in pushing their own interpretation but also your interest in pushing your interpretation about compatibility. As there is no definitive agreement, we will present the various interpretation with due balance. Just provide independent/third party sources here and other non-involved authors will try to balance the article. Shaddim (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Collective works

I removed some false claims about collective works. Note that the GPL ends at work level and as a collective work combines two works, the GPL only applies to the previous GPLd work. Schily (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Schily, could you please give in detail explanation (and refs) what is your problem with which definition part. I have nothign to work with or a chance to improve it, just your full revert. Also, I would highly appreciate if you would switch to a more productive WP authoring style reducing your the number of non-constructive full reverts & instead give suggestions (annotations like before) or improving parts. Revert is not the only tool in our toolbox. Thanks Shaddim (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC) EDIT (after edit conflict): now I have an indication...

"Note that the GPL ends at work level and as a collective work combines two works, the GPL only applies to the previous GPLd work. " -> I'm not sure what you mean with that. Example: If a proprietary software uses a GPL'd library (compile it in) do you disagree that this combined work needs to be gpl'd on distribution? Shaddim (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (OK, I will wait 1 day for more info ...)

If you add a larger paragraph that is incorrect to more than 50%, the best method to deal with that text is a complete removal. Schily (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In order to understand the problem, I recommend you to first read the GPL. The GPL does not include the word "linking" and you therefore cannot deduce that a binary that includes more than code from a GPLd work is an illegal binary. Schily (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, do I understand you right you claim that the GPL has no viral properties (viral license) & copyleft? That all the lawsuits which end up in releasing all the source code (and not only the gpl'ed part) were misinterpreted? The point is: copyleft makes form combined works, derived works, which was explained in this paragraph & graph. Shaddim (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you interpret the GPL in a way that makes it more restrictive than the CDDL, the GPL cannot be used at all. Note that the GPLv0 was written in 1986 and at that time there was no dynamic linking. If a GPLd work cannot be part of a larger binary that includes code from any other arbitrary license, you cannot ship statically linked binaries that include compile results from a GPLd work because the binary at least contains code from libc as well. Do you like to tell me that the GPL is completely unusable? Schily (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

indeed, statical linking is a problem in the copyleft ecosystem (BSD ref). Shaddim (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you would first need to understand the GPL correctly. Linking never was a problem with the GPL, but there are some uninformed people who believe that linking makes a difference even though the GPL does not mention linking at all. The GPLv0 was a completely unusable license because it required you to deliver libc (and probably more) together with any binary even when libc was not licensed in a way that would permit this delivery. This is why I reported that problem in 1986 when the first GCC was published. As a result, GPLv1 was created. Since then, the GPL is usable and you may ship linked binaries that include a GPLd part and a non-GPLd part as long as these non-GPLd binary parts are from different works. Libc is e.g. of course a different work and thus is not affected by tht GPLd code it is linked against. BTW: I asked the FSF whether I am allowed to ship a gtar binary that is statically liked against a CDDLd libc and the reply was that there is no problem with that. Schily (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, while interesting, this seems not to be the consensus/common interpretation (FSF "use library" FSF,BSD,torvalds). Could you please back that up with refs? Also, what is from your point of view the difference between LGPL/GPL? cheers Shaddim (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good question, even Lawrence Rosen doubts whether there is a real difference as he believes that the additional limitations in the GPL are void. Schily (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, what about this compromise: I take the dynamic/static linking topic as open question into the article and describe the graph as most conservative possible interpretation. cheersShaddim (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The GPL (note that we should use the term GPL for GPLv2, as this is the dominating version and as there is no complete legal review for the GPLv3 yet) does not contain the term "linking". The only useful term is "work" which means a solid creative work. The GPL permits unmodified and modified republishing and it does not exclude "collective works" from its general permission. Any interpretation that would claim restrictions based on the term "linking" from my understanding may thus appear in a WP article when they are marked as unverifiable. Schily (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The FSF believes it (see here "use library" -> explained as "linking" "“Use a library” means that you're not copying any source directly, but instead interacting with it through linking, importing, or other typical mechanisms that bind the sources together when you compile or run the code." -> GPLv3 & GPLv2 incompatible -> so "derivative work" and most other groups believing it too, alternative opinions exist but are not widely accepted or consensus. Was this ever challenged in court? Shaddim (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the text from the FSF is that it only speaks about the derivative work case, where it may be correct. The collective work case, is not mentioned at all, so you cannot deduce anything for our case from that FSF text. Schily (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I interprete the second part of the FSF table as collective work ("linking"), not derivative work ("source code copying"). But the compatibility is the same, even GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible again, so would be the CDDL and GPL. So, if you would ask the FSF now about statically linking they would answer "no". 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will go forward with proposed compromise solution (as this is exactly your "GPL + CDDL -> OK as collective work" theory/discussion where the community consensus was "no"). And ask you kindly to provide formatted references which backing up your position, which I would then integrate into the article. cheers Shaddim (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a reply from Eben Moglen in a private conversation. I would need to check whether this discussion may have been attached to a mailing list. For the general understanding it may help that I discussed this with various specialized lawyers including Axel Metzger (one of the lawyers from Harald Welte). Mr. Metzger confirmed that my interpretation is correct but in conflict with the interpretation from several people that claim to speak for the "free software community". This talk was in a talk with limited audience in our institute. Schily (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to receiving your material. Shaddim (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain again what you expect from me? Schily (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that you added more or less the same false claims again. This is not helpful in special as you are using incorrect definitions. The term "combined work" cannot be found in legal essays, because it is not suited to describe a legal act correctly. Schily (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Schily, I will not accepted your sole personal opinion as fact. Especially, as this exactly the topic you are personal involved in the CDDL / GPL comaptiblity license conflict, whcih disqualifies you as WP author in this topic. As we agreed above, according to public general opinion, statical linking constitutes a derivative work. Have you even checked the new version ? I added multiple new references for that and also added the debate of linking and alterantive opinions. PLEASE resist the urge to revert again! And, again, bring references and I will integrate them/adapt the article. Until this happens, this will be version of the article. 16:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not willing to accept your false claims and we did not agree that you reinsert your text, so I urge you to remove this text that uses incorrect terms and therefore cannot be remotely correct. What I explained to you is the agreed opinion of all lawyers that ever wrote about this topic, you however added text from non-lawyers.

Note that "combined work" is a weasel word that cannot be understand correctly and that may include a derivative work. Schily (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you discuss things when you later ignore the results from the discussion. Schily (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I found "combined work" in law book reference, the one from which I adapted the graph, other use "aggregated", other collective etc. I appreciate the discussion with you as I understood now your point. But the problem is, until you provide external refernces of the incidents you mentioned (Moglen), I can't include them beside being a "minority" opinion. Shaddim (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A combined work can only be seen as a mixture of derivative works and collective works and this is not helpful in an article. Please note that if you discuss things with me and then add text that was not agreed, it seems that you are mainly interested to steal my time. Moglen is not a trustworthy source as he is well known for publishing intentionally false claims with the intention to use this to get political results. Given that I just forward statements from Rosen and Determan who are trustworthy sources, it should be easy to write a correct article with citations from trustworthy sources. Schily (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Schily, could you please provide exact & formated references if you want to have an alternative position to be presented? *"GPL compatibility: The only reliable information on non-GPLd filesystems in Linux is http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/ from the Lawyers from Harald Welte and this explains that filesystems are independent works and can be under any lic" is not really helpful, infact I could not "guess" up to now by searching what you are refering to. Shaddim (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC) EDit: found it, but despite your claim it is also not clear or states that the FSF position is wrogn only that an alternative interpretation is possible. Shaddim (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I already mentioned that you should first ask on the talk page before adding new claims to the article as you added incorrect claims more than once in the past already. What help do you need with the book? Did you read the book? It explains that filesystems that have been developed outside the Linux kernel are definitely independent works. For this reason, adding ZFS to Linux is creating a permitted collective work. Pointers for easier locating are here: http://www.osscc.net/de/gplger.html Schily (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

this is not a proper formated reference but just a link to everything and nothing, see my reference as example how to do it properly and specific. Shaddim (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"I already mentioned that you should first ask on the talk page before adding new claims to the article as " -> and I already told you that due to your bias, personal involvment and inability providing useable references, other WP have now to step forward after giving you a due chance for discussion and explaining your position. Currently, you try to block and insisit on a inproperbly backed minortiy/personal interprettion. Fact is, majority currently follows the FSF interpretation. Shaddim (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Some time ago, you made an edit comment that I am personally involved which is seen as a personal attack as this is of course nonsense. Now I try to encourage you to use reliable sources instead of sources that are not based on specialized lawyers. I gave you the chance to present a better source for your claims but it seems that you still insist to add claims from hearsay that are not from specialists. I recommend you to follow WP rules and to add only claims from reliable sources. A majority opinion from laymen may be worth to be mentioned but only if you add a note that the claims you added are wrong. Note that while I quote several specialists and do not present my own opinion, you just add the opinion from laymen. Schily (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on License compatibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.redhat.com/f/summitfiles/presentation/May31/Open%20Source%20Dynamics/Troan_OpenSourceProprietyPersp.pdf to https://www.redhat.com/f/summitfiles/presentation/May31/Open%20Source%20Dynamics/Troan_OpenSourceProprietyPersp.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228211105/http://flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange to http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fundamental problem in the article's content balance.

The title of this article is "License compatibility" but looking through the text it seems that the actual name might more accurately be called "Free Software Foundation issued license compatibility". This is not a slam against the FSF or the GPL family of licenses but merely a factual observation that nearly all of the content in this article revolves in some way around the degree to which one license or another is compatible with one or more of the FSF licenses. I see almost no discussion of compatibility of non-FSF licenses with each other, nor any section identifying which licenses are 100% incompatible with the FSF licenses. Looking at the TOC one can easily observe this dramatic imbalance as follows:

3 Compatibility of FOSS licenses

3.1 GPL compatibility

3.1.1 Copyleft licenses and GPL

3.1.2 GFDL and GPL

3.1.3 CDDL and GPL

3.1.4 CC BY-SA and GPLv3

3.2 Creative Commons license compatibility

Notice that only two license families have their own section, and of those two 90% of the content is GPL related. I recognize that GPL has the lion's share of the "market" but surely the other major families of licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache) should also have a subsection here in the article. I also see no discussion at all of the MS-RL which certainly should be in this article. Ditto public domain releases, how is that de facto license compatible/incompatible with the other FOSS licenses? (For those who would like to tell me PD is not a license, please note it's inclusion as a "Permissive" license in the graphic from the David Wheeler.)

One last subject that is seriously missing from the article is a section on == Consequences ==. The history of the MPL is a start but there should also be discussion of Torvald's rejection of GPL-V3. Additionally many high quality articles have been written on the corporate world's rejection of some/all FOSS elements being allowed inside their programming shops and the consequences of such policies. All of this belongs in an article named "License compatibility".

Until these issues are addressed there is a serious imbalance in the article's POV. This can be corrected by expending effort to increase coverage of non FSF-issued licenses and FSF non-compatible licenses and paying extra attention on their compatibility relationship to each other instead of to the GPL family. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In general I agree, the article should be extended, generalized and neutralized. In fact I think I brought the article signidicantly this direction (status before). About the identified FSF focus & amount of content, another reason is there are plainly no other organisations with such a level of focus on license details & publications about it. It's hardly avoidable to refer to them. cheers Shaddim (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses table

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the table under § Creative Commons license compatibility. Is there a source for it? Or can anyone explain why the NC licenses are compatible with CC0 and BY, and with BY-NC-SA, but not BY-SA? Thanks. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

well, the graph is directly form creative commons, it was a post form them and just made more dense by me. in general, you can't make SA more restrictive, non-SA licenses you can make more restrictive by joining with some other license. See copyleft and share-alike. Shaddim (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We should cite the original CC posting, then. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It was given as source all the time in file. Shaddim (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean a source for the information represented by the image. What is our source for claiming that CC BY-SA is compatible with CC BY, or incompatible with CC BY-NC-ND? Some anonymous username on the CC wiki? What was the chart based off of? If not some reliable source, we shouldn’t use it like this unless we can back it up with one. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First, it's all there. Second, we can, with editorial oversight, as we currently do. (Also, I urge you to slow down your crusade for "reliable sources". Your purging of pages of what you deem "non-reliable" does harm...) As before, I urge you do something productive and find good sources which satisfy your needs. Shaddim (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What’s all where? Do we have a source for the information in this chart or not? If the source has editorial oversight, that’s a good sign that it’s reliable—but what is the source? And please don’t tell me we’re treating some CC wiki user as a reliable source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As for “do something productive”—first, don’t be a jerk. Second, have you seen the edit history lately? I have been productive—just not in your overly narrow sense of the word, perhaps. And adding or preserving quite possibly wrong or misleading information from unreliable sources to an encyclopedia article, and citing sources in an unstructured and inconsistent way that leaves out key information, is not my idea of being productive, so I could say the same of you. Third: You do not have a claim on other editors' time. You are adding or defending material that, as it stands, does not conform to Wikipedia's requirements and it is nobody else's job to fix it. It is unfair to pass this job on to other editors who may not have the time, inclination or knowledge of the subject material to fix it, especially if they believe in good faith that it can't be done at all. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I have not, currently my motivation to interact with WP is on a very low level. Second, the material is directly from creative commons, a primary source, the only "problem" is that they used a technical utility for publishing, "a wiki", which is in the oversimplifed interpretation of some authors automatically not acceptable. (With a more differentiated interpretation every reasonable author would come to the conclusion that is not a problem at all... but looks like we lack this kind.) Shaddim (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

PS:Thank you for your formatting work. Shaddim (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(Same IP user on a public computer.) The material is from a Creative Commons wiki user, and that wiki is open to public registration. By your logic, someone could take your or my original research and claim it came "directly from an encyclopedia." The contributor's username is redlinked on the CC wiki, which leads me to believe it's not an official representative of the organization, but a wiki user like you or me. Can you show otherwise? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And then I saw the source added shortly before the post I replied to. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still technically on a wiki... go on with your crusade against "primary sources" & "user created content". Reality is not as clear cut as you would like it. Shaddim (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don’t see any kind of facility to edit that FAQ. And I’m not on any “crusade” against user-generated content; it’s just unreliable by nature, hence WP:UGC. If you refuse to acknowledge that, I don’t know what else to tell you. Maybe you just don’t get how Wikipedia works? I keep suggesting you ask other people and get a second opinion, and you keep actively avoiding doing that… —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't need second opinions (which it seems to try to satisfy your need for clear cut, binary realities...there are no) we need reasonable compromises and agreements among the editors per article.... you apply a pretty literal policy interpretation which ignores the intent of the policy, against other editors, against policies which call for relaxed interpretations (e.g. non-controversial topics, non-personal topics etc). Can we use this case here, where you kind of agreed that this Wikisource is fine in this circumstances as precedence that the polices are oversimplified formulations which needs to be reasonable fit to reality? And do this in other cases too, with editiorial over sight, in consensus? Shaddim (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you object to the removal of UGC sources, then yes, you need a second opinion. WP:UGC is quite clear on this, regardless of whether you want to selectively apply it. And if you’re saying CC’s FAQ is a wiki, we should probably avoid using it as an unreliable source. But like I said, it seems reliable and I see no evidence that it’s a wiki; only that it uses an image hosted on one. So I’m not sure what the disagreement is here. Just be careful with your source selection, maybe give WP:Identifying reliable sources another read. And try to take those pages as more than loose suggestions, okay? They reflect the wider consensus, so they should be followed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Confusing caption

The content restored with this edit seems to be written in somewhat broken English. If it’s worth keeping, could someone clean it up a bit to be more readable? I’d do it, but I’m not entirely sure what it’s meant to be saying. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, the image is based on one from a PhD dissertation. If it hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal, that fact causes some WP editors to think twice. There also seems to be an element of synthesis in the derivative image that makes me dubious of it. Thoughts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So, any objections to removal? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's not a caption, it's an essay. I like it in general, but it should be a section, it should be conveyed in prose, and the image should only be there as an adjunct to it, with a short caption to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: Any thoughts on whether some of the modifications to the image (source: [1]) constitute WP:SYNTHESIS? Or whether an image from non-peer-reviewed academia is appropriate? Just looking for a third opinion (or fourth, or fifth—the more, the better). But I agree about the “caption,” should be rewritten and incorporated into the body. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I’m going to remove the image while better writers than me work the caption into the article proper. Any objections? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There was no consensus at all for removal but a voice for keeping but improving ("I like it but"). So I will revert. Feel free top propose imrpovemnts. Shaddim (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus for removing it as a caption. So I had removed the caption with the expectation that it would be incorporated into the main text. I have just moved the restored content into the main text, so hopefully that makes the intent clearer. Please consider making or suggesting improvements rather than simply reverting, if you find this revision objectionable. Also, please address the concerns I raised about the modified image rather than simply restoring the image without comment. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the removal of the image, therefore I revert that. And again, I would enjoy if you would take the burden of improving texts instead of razing content which was hard to produce. And in general I follow the academic tradition and guidance that self-contained and self-explaining figures are a good idea, and separating captions from figure is not. Shaddim (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: I’m pretty sure I’ve pointed this out before, but the burden of improving content is on those who want to include it. If you want to keep it in the article, it’s up to you to make sure it belongs in the article and is comprehensible, and you have no right to demand that someone else do it. You can leave the problematic content as deleted, or move it to Talk, and request that others have a crack at it (as I have), but you can’t insist that your WP:HARDWORK remain in the article while it waits to be fixed. And the “razed” content is still there in the history, where you can access and improve upon it before adding it back in.

I agree that self-contained and self-explaining figures are helpful (and if they’re self-explaining, they don’t need captions, but they do need alt text); but it doesn’t matter how helpful the images are if they are a product of editorial synthesis, a concern which has still not been addressed. There is broad consensus for the removal of any such content. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have again removed the image due to WP:SYNTH concerns; though based on an image found in a PhD dissertation (which itself is of questionable reliability), additions were made to it which are not found in the original. I have also removed the confusingly written text, which seems redundant with § Kinds of combined works and had been restored with no attempt to copyedit or rewrite. If you disagree with either of these edits being an improvement to the article, please address the issues that prompted them. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please tag it before removal. You also removed an wp:anchor which likely would disrupt other links. Jim1138 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: How would one tag an image? In the caption? Edit: I did tag it, days before removal [2]. Also, could you copyedit the text you restored? It’s still redundant and otherwise fairly nonsensical, and there’s been no indication of why it’s necessary. And good catch on the anchor, I missed that—but it’s a duplicate of the section name, which is itself an anchor, so that’s an error. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone justify the content that I’ve given policy-based reasons for removing? The only argument I’ve seen in favor of keeping it as-is, in this whole section, was WP:ITSUSEFUL. If you think it can be improved on, then do it. If you can’t—and if you’re leaving that work up to me—then I see removal as an improvement to the article, for the policy-based reasons I’ve given—at least until it can be restored with improvements (which thus far has not happened). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this content destruction and personal agenda pushing. Again, there was no consensus but just personal misinterpreation and synthesis of disconnected WP policies for your destructive activities. Also, a PhD is a "peer reviewed" publication, I don't know how do you come to the idea it is not... And even if not, (again to your great displeasure), primary sources are not forbidden in WP at all, if used in appropriate transparent way, which is done here. While you dislike this personally and you seems to push for the pipe dream "truth" again, there is no truth and no perfect source which could provide such illusionary quality. Your consistent removal of content which doesn't fit your taste and sense of quality and truth harm the project, stop that, especially as you don't contribute to this (and other) topic at all. I will restore this content under the premise that it is sufficiently sourced, it properly represents without undue weight, while it was removed without proper consensus and strong reason. Shaddim (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, you misstate the answers you got if yol don't like them: the very clear answer to you was "The relevant guideline is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. PhD theses are generally regarded as reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC) ". This was obvious. And even if not: THERE IS NO POLICY AGAINST PRIMARY SOURCES! (if used for non-controversial topics used in a balanced way not giving undue perceptions) Shaddim (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: I never said anything against it as a primary source. My concern is its reliability as a source. It sounds like you missed the bit in that discussion about how we don’t know whether PhD dissertations in Finnish universities (or in this particular uni) undergo the same scrutiny that they do in the US and UK. And you continue to ignore the actual reasons I gave for removal: your original additions to the image, and the nonsensicality of the text that discusses things that had just been covered. Please address those instead of summarily dismissing my contributions. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't side step, your bureaucratic crusade for the fuzzy term "reliability" targets "primary sources" and causes in general great havoc with little benefit and drives away constructive authors who want to contribute actual content. You know, the guys who want to do the hard work creating something, not simple "single click removal" Shaddim (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: It’s not “fuzzy.” Primary sources can be supremely reliable. Secondary sources can be ridiculously unreliable. See WP:SOURCE and WP:RS. If any confusion remains after that, be communicative instead of confrontational and we should be able to clear it up. And please get it out of your head that poorly sourced content is any kind of benefit to Wikipedia. Keep the project’s values in mind. Verifiability is crucial.

Now, if you want to say this particular source is reliable—okay, great, let’s discuss that. I brought it up at WP:RSN some time ago, but there was no consensus. If you have some insight into the workings of Finnish doctorate programs, or especially the Helsinki University of Technology, that would be helpful. But if this is a purely ideological argument for you (i.e., if you refuse to directly discuss the subject at hand), then please stop letting your personal ideology interfere with my editing. It’s been wasting both your time and mine, as well as disrupting the project to make a point. Besides, this is not the place for such debates; try WP:Village pump, and feel free to ping me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point that this is a time wastage and disrupting the project.... but for different reasons than you. I disagree with your interpretation and overvaluing of "reliablilty" as crucial or even clearly defined (your multiple times linking it makes it not at all better). The policy is weak (for instance circular written Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources links to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources links to... again, reliability is the minor, fuzzy idea no one should focus on...it's an vague idea , nothing more), beside the five pillars, and in general only of limited importance and yet made by you the core and one and only element of your "work" here. Again, I'm not interested in bureacratic "work" of endlessly bickering about polices which were meant originally helping the goal of creating (Focus on creation!) of a wikipedia not as goal itself. Polcies should "guide" authors in best cases to better articles... and nothing else. They are means to end and not the end itself. PS: "but there was no consensus." there was no consensus for declaring it unreliable (whatever that means), so it is in. Shaddim (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, where does that section link to itself, besides in the “shortcuts” sidebar? Anyway, I’m also responding on your usertalk, but I urge you to share your views on source reliability at WP:VPP (where they may be widely discussed) before allowing them to influence your editing behavior or attempting to influence others’. Until you do so, I shall disregard any objections you make to any of my efforts to improve this article’s verifiability. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Improving the former caption

Okay, so here’s the disputed text. Seems a bit word-salady to me, but if anyone can make sense of it, please rewrite it. And we should probably leave out the re-definitions of terms that the article already explains.

"Derived works" are mixing code, "combined works" have components under differing license. From right to left needs a combined work a stronger separation between differently licensed parts to prevent them in becoming a derived work ("separation": combined by statically linking or source file separation with all components living in the same process and address space, "strong separation": components connected only via binary interfaces and which live in separated processes).

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

License incompatibility. No wait

I’ve taken it upon myself to rewrite the lead to function more as an introduction to the concept of compatibility, rather than the opposite concept. I’m sure it can be improved on. Please do so. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

yes, please do it, YOU! WP is about being able to fix thing not about complain ging an expecting it from others. (PS: revmoal is not fixing) Shaddim (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitions

What qualifies Philippe Laurent to define terms for the whole industry, and why are we sourcing it from a slideshow? And why do we have a separate section for “Definitions” anyway? Shouldn’t the subject be defined in the lead? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the lead is not meant for (extensive) definitions but as summarizing entry. A definition section is fine. Why is he qualified? He writes about this domain and is a laywer working in this domain & my editiorial review resulted in "suitable". You are strongly invited finding BETTER sources. As long as you can't bring up better sources this is good enough. Shaddim (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You miss again the subtleties of "verifiable": there is in general no one who can speak for the whole industry. There are only individual or groups' statements which are more or less representative. Our responsibility is to present them here in a NPOV way. Core point is: making it very transaprent whose position this is, which was fullfilled here by the formulation. Shaddim (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

A professionally published expert in the field could easily speak for the industry in matters such as this. Who is this lawyer, and who has professionally published his work? The article gives zero context of who he is or why his opinion is included. And what on earth do you mean that your editiorial review resulted in "suitable"? Unless you completely misread an editor’s criticism as praise, I have no idea what you’re referring to. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, find me such experts. As long as we not have better sources we use what we have: "verifiability" + "NPOV" are the over arching themes for inconclusion', which are fullfilled. Your criticism is: "it could be better -> so lets delete what we have, MAYBE it becomes better afterward"... nope. not acceptable. Shaddim (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(side warning to you: Schily is not an independent WP author but in this topic highly involved. He is the author who wrote software which was CDDL relicensed and got in discussions with the FSF and everyone else. He represents a interesting and vocal minority position regarding license compatiblity. So be careful here.) Shaddim (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

WARNING: Shaddim is not an independent WP author, he repeatedly added unverified and unverifiable POV claims in this topic instead of checking for common claims from different legal professionals. So be very careful as he represents a minority position with respect to what legal professionals agree with. Schily (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Schily, this was not meant to belittle you or your work as FOSS author (on which I have the greatest respect), but as matter of fact you are a centrla figure involved in the CDDL-GPL dispute. I think you will agree on that. Shaddim (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don’t see what this comment (or the preceding two) has to do with improving this article. Please keep such things to usertalk or noticeboards such as WP:COIN or something. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As experienced author you should be aware of policies demanding neutrality and non-involvement in the article's topic. Schily is involved (he will not deny that). Shaddim (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I’m saying we should delete what we have when what we have is not verifiable. Yes, we can verify that it was text on a slideshow put together by some unpublished lawyer. And that’s all. We cannot verify anything else about it. If you have something more verifiable that we could replace it with, then great, let’s do that. But whether we have something to put in its place or not, it does not belong in its place. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It is obviosuly verifiable & on the topic. Feel free to improve not more. Shaddim (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Give that Shaddim added claims to the text that are verifiable wrong, it is obvious that he is involved in the topic and should better not write here. Given that Eben Moglen wrote me in a private mail that the claims from the FSF website about GPL and CDDL are wrong, I think it would be a good idea to remove similar claims from the WP article. Schily (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"verifiable wrong," Great, no problem bring this information from independent side, and I will include it myself. (Beside, you fight here the wrong one... I brought in more neutrality by exposing the FSF claim as what is is, an claim.) Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you changed your mind? This would be helpful, given that I remember that you removed text from me that tried to make the article less imbalanced. If you are willing to be at least as neutral as I am, it should be no problem to make the article better. Are you? Schily (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Let us start with removing the first two graphics that are based on incorrect legal terms. Legally correct would be the use of "derivative work" and "collective work" and a diagram should explain possible combinations as a combination of both methods. Schily (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm very open on any suggestion WHICH ARE DEFENDABLE (see 67.14.236.50) therefore we need sources. Bring them and I will balance the articel further. And help me defending the base and sources we have. Shaddim (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If it’s verifiable, then verify it. If you can’t or won’t, it’s not. Laurent has not been established as a published expert in the field (and there seems to be no interest here in establishing that), so we should not use his presentation work as a source. And seriously, guys, take it to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's verified, sources given. You speak about notability which only applies to the article itself, not subcontent. I don't agree with you that escalation is the way to go, the way to go is authors' consensus on content. Shaddim (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You speak about notability—no, didn’t even mention it on this whole page. I speak of our verifiability policy at WP:SPS. That applies to the sources we use. I bring up a problem and explain why it’s a problem; you respond with flat denial supported by nothing. Now, can you work with me to resolve the problem we have with this source, or are you leaving that resolution entirely up to me?

By the way, you seem to keep misusing the word “escalation.” To me, reporting someone to ANI or the like is escalation. Seeking a consensus by soliciting outside opinions to resolve a dispute is not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"I speak of our verifiability policy a" no, you don't. You challenge verfied content with the motivation "not representative" which has absolutely nothing to do with verfiabilty but some misguided understanding of notability. (if you would have said "reliabiltiy" wich is a problematic fluid wasel concept itself, I would have cited from your link "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter," which applies here, additionally to that it was not selfpublished!!!!)Shaddim (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I did stop editing the article in the past because Shaddim at some time started to escalate the discussions by removing verified text. The problem with the current state of the article is that is uses many weasel words and that it in general uses a wording that is not aligned with the wording used by legal professionals. To enhance the quality of the text, we should first remove the weasel words and the non-professional wording and then start with new verifiable text by avoiding to use claims from parties that are involved with own interests. Schily (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

please show the verified content & sources of these "legal professionals". up to now you failed to do so. If you do, we will rebalance and exchange content. Shaddim (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You challenge verfied content—no. I challenge unverified content, sourced from a self-published source (presentation materials) written by someone who is not recognized as a published expert in the field of IP law (or in other words: we don’t know who this guy is or why we should trust him, indeed whether anyone trusts him). Now kindly stop making excuses and prove me wrong, if I am in fact wrong on this. Or else let’s edit the article to say something like, According to one Belgian lawyer’s slideshow presentation, license compatibility is defined as …. I would find this an acceptable compromise. If you can explain why this proposed wording should be stronger, I continue to beg you to do so. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pleased that you keep confusing the terminology. The content **IS** verified due to the specific formulation used which is backed by this reference. It is clear who says that. the text says there is ambbiguity in this defintions and here is one odne by him. "According to one Belgian lawyer’s slideshow presentation, license compatibility is defined as" I agree and appreciated a concrete formulattion improvement , If you feel that this clarifies the strength of the statement and origin, I agree n generla. But I don't agree on your detail that you needlessly try to relativise the strength of the document without need: it is no "taint" that the form is a presentation. Core is, this is material release by an public european event & not self published. (while even self published would be fine!)Shaddim (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You misinterpret the situation: you added self claimed unverified text. This is why this text needs to be removed. We later may add better text that is not your WP:self-published source but rather a quotation from trustworthy legal professionals that are not involved with on products in this area. Some time ago, I added such verifiable text but you removed it and replaced it with your own unverified claims. This needs to get a fix. Schily (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

what needs to be fixed is our sparse reference situation. Bring good sources, you claim to have them from "legal experts"! I will add them. (PS: please give the exact sentence here, you have issues with, and discuss your concern specifically. Ideally propose alterantives with refernces.)Shaddim (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked again: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Schily&page=License_compatibility&server=enwiki&max= you proposed zero references and "verifiable text". To which edit you refer to? Shaddim (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You still misinterpret things: you did not give good sources for your claims. This is why we first need to remove the unsourced or badly sources parts and start from a clean state. Schily (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, challenge them specifically here in the talk sententce by sentence, with proposals for alternatives (with sources preferrable)! I brought sources & verfiable content, you didn't, which is according to WP standards infinite better than your hand-waving argumentatino without any independet backing. Additionally, we have to be extra careful on contributions from you as you are involved personally. Shaddim (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Let us start with removing the complete current text under "Definitions" as this is GPLv3 centric and in general not helpful at all with respect to the topic of this article. Schily (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you propose instead? (I will not remove without better subsitute) What is your concrete, specific criticism on that section, that it uses a GPLv3 baes text? The GPL IS the most or second most popular license in the FOSS domain, so ... and the cited part is independent of the concrete license, so I'm not sure what you want. Shaddim (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We don’t necessarily need a replacement to something that is detrimental to an article. I’m not saying this is; I’m just saying your demands are not necessarily reasonable. We don’t need (and probably shouldn’t expect) an instant jump in article quality. If we have a gradual improvement over time by removing what’s holding them back, that’s okay, because there is no deadline. As for this, I don’t see a problem with simply giving a definition in the lead. Devoting a section to defining the subject of the article is overkill. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree here with many you said, you should be aware that this is a controversial and ambigious topic, the exact defintioon. There are several nearby but in critical details differing interpretations which then become very crucial in the defense and interpretation of license compatiblity and range. Therefore I believe a simple definition is here not possible and also not advisable. But as you noticed, finding good sources is a problem here. I hope that Schily will bring up some.... Shaddim (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia and in order to be encyclopedic, an acceptable wording should not be vendor specific as it is today.
• Of course, I can help with a useful wording, as I have been forced by libelling Debian people to inform mysyelf in depth about the legal background. From what I've learned this way, it is a bad idea to look at legal professionals that are in a relation to a software vendor that is using an affected license as they tend to get pressure from their vendor not to write claims that may be in conflict with the doctrines of the vendor.
• My proposal still is: remove the bad wording and later find a new one that is neutral quotations from text written by independent lawyers.
• A useful wording is apparently based on the wording used in the law. So let us write a definition based on the terms "derivative work" and "collective work" and explain how a typical work, made of more than one basic work, is created as a collective work based on derivative works from the involved foreign works. Schily (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, lets develope a new forumlation and definition here in the talk page, also directly backed with references. Would you please write the first iteration? thx Shaddim (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And in the meantime, let’s remove the disputed content, shall we? Schily thinks Laurent is partial to a vendor, I think we haven’t established why his opinion matters, and Shaddim hasn’t made any compelling arguments against these points.

@Schily: Part of following WP:NPOV means portraying all significant viewpoints, including those of specific vendors. We absolutely should not give a skewed definition as the definition, but neither should we necessarily ignore it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

not at all, we will not remove verified contetn with good sources. refrain on doing so, we work now on an alternative hereShaddim (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about unverified content with poor sources. Do you object to removing that? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

could you please act constructive? I try to organize here the forumaltion of an alterantive, no need for hysterical actions, the current content IS verified. Shaddim (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate content is constructive. It improves the encyclopedia. And no, the content we’re discussing is not verified as anything more than one man’s opinion, and there’s no indication that this man’s opinion belongs in any encyclopedia article. If you could provide any such indication, that would be helpful, but no one has yet done so. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, you confuse the disucssion: Schily has no problem with Laurent at all, he has beef with the FSF/Debian and the GPL. He has an problem that Laurent disucsses the most relevant license the GPL, where he thinks the whole discussion should be steered way from FSF material and licenses (he would like to propse the CDDL as nbetter copyelft license). But Laurent does it right, the GPL is defacto the most used license, most disucssed and court tested license and therefore the proper choice for acting as exmplarly license. Shaddim (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Now Shaddim did confirm that he is biased. The text in question is about the GPLv3 and the GPLv3 definitely is not the major license. In addition, WP mainly looks at GPL compatibility and this is something that needs to be avoided because it is the GPL that causes compatibility problems. Schily (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

*sigh*.... bring me other sources and we include some waay or another ok? really, just bring something. Shaddim (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me use a parallel: We cannot claim that Elvis is alive, and then cite some historian speaking for himself. We could use that source to claim that this one guy believes it, but unless this historian is (or becomes) extremely well-known… why would we? It’s useless man-on-the-street trivia. Now, there are a significant number of people who believe that Elvis is alive, but we can’t make that claim from a couple sources expressing their own (or another individual’s) belief. We need sources that speak about people collectively—and there are plenty of books and journal articles to back up the claim that numerous people believe it. But if we wanted to say that Elvis was in fact alive, we’d need to do a lot better than individual beliefs.

Back to the subject at hand. What we had here until recently was a claim that this was the definition of license compatibility, supported by some unknown lawyer’s opinion. This was amended to state that it’s the definition according to some unknown lawyer’s opinion. This is the same useless man-on-the-street trivia as reporting that some random historian thinks Elvis is alive; unless we had some reason to discuss the source itself in relation to the subject, we would have no reason to report that. From what I can tell, this lawyer is just some random guy who’s never published anything in this field. What we want is to be able to say we have the definition, or at least that a significant number of people agree with this definition. Some guy’s personal definition is not a valid substitute. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

you are welcome to find better sources. Also, the given definition is the one used also by the FSF (before you removed the source backing that) and quite common. Give please an other defintion with sources if you believe here is a problem. Instead of continuing your destructive complain pattern aall the time "it's bad and should be better!", just do it actually better, give an alternative better definition. Shaddim (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If there are no better sources for the definition(s) we’re using, then let’s please remove them as irrelevant. If you have better sources, then stop holding out on us so we can WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, because otherwise we have to delete it. As for the FSF claim, I removed it because the source did not back it except through synthesis, and I could find none that did. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, removing useless trivia and unverifiable claims is a whole lot more constructive than adding it, in my book. Meaningful, verifiable content is what we need; anything else harms the encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you are totally confused here. That it is hard to find licenses sources, which are good enough in your book, does not qualify for the statement this subtopic is "irrelevant". While I understand this is another tempting shortcut in evaluating articles, this does reflect the article editing reality. Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And about the FSF source you removed, the usage was not literal but the meaning was the correct, the FSF used it in this meaning but they din't spelled it directly this way. Which could get lost on a fast evaluation ("does the string match") of a not knowledgeable editor. Shaddim (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If we want to claim that they use the same definition, we need a source where they literally use that definition, or else it’s OR. And I’m sorry for the confusion; I was calling Laurent’s personal idea of the definitions irrelevant, not the whole topic of definition. If the FSF (or similar) literally used his definition, called him out by name, that would be a completely different story. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No it is you who request excessive source standards...while being totally absent in providing them in any context. I really would like to take away your capability to remove content and restrict you to eat your own dogfood by forcing you to extend articles under this premise before you are allowed again to challenge other authors contetn by removal. I guess this would cure you. Shaddim (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You don’t extend articles under this premise. The majority of WP editors do, as have I at times, because we know there’s nothing excessive about it. Maybe you, like I, are just not very good at finding reliable sources; that would explain your refusal to provide them. If that’s the case, perhaps consider not adding or restoring any content to WP articles without first obtaining consensus for that particular addition. That should help cut down on loose interpretations or misinterpretations of sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

you will not block WP with your excessive binary reliability obsession. and WP has no problem with "loose interpretation of sources or misinterpretation" but of actual authors who want to contribute to fill the gaping holes we have everywhere. Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of “blocking WP” by being responsible as an editor. And I’m sure you have no intention of ruining it by distorting our sources and violating WP:V and WP:NOR. Now can we stop violating WP:NPA as well and get working on improving this article? We need a source for the FSF using Laurent’s definition, if we want to make that claim. That would also solve the problem of Laurent’s definition being irrelevant trivia, because we would have a third-party source citing him. Can we make that happen? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Damn you... Laurent is a specialist in this domain and not "trivia", the material is properly NON-POW presented, & you can't come up with something better. Your blockage of this article is irrelevant, this whole discussion is irrelevant waste of time, giving some nitpicking non-editor way to much weight. I WILL STOP NOW WASTING MY TIME WITH YOU. Shaddim (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Laurent is a specialist, but not one "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." All we have to go on is a conference presentation, which are considered self-published and held to the same standards as any other self-published source. That's not on me. That's a core content policy, and it was the responsibility of the contributing editor to exercise due diligence when adding the information. —67.14.236.50 (talk) using public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I tackled the whole discussion part with you wrongly: the stuff is the verified position of an expert in this field. It is not misrepresenting and not blocked by any other major policy. In analogy to this very similar case, I encourage you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. As always, you are very encouraged to contribute! best regards Shaddim (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You say he’s an expert source. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This is not the case here. If I am mistaken, kindly provide evidence. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It is very simple he works in a relevant field...laywering. Even specifically software licenses. How can this be even more specific? (Your persistent nitpicking with irrelevant details while missing the bigger picture is annoying as fuck) Please, drop the stick, for god's sake. Shaddim (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: and again is took 5 minutes googeling to debunk your stupid claim... why can't you be productive and check this crap yourself, if you are so obsessed with it? why do you waste my time? here: http://www.legalict.be/joomla-fr/jce/formateurs/76-philippe-laurent#Publications dozens of publications Shaddim (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I did check, and was unable to find anything. I thought I’d said so. But thank you for finally providing something concrete. In the future, if you do so when first objecting to a challenge, it will save large amounts of time for all involved. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

argh.... it would be great if YOU would take up the burden before putting up countless and needless "challenges"... it was not hard! Shaddim (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you didn’t read my last reply. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe that you REALLY tried. Please try harder in future, and, more important target lower hanging fruits. There are many, many articles with REALLY serious verifability issues. hint: these are not the ones I edit. Shaddim (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you’re not assuming good faith of me. And it also sounds like you forget WP:ONUS and my prior refusals to do your work for you. I also take issue with your assertion about the nature of your editing, but an article isn’t the place to discuss that; let me know if you want me to elaborate on your usertalk. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

the core point is: these requirement you apply on sources are excessive and of little value here. If you believe, things should be like this: apply it yourself by ading the information and don't bother fellow editors with. PS: use your energy please in other articles with desperate need for verfiability checks but not such subtle "corner-cases" Shaddim (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean the requirements laid out in WP:V? Adhering to policy requirements is not excessive. If it were, that policy would be changed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean your interpretation of the policies. As you should have accepted now, following from the discussion on WP:V or in the Third Opinion, there is not clear consensus how and how strict to interprete them. And you fall clearly on one extreme end. Please accept that there is interpretation space, conflicting requirements, grey areas which result in space for the authors. I would recommend you as experience, switching the sides and building up a page from ground. seriously, do that.Shaddim (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Shaddim

I think all I can respond to that’s relevant to this article is this: if a claim was only supported by a self-published source whose author was not a published expert—as I believed to be the case with Laurent—that claim would be unverifiable. That section was not supported by any other sources, so I stand by my decision to remove it per WP:BURDEN, and per BURDEN it should not have been restored without evidence of publication. It should not have been restored until a day and a half ago. (Just so I’m not misunderstood, we have that now, so the section’s fine.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this statement, I hope this helps to simplify further discussion. Schily (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, it would simplify the discussion if you would bring any of your sources you claimed to have from renowned experts. Shaddim (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It would help if we start by removing all claims in the article that are not verified or only based on non-trustworthy sources. Schily (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

you mean like involved authors? Please bring "trustworthy" information and sources and I will include them. Shaddim (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion: the contetn was fine and was challenged for the wrong reasons (this stuff is NOT selfpublished and even if it would be it would doesnn't matter as the backed text is so specific formulated that the scope is so clear that it could be backed by an primary source) in a non-policy conform way (deletion with out proper research and no proper reason given in edit comment). Shaddim (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe I did make my reasoning clear in this edit summary, as well as in the discussion that followed. It was a slideshow the man made explicitly to share his thoughts in a presentation allegedly given by the same man. Presentations given at that event were not peer-reviewed. Thus, it’s self-published. Lacking any evidence (as I was) that Laurent’s work in this field had appeared in third-party publications, it’s reasonable to assume he doesn’t meet our guidelines for an expert self-published source. If this were the case, it would mean we essentially have some nobody decreeing an encyclopedic definition as if he had invented the concept himself.

If you disagree with, or think I’m mistaken in, any points I’m making here, please single them out and challenge them directly. Otherwise, it may not be clear where the point of contention is. Hoping for a brief and productive discussion and resolution to follow. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on License compatibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905151027/http://www.theperlreview.com/Interviews/allison-randal-artistic-license.html to https://www.theperlreview.com/Interviews/allison-randal-artistic-license.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926104451/http://zfsonlinux.org:80/faq.html to http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160222202909/http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems.zfs.user/18380 to http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems.zfs.user/18380
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107055215/http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/licensing-law-issues-infringement-and-disclosure-risk-in-development-on-copyleft-platforms.html to http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/licensing-law-issues-infringement-and-disclosure-risk-in-development-on-copyleft-platforms.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109103213/http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning to http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Combining GPL and BSD (not BSDl)

The article states:

"That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict, and the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole (but the other license would not so apply)."

But I am not entirely sure that this is the case. For example, I doubt that the new "combination" has GPL applied to the whole; the part that is under BSD license must retain its license because the GPL imposes additional restrictions which the BSD does not allow for. My take is that you can combine both, but the source code for the BSD part that you distribute BASED on other people's code, must remain BSD. Otherwise the GPL could just absorb other license code and re-define things into the GPL, which I doubt VERY much is the case. Whoever wrote that part, probably wrote something deliberately incorrect here, but I may be biased. 2A02:8388:1602:A780:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the requirement of the BSD still needs to be fullfiled. Which is attribution, which is an subset of the GPL requirement. So, the overall license is GPL, the BSD is carried with, while being absorbed as a subset of the the GPL. cheers Shaddim (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on License compatibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617130550/https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/licence_compatibility_and_interoperability to https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/licence_compatibility_and_interoperability

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)