Talk:Tamarin Prover

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

Hi there Cwmhiraeth, thanks for your diligent editing! This page should not be deleted because, while you say

"it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright",

I am 100% confident it is not infringing any copyright as the content any copied text may have come from has itself been released under an open source licence. I am confident of this because my PhD supervisor and a few of his colleagues wrote the original text I have partially paraphrased, and I know that the website text and the manual text that you cite as the violated source (along with the whole Tamarin Prover tool) have been fully released under GNU GPLv3, as I have listed in this tool's sidebar (see https://github.com/tamarin-prover for more info). I am happy to re-phrase parts of this text so that it is not so close to the original source, but rest assured there is no violation of copyright. As such, I do not believe it should be marked for deletion of any sort, never mind speedy deletion. Please let me know if there is any further editing I need to do (in terms of improving content) to make this page better, and to ensure it does not get deleted, as I am happy to do this. This is a useful, widely used, and state of the art tool within academia and industry, and it is important that it has a Wikipedia page.

Many thanks!

--Mpdehnel (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mpdehnel: Well, I did wonder about that, I was not sure about the copyright status of the source document. I suggest you contest the speedy deletion so that the administrator who looks at it can deal with it appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks -- is there no way you can just remove your nomination for XFD? I don't know how these things work, but if you marked it, it seems reasonable that you should be able to remove it. Thanks! Please note above I have now linked to further sources. If you need me to get further proof that all content is open source licensed (e.g. a letter / email / public notification from the authors) then I'm happy to provide that, but it might have to wait until after New Year. I hope this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all is well though! Thanks. Mpdehnel (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because as stated above, the text in the original source material that has caused this to be flagged is itself open source, therefore meaning there is no copyright violation. Please see my previous message for further details. This is now just the formal contest to the XFD status. As before:

I am 100% confident it is not infringing any copyright as the content any copied text may have come from has itself been released under an open source licence. I am confident of this because my PhD supervisor and a few of his colleagues wrote the original text I have partially paraphrased, and I know that the website text and the manual text that you cite as the violated source (along with the whole Tamarin Prover tool) have been fully released under GNU GPLv3, as I have listed in this tool's sidebar (see https://github.com/tamarin-prover for more info). I am happy to re-phrase parts of this text so that it is not so close to the original source, but rest assured there is no violation of copyright. As such, I do not believe it should be marked for deletion of any sort, never mind speedy deletion. Please let me know if there is any further editing I need to do (in terms of improving content) to make this page better, and to ensure it does not get deleted, as I am happy to do this. This is a useful, widely used, and state of the art tool within academia and industry, and it is important that it has a Wikipedia page.

Many thanks,

--Mpdehnel (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have listed this article on the Copyright problems noticeboard for investigation of the copyright status of the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As per the issue I filed on GitHub for the manual's repo (the repo and the web-page are linked), please see that Ralf Sasse (one of the project owners, as confirmed by GitHub) confirms that the manual is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA; please see page 2 of the PDF version of the manual to confirm this: https://tamarin-prover.github.io/manual/tex/tamarin-manual.pdf and read the thread here: https://github.com/tamarin-prover/manual/issues/33 - I will petition Ralf to add this licence more clearly in the HTML manual pages themselves, but this should be more than sufficient confirmation for now. As such, I believe there is no way this page meets the criteria for speedy deletion due to copyright violation. Thanks, Mpdehnel (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion: Conclusion/summary of discussion

Summary of conclusion from previous discussion for any administrator reading this: Some of the source material quoted in this article is licensed as CC BY-NC-SA. As such, there is no copyright violation as the text attributes and references the original document in the External Links. Please see the PDF version of the manual for confirmation of the licence. If Wikipedia strictly requires content only to be licensed under a CC BY-SA licence, then I will spend some time re-writing some of the content to ensure it doesn't use any of it; regardless, I believe I have now demonstrated that there is no copyright violation as the source material is provided under a CC/open source licence. --Mpdehnel (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mpdehnel, I'm afraid that is not so – please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://tamarin-prover.github.io/manual/book/001_introduction.html (content licenced Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International, which is not a compatible licence here). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

applications section

the content problem with this diff, is that this uses primary sources as examples of the protocol being used. This very much how academics write, when they write literature reviews themselves, which they publish under their own names.

This is not how WP works. Here in WP, editors are not authorities (we are anonymous or pseudonomyous), and our names don't appear at the top of articles. What are authoritative, are sources, and what we do, is summarize them. The relevant policies here are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V.

So a good source for content in WP about applications of this tool, would be a source that itself discusses the various applications for the tool, ideally written by someone independent of the tool. The ideal sources in Wikipedia are independent, secondary sources that we just summarize. Sources like this are what help us determine what WEIGHT to give things. We have no way of knowing, if application X that was cited in the diff above, is the common use of the tool, or something strange in one way or another... issues like that are what arise when primary sources are used to support to content... Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jytdog: this makes a lot of sense. I'll have a think and see if I can find any relevant secondary sources! Mpdehnel (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability Question

I don't think that the notability of this article should be in question anymore. Sure, the article is short, but it looks like the tool has had at least some extensive use in its field. --Stux (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)