Talk:RhodeCode

GPL licensing controversy

@Belamp: As I stated in my edit comment, I believe the "licensing controversy" paragraph is partly synthesis. You cite the "LICENSE" file and some entries from the GPL FAQ, but it's original research to claim that these FAQ entries apply in this case. And it's not obvious that they do.

Per verifiability policy, as long as there aren't reliable sources saying that RhodeCode's use of GPL is conflicting, you cannot claim that on Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformulated the claim. Is it better now? -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaniphrom, could you please stop introducing meaningless changes? -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Belamp, could you please stop introducing opinion into wikipedia? -- Brian Butler (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, WP:OPINION clearly says:

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are
opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most
articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly,
accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points
of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's
NPOV policy.

I've been trying to clearly and accurately describe one of the points. If you have more facts to add, please do so. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]