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]

The problem isn't that I disagree with these statements. The problem is that there's no way for an ordinary person to verify these claims without hiring a lawyer. And note that I'm not just nitpicking, WP:NPOV and WP:V are among the most important principles to follow while editing Wikipedia.

The only good source currently is the SFC one, thanks for adding that. While it could be considered primary source or a self-published source, it's also an expert opinion. There are some caveats dealing with these; if you haven't, please read those two sections I linked. Also per WP:WEASEL, these claims should clearly be attributed to Bradley M. Kuhn. I'd just remove the references to the license file, the GPL and the FAQ entirely.

The SFC article seems to avoid any concrete statements on non-compatibility. The words "unclear", "ambiguous" and "problematic" are used, I think that's the best way to describe the situation, rather than trying to prove that it's not compatible. -- intgr [talk] 17:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Brian Butler has just reverted the whole section thus violating WP:3RR, and I can't do any changes as I'd violate it too then. Actually, strictly speaking, I have already violated it if we count my reversion of your changes, but anyway, I don't want to make it any worse now.

I agree that my original formulation was way too a strong statement, sticking to the Conservancy's wording would be better. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]