Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of software license violations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. henrik•talk 15:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of software license violations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails or violates a number of policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, WP:Libel, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV. --SF007 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(see new vote below). Of cited policies the article fully passes WP:V, WP:Libel and WP:NOR. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are clearly not applicable at all. Referenced list of real concerns. SF007, I don't know the reasons of your crusade again information on violating ffmpeg's copyright, but this information clearly should stay. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral I don't think anyone's on a crusade. OTOH I think WP:BLP is clearly irrelevant. As everything is cited, so's WP:OR and WP:V. There may, however, be problems with self-published sources. Libel doesn't apply to true statements. --NYKevin @849, i.e. 19:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using unreliable sources is a WP:V problem. WP:NOR isn't a completely unreasonable objection given the article's use of sources like this mailing list post. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think these sources are unreliable though. They come from copyright holders and some of them have alleged violators' replies. That would be sufficient for DMCA takedown, but isn't for WP:RS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A DMCA takedown is absurdly easy to do. Meeting our sourcing policies is less so. --NYKevin @882, i.e. 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If X is enough for Y and Y is enough for Z, then X is enough for Z. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the alleged violators' responses authentic? Why should we believe they are? When we start asking those questions, we are in WP:OR land. –Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we are not, because there is no way to question that in the article, and other namespaces are out of the scope of WP:OR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A DMCA takedown is absurdly easy to do. Meeting our sourcing policies is less so. --NYKevin @882, i.e. 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think these sources are unreliable though. They come from copyright holders and some of them have alleged violators' replies. That would be sufficient for DMCA takedown, but isn't for WP:RS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using unreliable sources is a WP:V problem. WP:NOR isn't a completely unreasonable objection given the article's use of sources like this mailing list post. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS and WP:V. It appears that 100% of the references in this article are unusable as reliable sources for the facts they're citing – that the list entries violate the licenses of some other software. For example, consider this page on the BusyBox site. While that source would be OK for citing statements about BusyBox, such as "The BusyBox project maintained a list of projects which appeared to violate its license terms," it isn't OK for a statement like "Macsense HomePod appears to violate BusyBox's license." The article cites that page 17 times. If there are reliable, secondary sources which I missed, please point them out. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of source you need for alleged copyright infringement? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that page would be a fine source if the article said something like "BusyBox claims the following companies have violated their license:". But it's not okay to just say "The following companies...", nor is it okay to say nothing and stick them on a list like this, as it's equivalent to saying they did it. --NYKevin @868, i.e. 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NYKevin, you said it better. Dmitrij, I agree with NYKevin that the source would be acceptable in an article which said, "BusyBox alleges such-and-such violates its license." To place them on a list like this would require the usual, a reliable, secondary source meeting WP:RS, with some consideration of the quality of source in order to sustain WP:NPOV. For example, if articles in CNET, Wired, WSJ reported that such-and-such software violates the BusyBox license, I wouldn't have a problem using those sources. – Pnm (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a good reason to keep article and improve it in place. Why "delete" then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is important, but none of the content is usable. If there were a few entries supported by good sources, I'd trim it down to those and keep, but it has zero such sources, and wouldn't be much of a list if all its entries were deleted. I "lost" recently making a similar argument (Secure error messages in software systems) but this topic seems different, perhaps because it's impossible to maintain NPOV without sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV is absolutely irrelevant here, as there is no case for POV in suspected violations: either violation is suspected or it isn't. And there is no case for different issues regarding the important articles' deletion: in fact we judge the names here, not the content itself; literally, the vote "delete" is absolutely equal to "non-notable topic" statement and "keep" is "notable topic". There is just no room for "topic is notable, but delete it". That said, all of the ffmpeg bug entries are absolutely usable: they securely prove the fact that there is a claim about copyright violation. The violation itself is a matter of criminal investigation, not the AfD process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply untrue -- There are lots of reasons to delete something aside from notability. --NYKevin @307, i.e. 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But you might notice that all reasons for deletion of articles on the list boil down to WP:GNG: the ability to verify information with reliable sources. So my statement was simply true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply untrue -- There are lots of reasons to delete something aside from notability. --NYKevin @307, i.e. 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV is absolutely irrelevant here, as there is no case for POV in suspected violations: either violation is suspected or it isn't. And there is no case for different issues regarding the important articles' deletion: in fact we judge the names here, not the content itself; literally, the vote "delete" is absolutely equal to "non-notable topic" statement and "keep" is "notable topic". There is just no room for "topic is notable, but delete it". That said, all of the ffmpeg bug entries are absolutely usable: they securely prove the fact that there is a claim about copyright violation. The violation itself is a matter of criminal investigation, not the AfD process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is important, but none of the content is usable. If there were a few entries supported by good sources, I'd trim it down to those and keep, but it has zero such sources, and wouldn't be much of a list if all its entries were deleted. I "lost" recently making a similar argument (Secure error messages in software systems) but this topic seems different, perhaps because it's impossible to maintain NPOV without sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that page would be a fine source if the article said something like "BusyBox claims the following companies have violated their license:". But it's not okay to just say "The following companies...", nor is it okay to say nothing and stick them on a list like this, as it's equivalent to saying they did it. --NYKevin @868, i.e. 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of source you need for alleged copyright infringement? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspected violations are from the POV of the accuser. – Pnm (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say so. WP:NPOV address the cases with several viable approaches (and fringe theories as the exception). Suspected violation is a completely different matter: the statements' validity depends on fact, not on its interpretation. Thus WP:NPOV is just the wrong instrument here, as it is specifically tailored to deal with different type of cases. And even if not so, by listing an argument as "suspected violation" we give equal weight to both sides of conflict, so neutrality is properly maintained. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing the accused's action as suspected makes the article accurate, not balanced. We are representing the accuser's POV, but have no reasonable way to represent the accused's without running afoul of WP:NOR. True statements can still be biased; that's the point of WP:UNDUE. – Pnm (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we would report X's position if we were saying "Y violates X's copyright". We would report Y's position if we were saying "Y doesn't violate X's copyright" or nothing at all. The only way to keep the thing balanced is to report that "X suspects violation of its copyright by Y". That is a difference between informing and taking sides. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing the accused's action as suspected makes the article accurate, not balanced. We are representing the accuser's POV, but have no reasonable way to represent the accused's without running afoul of WP:NOR. True statements can still be biased; that's the point of WP:UNDUE. – Pnm (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say so. WP:NPOV address the cases with several viable approaches (and fringe theories as the exception). Suspected violation is a completely different matter: the statements' validity depends on fact, not on its interpretation. Thus WP:NPOV is just the wrong instrument here, as it is specifically tailored to deal with different type of cases. And even if not so, by listing an argument as "suspected violation" we give equal weight to both sides of conflict, so neutrality is properly maintained. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't even open the ffmpeg sources like this one. Do they actually load for you? – Pnm (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as it is an old location. The new one is [1], and substituting "mplayerhq.hu/roundup/ffmpeg" with "libav.org" works for each of them IIRC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspected violations are from the POV of the accuser. – Pnm (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:V does not "boil down to" WP:GNG, which isn't met in this case anyway (none of the sources are independent). Verifiability means the statements can be verified; failing it means there aren't enough verified facts for an article. The GNG means the topic itself is noteworthy, which doesn't necessarily mean we can verify anything relating to it. --NYKevin @880, i.e. 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my initial statement, actually. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in my statement did I say that this meets WP:V? I certainly don't remember saying that, but it's in your initial statement. --NYKevin @316, i.e. 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I inserted the lines to show the start and the end of the alternative thread. Where are those LiquidThreads... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in my statement did I say that this meets WP:V? I certainly don't remember saying that, but it's in your initial statement. --NYKevin @316, i.e. 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to snow keep per outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 31#Secure error messages in software systems (closed). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arbitrary, incoherent. I don't see what could come out of this. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "It's real" is not an argument for inclusion. It has to be notable also. If we have an article on the software that is alledged to violate some license, then a mention of the asserted violation (or more, if the matter becomes really important) would be justified there. But a list of "Softwarethe Company X asserts violates its license" is essentially lidirectory type content. The purpose is served by the database being cited as the source here; not by an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Big problems with this page as it stands. First of all, the software titles are listed under a large heading "Software that violated license". It does not say "It is alleged..." or "XYZ claims..." This implies that is a proven fact that the software did in fact violate copyright. Second, most of the references for the alleged violations come from some Hungarian website of unknown credibility, which I could not reach on the web. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.