As the editor who placed the copyvio tags on the article, has himself removed half of the tags without them being resolved by a copyright clerk or response agent, believe it is justified to remove all of the tags put on the article. The trivial and simplistic code examples have been rewritten. Descriptions above the examples are cited and have also been rewritten.Wukuendo (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
correct, but the MIT license requires attribution which is missing and attempts at adding Template:Dual to the talk page were reverted and I was accused of vandalism. The editor Wukuendo disputes that attribution is required, hence why I submitted this. Jan200101 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jan200101, Thanks for that context. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that dual license is the easiest and best way forward to actually improving the article if that content were to be included. Other editors claim that "Small code snippets are not protected by copyright (especially common and simplistic small examples), unless more than a dozen or so lines of code," while may be true, may not be possible to establish clearly without significant effort. — WeWake (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jan200101, A third option could be to rewrite the complicated examples. It is not necessary that we must use the examples from the official docs – this would bypass the entire issue. For trivial code that has no way of being rewritten in a different way, I feel that it should not warrant a copyright concern and should be WP:FAIRUSE in worst case scenario. — WeWake (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WeWake, I have refrained from commenting, until other senior editors have weighed in. I'm in agreement with your assessment. It appears other editors are too, who are being reverted by Jan200101. Other options, such as rewritten examples, are being ignored or is not being understood that they are an acceptable option.
The code examples have been rewritten, so are different. But more importantly, the code snippets in question look to have been too small and simplistic to qualify for copyright. Even beyond that, WP:FAIRUSE could be argued in this case as well. Wukuendo (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that I am not against the content being rewritten but the rewrite Wukuendo is referring to is this change which only changed changed naming and values and left the overall structure as an derivative of its original.
The revert being mentioned is this one where I reverted a revert from an anonymous editor that did not consult the Talk page or this Copyright problem before doing so.
Regarding basic snippets: it is true common programming patterns do not qualify for copyright however the sections in question retained the surrounding text, variable naming, values and comments from the original source which makes it obvious that it is not just different code doing the same thing but a straight up copy.
Thus far I had waited for someone else to rewrite the sections properly to prevent further conflict but since no one else has done so thus far I will attempt to do it myself while retaining roughly the same meaning. Jan200101 (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A big problem is there is a level of obfuscation with how the tags on the article were done, that can create confusion to those not familiar with the article. There is the example code and then there is a statement or description above the example (which are cited). For instance the words "Struct example:" can not be copyrighted, but was placed incorrectly under a violation tag. In this case, there needs to be separation between example code and cited descriptions or statements above the examples.
Per WeWake, "For trivial code that has no way of being rewritten in a different way, I feel that it should not warrant a copyright concern". The code was rewritten and are trivial basic examples, that arguably can not be copyrighted. The code is so basic, that arguably it can not be written in a different enough way by others, to satisfy the person placing the tag.Wukuendo (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wukuendo, Jan200101, WeWake, short snippets of code, like the ones featured on the article, are typically not protected under copyright. In this case, the snippets of code are too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation. As it stands, there is no copyright infringement. What we could do, since the code seems to be MIT licensed, is to attribute the code to avoid further confusion. Unfortunately, as pointed out earlier, there is no specific template for this. The4lines |||| (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The4lines I want to discuss this a bit further because I agree that generic, simplistic or basic code patterns cannot be copyrighted but in this case it was not only similar or fulfilled the same role but retain the same variable names, values, styling, comments and as well as surrounding text explaining it.
There may also be a bit of confusion because the article as it was at the time you were involved by Wukuendo contained rewritten Structs and Heap Structs sections following my perceived suggestion by WeWake to rewrite them to avoid copyright issues with the other sections hidden by the copyvio tag being slightly modified versions from the V documentation to obfuscate their origin (e.g. change variable names from a to x and values from 10 to 15).
In regards to attribution, as I understand it the MIT license is at least compatible with CC-BY-SA-4.0 so Template:CC-notice should work, originally I attempted to add Template:Dual myself with feedback from IRC/wikipedia-en-help but this was disputed and reverted by Wukuendo
Jan200101, correct, I was looking at the latest revision of the article. Taking a look at the previous version of the article, before the rewrites, I still don't think it was a copyright violation. The snippets of code were too short and the codes themselves too basic to fall under copyright. Although, you were definitely right in adding the attribution template, that was definitely the best course of action. Wukuendo, I'm not sure why you decided to remove the attribution or why you thought it was "subtle vandalism". Please try to assume better faith next time. Let me just confirm which attribution template would be best in this case and we should be good to go. The4lines |||| (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The4lines, Jan200101 is giving his personal version and view of events, in which there was disagreement about. He originally wanted to outright remove a section, "If no one objects I will remove it", and not do a rewrite, to include claiming the section was not cited, when it was (p172 of Getting Started with V Programming). This is also in context to various and continuous odd efforts to vandalize or remove the article (despite going through the AfC process). From that back and forth, we got into what is or what is not copyrightable. The attribution template was removed and it was thought to be subtle vandalism, because: it was done with no edit summary, linked to an old non-English draft, and no explanation based on Wikipedia policy was given. Instead an explanation was offered referring to an IRC chat with unknown persons, "I've said that "I've been told" because I've asked on IRC".
I would not get in the way of a noticeboard decision, SME, or clear Wikipedia policy to resolve or address an issue. It was my understanding, at that time, that sections of the article could be rewritten and the examples in question were not copyrightable (as was repeatedly told to Jan200101), per what was later explained in WeWake's opinion and your evaluation as the SME. Wukuendo (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. The4lines |||| (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)