Talk:Design Science License

Inclusion of license text
Would it be useful to put the text of the DSL here? It's pretty self-explanatory, when you get down to it. -- April


 * Could we use it under the GFDL or under fair use? Then no. And if it is at all long, it probably belongs on Wikisource. --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why a copyleft license would be copyrighted. Is this irony? Tomid 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting the text dispute to rest
I received this email from GNU.org about the DSL text.

It is true that the Design Science License is regrettably incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. So I think you are right that the copyright holder needs to release the work under the GFDL, public domain, or some compatible license. We certainly hope they do so (we explicitly disrecommend the DSL for documentation for exactly this reason).

I'm not sure if you were looking for anything else from GNU? Not knowingly the DSL-covered material you're speaking of, or who the copyright holders are, I'm not sure what more to say at this point ...

Best regards, karl@gnu.org

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

This puts to rest the whole issue unless someone goes to the guy who wrote the DSL and gets him to release it as PD or GFDL. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in addition to that problem; wikipedia is not a receptacle for the text of documents you're thinking of wikisource. Feel free to put the license up there provided you can get permission to do so.  Use this article to explain the historical, legal, etc. ramifications of the license in an encyclopedic manner.--Anymouse  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the reverter would like to start a pointless revert war it is recomended he or she come to the talk page and explain his or her rational for including the full text despite the wikiusage and legal reasons for not doing so.--Anymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're one to talk considering that you deleted the text without making any comment here on the talk page. Nor did you wait for any comment, response, or discussion before deleting the text again.  I am under no obligation to offer any rationale for its inclusion, and I have no comment on its appropriateness, or the other issues involved.  I saw an anonymous user delete the majority of the text of an article, and I reverted what I saw as vandalism.  I will do so again.  Your opinion that the text is inappropriate does not justify your deletion of same.  Oh, and please sign your comments so that sinebot does not have to do it for you.  Its common courtesy to use consistent formatting.  Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically what your saying is that an anonymous users actions are subject to your oversite but yours are not subject to his? Also if you'll take a look at the history and the time stamps I did offer a rationale for my deletion. Both here and in the edit summary. I.E. that the inclusion of the fulltext belonged on wikisource and that it was possibly illegal. In other words mah dear Jacobite, you're one to talk and you should feel free to explain why portions of an article that are both unencyclopedic and possibly illegal should NOT be deleted. Or you could continue to claim that you're a law apart from the common and quibble about formatting.

RecentlyAnon 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference for this article
Here is a reference from Linux today. www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2001072600120PS

A36B7436 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)