Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traceroute program

Traceroute program
Copyrighted, non-encyclopedic. jengod 20:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Traceroute --Ld 20:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - primary source material widely and freely available in more appropriate venues. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, wiki is not a data dump. Wyss 23:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete wrong place for src code. Kbh3rd 23:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio and data dump. Samaritan 02:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment tagged it as a copyvio, and listed it there. this should be deleted (for copyvio reasons) and then redirected to traceroute to avoid a repeat. Michael Ward 06:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not copyvio, BSD license is quite compatible with most everything. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 17:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the existing article was not a violation, as it fully complied with the advertising provision of the BSD license. It is not however clear that this is compatible with the GFDL,  under which all Wikipedia content is supposed to be licensed.  This is because it would be a violation under that license if anyone came along and edited or removed the copyright and licensing statement in the text.  But Wikipedia articles are supposed to be freely editable.  Therefore, it strikes me as likely incompatible with the GFDL and with the Wikipedia spirit.  I suppose this matter has been hashed out somewhere else, or it should be.  At any rate, this seems like a clear delete, one way or the other. (I see that these issues are in fact being debated at the moment over on copyright violations) Michael Ward 17:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - source code as such is not appropriate for Wikipedia (it might be appropriate as an example in an article, but that's another question). I don't think this is a copyvio because the page included the copyright notice in its entirety as per point (1), while UC has rescinded point (3). --rbrwr&plusmn; 15:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: When will all this licencing stuff get cleared up? What's wrong with the GFDL? Redirect in the interim. Alphax (talk) 05:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)