Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DragonflySixtyseven/Casey at the Wyrm

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was '''Issue is now moot. One chooses one's battles.''' DS (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven/Casey at the Wyrm


User:DragonflySixtyseven/Casey at the Wyrm needs to be deleted because "Distribute freely, but give credit where credit is due!" is NOT functionally equivalent to CC-BY.

Functionally, CC-BY explicitly allows for re-distribution, remixing and usage commercially. "Distribute freely, but give credit where credit is due!" only explicitly allows for one of the three.

Having the page on Wikipedia is functionally equivalent to a copyright violations and needs to be deleted. 197.245.47.92 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (copied from request on MfD talk page [without intending any implied !vote] by —PC-XT+ 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC))


 * Comment. A quick search suggests that this is a work from June 3rd, 1888 by Ernest L. Thayer liben.com/caseyhistory, if so this should be a long expired copyright that has reverted to the public domain.  Adding attribution if known would be positive. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a derivative work of Casey at the Bat, which is in the public domain now. The question at hand here would be the copy write status of this derivative. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux: An archive of the original is linked to on the page in question; the copyright notice is there and also reproduced on the page: CASEY AT THE WYRM Copyright 1991, 1992 by Ben Sansing (aka Beineon O'Herne) Distribute freely, but give credit where credit is due!. I'm afraid that I have to agree with the nom: "Distribute freely" could be interpreted to either include or exclude commercial distribution (depending on if the word "free" is used as in "speech" or as in "beer"), but I can't find any way that the phrase "distribute freely" could be interpreted to mean "distribute and modify freely", which is something that CC-BY would require. It's possible that the original author didn't intend to restrict modification this way, but we can't work with that; we have to work with what he said (or in this case, did not say), and he did not say that free modification was permissible. Thus, this isn't equivalent to CC-BY; the closest we can get from his words is "CC-BY-ND", which is still too restrictive for Wikipedia. I'm afraid we have to delete this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blanked that section while this is in progress (as possible copyvio). — xaosflux  Talk 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I dispute the block ban-evading user's argument that this either is, or is functionally equivalent to, a copyright violation. I further dispute the block ban-evading user's argument that the redistribution statement from 1992 is not equivalent to CC-BY. DS (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, one chooses one's battles, and this isn't worth the hassle. My reason for making it available on my userpage in the first place was to a) note a really cool poem, and b) ensure that it would be easily available, both to myself and to anyone else who might be interested. A direct link to the original Usenet post will serve that purpose. A legal professional could probably make a valid case for this being kept, but that would be swatting a fly with a dinosaur-killing asteroid. The disputed content is no longer directly available via Wikipedia's servers. DS (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.