Talk:Design Science License

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open Access Low‑importance

Design Science License is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

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)[reply]

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

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|Babel] 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference for this article

Here is a reference from Linux today. www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2001072600120PS

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