Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial Developer's Public License

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

The result of the debate was HMMM. Clearly Wikisource material were it not the fact that I suspect this text of the license itself is probably not public domain or GFDL. So I'm not going to transwiki and will tag as a possible copyvio. There is no indication that the text itself is licensed under the license (if it were it couldn't be transwikied) not that all rights are released, so we have to presume they are not. -Splash^talk 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I realised it has been deleted as a copyvio before. I agree that it is indeed such a violation and have now re-deleted it. Just because the license is for free software does not mean that the license itself is free. -Splash^talk 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Developer's Public License

Unencyclopedic. I had originally prodded this, but GeorgeStepanek (talk • contribs) asked me to list it here so that it could be considered for transwiki to WikiSource. I don't really think it needs to be there as the Firebird folks are legally required to redistribute it as long as Firebird remains in existance, and it isn't used for anything else. But I don't really object, either. No vote from me for now. Thoughts? Craig Stuntz 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to AfD InterBase Public License since it's more or less an identical case (though a slightly different license) to the above, but it's already been deleted. What's more, it's been deleted and recreated a couple times in the past. I see that this article has also been deleted as copyright violation, which is kind of odd as it's a dump of a license which clearly gives permission to copy! That said, it's clearly unencyclopedic, and whether or not you'd like it on Wikisource it doesn't belong here, so I don't want to quibble with the old deletion too much. --Craig Stuntz 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki sounds like an excellent idea to me. Thanks Craig! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:41, 28 February 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.