Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subversion License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was Delete. DES (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subversion License

Subversion License (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is no Subversion License. It just uses the original Apache License, so the article is useless. Superm401 - Talk 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete but not per nom: delete because the EULA for a specific product or project is not in-and-of-itself notable. Since this particular license is neither novel nor a model for other licenses, an article on it is not worthy of inclusion. Groupthink 02:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a EULA (EULAs are contracts; this is a license) and it's not a license for specific project; it's just the Apache license, which is notable. Superm401 - Talk 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK fine, it's a redistribution license, not a EULA. However: An End User License Agreement isn't a license?!? A license isn't a form of contract?!? Come on, Superm401, get real. As for your second point: I'm not sure if you're saying that the Apache license is notable, or it's notable that the Subversion license is merely the Apache license. If the former, well, nobody's arguing that it's not. If the latter, then I disagree -- plenty of products use the GNU General Public License verbatim. Groupthink 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. JJL 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Apache license. Redirects are cheap; the linked to page uses the term "subversion license." --Karnesky 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know, wouldn't that set a dangerous precedent? Wouldn't that raise the specter of a quadrillion redirects to Apache license popping up? How cheap is cheap? Groupthink 14:19, 21 June 2007 (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.