Talk:Permissive software license

GNU All-permissive License: top page quotation

User Ashok2102 has repeatedly tried to remove the quotation on top containing the entire text of the GNU All-permissive License (I am the author of that page), but I have reverted their edits. I will copy and paste their motivation from the article history: "The page is not about GPL permissive license and the pages ought not to start with a stray quote. Before reverting this edit, please provide relevant reference to wikipedia policy page that allows such a quote at the top!".

User Ashok2102 says that "The page is not about GPL permissive license". But that is a confusion, since the GNU All-permissive License has nothing to do with the GNU General Public License (GPL), and is not a copyleft license, but a (very) permissive one instead.

I think that it is a really good quotation, representative of all permissive licenses (it is short, concise, well written, and it doesn't add inessential parts) and it has been created by the Free Software Foundation with the explicit intention of creating a very permissive license – even in the name. Moreover, citing Wikipedia:Quotations: "Quotations are a good way to comply with the no original research policy" (as what 'permissive' means could be a rather subjective topic). --Grufo (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If (as you insist) it's not about GNU, then it need not be prominently displayed, dominating the lede. As it stands, it's definitely promotional, and detracts from the readability of the page TEDickey (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"If (as you insist) it's not about GNU [...] As it stands, it's definitely promotional." I rarely insist, especially about things I haven't even said. It is definitely a GNU license (although it never contains the word "GNU"); but the GNU Project would never advertise such a license, since they promote copyleft and have their GPL license as workhorse. Hence, if it is promotional it is so definitely against GNU's will. The quotation is there because that license is a good paradigm of a permissive software license able to fit in one paragraph. Find a better one and personally I will be happy with it. --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"As it stands, it [...] detracts from the readability of the page." How? --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering what browser you're using. The layout is poor in Firefox. Scanning up through your comments, I have a hunch you haven't read the manual of style guidance. If you spend some time and read that, others may be able to have a constructive conversation regarding your contribution. TEDickey (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Examples

This article currently includes a single example, the GNU All-permissive License. It has the virtue of brevity, even by permissive-license standards but not much else, and in particular isn't actually very widely used as a permissive software license. I would replace it out of hand, probably with the MIT license (as apparently the most widely-used permissive license in practice), but there seems to have been some controversy about it in the past. I will still do so in a few days if I see no objection here. --162.247.150.37 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There having been no objection, I've gone ahead and done this. 162.247.150.37 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

“It has the virtue of brevity, even by permissive-license standards but not much else” Brevity is the most fundamental virtue in this context, and the MIT license is frankly too long for the article. --Grufo (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest in that case that it might be better to have no license text plunked in the middle of this article at all. The license articles themselves are all wikilinked from this, and have the license texts inline, which is really where they belong. 162.247.150.37 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

“I would suggest in that case that it might be better to have no license text plunked in the middle of this article at all” I don't understand your point, either the MIT license or no license at all? --Grufo (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't especially like having an "Example" section at all, no. I do think that if it makes sense at all, the GNU All-Permissive license is a particularly bad example, since it is not widely used as a license for non-trivial programs, nor is it recommended for such use by its authors. If there's going to be a bunch of redundant license text in here at all, it ought to be one of the licenses that are actually commonly used for "real" software among advocates of permissive licenses. (You wouldn't use CDDL or MPL as the headline example of a copyleft license, would you?) 162.247.150.37 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

“the GNU All-Permissive license is a particularly bad example, since it is not widely used as a license for non-trivial programs, nor is it recommended for such use by its authors” I honestly think it is not a bad example at all, I actually think it is the best possible example for the page. Whether the GNU All-Permissive license is a good or a bad license though it is not for Wikipedia to judge (and I am sure there are people who will disagree with you and just love it). It is a license authored by the FSF. Indeed it is not meant for sizeable projects, only for small files, and it is relatively widespread in the case of small files. But how widespread or not it is, or whether it is for small files or big projects, are all irrelevant details in this context. The only thing that matters here is its suitability as a paradigmatic example and the authority of the source. The GNU All-Permissive license meets fantastically both requirements. And its relatively low diffusion compared to other licenses in competition with each other (such as MIT or BSD) can be actually considered a virtue of impartiality in a Wikipedia page. --Grufo (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Bluntly, this article isn't a platform to advertise your favorite license, nor does authorship by an organization largely opposed to permissive licensing constitute very convincing authority. I also see no very good argument for reproducing this text here when it's already present in the appropriate article. 162.247.150.37 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Permissive software license → Permissive license – See the article, it also contains information on non-software licenses. Avoinlähde (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'Permissive software license' is the WP:COMMONNAME. - MrOllie (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Pageviews show that the current title seems to be the common name. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Other terms - Cuck license

Is this term notable enough to warrant inclusion?

It includes 3 citations:

• [33] - Seems to be the origin of the term. This is a blog post.
• [34] - No longer exists and is also a blog post.
• [35] - Is a wiki

I'd think all 3 of these fall under WP:RS/SPS and WP:UGC. I'm not well versed in wiki stuff so I don't know WP:N works with regards to article content as opposed to entire articles, but this seems to me like it's just including a single individual's rant on the subject. 2604:3D09:E83:5300:911C:D068:BC10:F170 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The quote doesn't make sense either, no amount of mental gymnastics can make the act of contributing to software under a license that allows corporate use then having that use occur as expected analagous to a term that sometimes just refers to a sexual situation that at worst is a betrayal and at best might be desired by all involved. There's no betrayal to be found in a license that allows free use of software.

I mean, if that's considered a valid term by somebody I've never heard of and more importantly somebody I wish I didn't know anything about (Stahlman), considering his known views on little girls all I can say is I'm going to keep on refusing to contribute to anything that's not a "Cuck License", because I'd rather my wife have sex with other men than be a pedophile. In fact, I'll suggest that the GPL should stand for the GNU Pedophile License and that the use of that term is more analagous to the reality in that it's possible that a child could end up in a situation where they wrote something incorporating GPL code without understanding the intricacies of the forced relationship there and suddenly find themselves taking the shaft from an extremely disturbing group of people.

I'm kidding of course, that's the least of what I'd worry about happening to a pre-teen who got mixed up with Stahlman and no programming would be required. --A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)