Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifconfig

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ifconfig

[edit]

Another man page. --jpgordon {gab} 19:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Speedy delete, even. ~leif 22:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: I wasn't sure if it was a /man page or not -- not being a real Linux geek and not wanting to step on the toes of the computer article folk. I couldn't see what the article offered that a man page wouldn't, but mine's a weak delete. It's in coherent English, though, and is about a thing, so it wasn't a speedy candidate. Geogre 01:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
man 8 ifconfig
D Computer references are nice, but WP isn't one. Now there's an idea ... Chris 01:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not your local manpages. --Improv 06:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even nearly as notable as ls and its friends. jni 13:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup if not a copyvio. If copyvio delete without prejudice. anthony (see warning) 17:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, I am somewhat displeased right now, so I'll just deposit a placeholder

  • IFconfig and its man pages are originally BSD licenced, they are free to use for all who wish to do so, the licence is compatible with the GFDL.
  • Ifconfig is a key component of the original implementation of the internet, and is still used today.

Kim Bruning 22:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • The version I have is GPLed. Which version is BSD licensed, and is it with or without the advertising clause (the advertising clause is non-free and incompatible with the GFDL)? Is there an intent to keep the copyright notice, or will we be ignoring this requirement? Do we have a copy of the text which was BSD licensed so it can be confirmed that nothing was added which wasn't released under the BSD licensed version? anthony (see warning) 23:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • later BSD versions are advertising-clause free, however no matter, if you have a GPLed one, that will do. (the original BSD man page is more something for wikisource anyway). The page might be better written in a encyclopedic manner even so. But definately definately no delete today. Kim Bruning 23:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • GPL will not do, as it is not GFDL compatible. I know about later BSD versions, but was this released under the later versions or the newer ones? And is there an intention to include the copyright notice? Rewrite in an encyclopedic manner on the temp page or delete. anthony (see warning) 00:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • GFDL and GPL not compatible? That would be exceedingly strange indeed. It would be impossible to write GFDLed manuals for GPL software (which is the raison d'etre of the GFDL) if that was the case. Could you point out any references for this? Can you point out references that also state why they are (deliberately?) incompatible? Kim Bruning 00:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • GPL and GFDL being compatible has nothing to do with whether or not a manual for GPL software can be GFDL. Here's a reference: [1]. "Beyond its non-free status, the GFDL has additional serious practical problems: It's GPL-incompatible in both directions. This means that you can't legally extract text from a GFDL'ed manual and put it into integrated help strings in a GPL'ed program. And you can't extract code or comments from a GPL'ed program and put it into a GFDL'ed manual. (Without getting explicit permission to relicense from every copyright-holding contributor, that is.)" anthony (see warning) 02:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The GFDL document itself has commentary text actually encouraging the GPLing of contents, and using GPLed text in the corpus of a GFDLed text. I don't know who Nathanael Nerode is, so I can't put a value to his comments. Have we discussed this with Eben Moglen, or has he made any statements about it other than those in the comments in the GFDL?
    • Have you discussed it with Eben Moglen, or are you just going to ignore my references without providing references of your own? anthony (see warning) 12:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm specifically referring to the text of a document that has already come up, Namely, the GFDL, commentary: "How to use this License for your documents", (last paragraph) at [2]. But it's a tad tricky I'll warrent. Has any discussion on this matter already cropped up on wikipedia that you're aware of? Else probably it would be a good idea to bring it up at village pump or so, and make contact with Eben Moglen, eh? I'll look into it some more later. :-) Kim Bruning 13:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software. That in no way implies that the GPL and GFDL are compatible. It's saying that you should dual license code under the GPL and the GFDL. Feel free to bring it up on the pump or with Eben Moglen, but you will get the same answer. The GPL and GFDL are not compatible. It might be possible to make limited aggregation of GPL and GFDL works, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about taking a GPLed text and calling it a GFDLed text. There is nothing in the GPL which allows that. anthony (see warning) 14:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, no, not explicitly, but both law and code sometimes depend on side effects to get their work done. It was almost certainly not the intent of the writers of that man page that it would be banned from use on wikipedia, though you claim it might be an unintended side effect. I don't see any proof for that either way so far, but even if true, there's several ways to solve it for now. If what you are saying is true, then we should certainly have a bit of a talk with Eben Moglen, and listen to his reccomendations as to how to proceed in situations like this. Kim Bruning 14:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If you want to contact the authors and ask them to license the man page under the GFDL, then please do so. But until then, we shouldn't be calling things GFDL just because we think the authors probably wouldn't mind GFDLing it. And by far the easiest way to solve the problem is to write an encyclopedic stub (or full article) on the temp page without copying/pasting it from a copyrighted source without permission. I don't think we need to talk to Eben Moglen to do that. As for the intent that the man page "be banned from use on wikipedia", that is the effect of copyright law. Just about everything that is written is copyrighted automatically and banned from use on wikipedia without permission. The GPL gives permission to use the text on Wikipedia, but it doesn't give permission to license the text under the GFDL, and at the bottom of every page is the statement that all text is licensed under the GFDL. anthony (see warning) 17:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • We need to talk with Eben Moglen because it can't be the intent that GPL and GFDL are incompatible. We can certianly solve this particular problem using some alternate route, but we've bumped into a situation that he should be aware of. Don't you think? It's a bug report ;-) Kim Bruning 17:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ifconfig&oldid=357527540"