Jump to content

User:LuisVilla/sandbox/GPL review: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add commentary on lead section.
→‎Review: - another link
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 47: Line 47:
| '''(a)''' (prose) ||
| '''(a)''' (prose) ||
* Lead:
* Lead:
** Are the four freedoms the GPL's most salient/important characteristic? I'd lead with the copyleft, since many licenses provide the four freedoms, but GPL is the pre-eminent (in both historic and popularity terms) copyleft license.
⚫
** "most popular software licenses in the free and open source software domain" -> most popular free and open source software licenses
** Prominent users may also deserve more prominence for the casual reader? But realize that's not an easy call, and may matter left if some of the redundancy in the first paragraph is removed.
** "guarantees end users ..." and "grants the recipients..." are redundant; no strong feelings about which are preferred but pick one.
** derivative work -> derivative works
** I might say "This is in distinction to permissive licenses, which allow derivatives to be distributed under any terms." Give the examples of other licenses in the body. Or consider moving the entire discussion of permissive licenses to the body - this is an important topic, but hard to address concisely and clearly in the lead.
⚫
** "most popular software licenses in the free and open source software domain" -> most popular free and open source software licenses
** Re Wheeler argument: should either be strengthened by sourcing to multiple authors, or removed from the lead? (I believe Benjamin Mako Hill has done some writing on this point, for another potential source.)
** Re Wheeler argument: should either be strengthened by sourcing to multiple authors, or removed from the lead? (I believe Benjamin Mako Hill has done some writing on this point, for another potential source.)
** Also consider simplifying the Wheeler argument by referring to (relatively) widely-known concepts like the [[free rider problem]], rather than the long, complex sentence used here?
** Also consider simplifying the Wheeler argument by referring to (relatively) widely-known concepts like the [[free rider problem]], rather than the long, complex sentence used here?
Line 53: Line 58:
** I would remove the "any later version" discussion. It's mechanics/details, not lead-worthy.
** I would remove the "any later version" discussion. It's mechanics/details, not lead-worthy.
* History:
* History:
** In the lead, there is one sentence about v2, with no explanation or context for why it was released, immediately jumping into v3, which is confusing - I'd provide more context about v2 and/or make clear that you've started talking about the reasoning for v3
*
* Version 1
** "prevented" is an awkward word here - licenses can't really prevent; they can restrict, or attempt to restrict?
* Version 2
** By word count, most of this is about LGPL; should it be broken out into a separate section?
* Version 3:
** Does it make sense to break out the public response into a separate section?
** Compatibility and the subject of versioning are important, but probably not part of the history?
** "for example Toybox..." This clause isn't related to the first part of the sentence? Should be a separate sentence, with more information added to show relevance.
| {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|-
|-
| '''(b)''' (MoS) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(b)''' (MoS) ||
* Lead:
** Are the popularity citations actually needed? I don't think anyone with even the most cursory of knowledge of open source is going to challenge the "one of the most popular" phrasings here, so per WP:CITELEAD I don't think these are necessary. (And certainly not eight of them.)
* version 3:
** Controversial to whom?
| {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|}
|}
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:</li>
Line 66: Line 84:
| '''(a)''' (references) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(a)''' (references) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|-
|-
| '''(b)''' (citations to reliable sources) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(b)''' (citations to reliable sources) ||
* Lead:
** The first use of FN 6 does not discuss what freedoms are preserved by the license. If it is being used to justify "widely used", that is both unnecessary (unlikely to be contested) and redundant to the second paragraph of the lead.
* Sec. 1, History:
** Information on Version 1 and most of version 2 is basically completely uncited/original research. It isn't obviously wrong (I did not review the text of v1) but pretty sure it is not GA quality.
* Version 3
** Reams of independent third-party commentary was written on v3 ([http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hulr42&div=35&id=&page= scholarly example]); is it appropriate/neutral/reliable to rely on Stallman (the author) and the FSF (primary promoter of the license) for information about v3? Obviously they can be resource, particularly for discussing their motivations, but other sources are available. As an example of where this is problematic, I don't think anyone other than FSF would describe the DRM clause as "stripping DRM of its legal value". Besides the paper I already linked to, [http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/03/gplv3-user-products-clause.html here]'s some (relatively) independent commentary on that clause. There is also no mention of the [https://www.linux.com/news/torvalds-comments-gplv3-committees-refuted committee system that allowed corporate feedback into the process]; I can't say whether that's because of the lack of third-party sources, but it probably doesn't help.
| {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|-
|-
| '''(c)''' (original research) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(c)''' (original research) ||
* Lead:
** fns 15 and 16 are primary sources, bordering on original research. Definitely don't belong in the lead, and possibly not anywhere. These are referenced in other works (e.g., I think Heather Meeker's book discusses them; and maybe Karl Fogel's?), which could be used instead.
* Sec. 1, History:
** fn 17 is a primary source that is not present in/discussed in fn 18. Original research?
* Version 3:
** Counting comments from the live comment system is almost paradigmatic original research, no?
| {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|-
|-
| '''(d)''' (copyvio and plagiarism) || Did not evaluate. || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(d)''' (copyvio and plagiarism) || Did not evaluate. || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
Line 80: Line 112:
| '''(a)''' (major aspects) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(a)''' (major aspects) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|-
|-
| '''(b)''' (focused) || ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
| '''(b)''' (focused) || ' . || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|}
|}
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.</li>
Line 88: Line 120:
! Notes !! Result
! Notes !! Result
|-
|-
| Version 1:
| ''The reviewer has no notes here.'' || {{GAHybrid/item|}}
* first sentence speaks of "two main ways... distributors restricted freedoms"; rest speaks of "problems". I think "restriction" is probably more neutral than "problem".
* I might say "restricted a recipient's ability to use and modify the software" or something like that, rather than the less neutral "restricted the freedoms..." Not everyone agrees those are freedoms.
Version 3:
* See comments above (2(b)) for concerns about over-relying on Stallman and FSF. Applies particularly to this section, but a concern throughout.
| {{GAHybrid/item|}}
|}
|}
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.</li>
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.</li>

Revision as of 22:43, 15 March 2017

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

NB: This is not a formal GA review, since I have some potential conflicts as an expert on the subject and part of one of the GPL v3 expert committees. Another GA reviewer, and/or the editors of the article, can take this advice (or not) as they please.


Criteria

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose)
    • Lead:
      • Are the four freedoms the GPL's most salient/important characteristic? I'd lead with the copyleft, since many licenses provide the four freedoms, but GPL is the pre-eminent (in both historic and popularity terms) copyleft license.
      • Prominent users may also deserve more prominence for the casual reader? But realize that's not an easy call, and may matter left if some of the redundancy in the first paragraph is removed.
      • "guarantees end users ..." and "grants the recipients..." are redundant; no strong feelings about which are preferred but pick one.
      • derivative work -> derivative works
      • I might say "This is in distinction to permissive licenses, which allow derivatives to be distributed under any terms." Give the examples of other licenses in the body. Or consider moving the entire discussion of permissive licenses to the body - this is an important topic, but hard to address concisely and clearly in the lead.
      • "most popular software licenses in the free and open source software domain" -> most popular free and open source software licenses?
      • Re Wheeler argument: should either be strengthened by sourcing to multiple authors, or removed from the lead? (I believe Benjamin Mako Hill has done some writing on this point, for another potential source.)
      • Also consider simplifying the Wheeler argument by referring to (relatively) widely-known concepts like the free rider problem, rather than the long, complex sentence used here?
      • long-time usage -> lengthy usage? Or simply say 15 years?
      • I would remove the "any later version" discussion. It's mechanics/details, not lead-worthy.
    • History:
      • In the lead, there is one sentence about v2, with no explanation or context for why it was released, immediately jumping into v3, which is confusing - I'd provide more context about v2 and/or make clear that you've started talking about the reasoning for v3
    • Version 1
      • "prevented" is an awkward word here - licenses can't really prevent; they can restrict, or attempt to restrict?
    • Version 2
      • By word count, most of this is about LGPL; should it be broken out into a separate section?
    • Version 3:
      • Does it make sense to break out the public response into a separate section?
      • Compatibility and the subject of versioning are important, but probably not part of the history?
      • "for example Toybox..." This clause isn't related to the first part of the sentence? Should be a separate sentence, with more information added to show relevance.
    		 Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS)
    • Lead:
      • Are the popularity citations actually needed? I don't think anyone with even the most cursory of knowledge of open source is going to challenge the "one of the most popular" phrasings here, so per WP:CITELEAD I don't think these are necessary. (And certainly not eight of them.)
    • version 3:
      • Controversial to whom?
    		 Neutral Undetermined
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)
    • Lead:
      • The first use of FN 6 does not discuss what freedoms are preserved by the license. If it is being used to justify "widely used", that is both unnecessary (unlikely to be contested) and redundant to the second paragraph of the lead.
    • Sec. 1, History:
      • Information on Version 1 and most of version 2 is basically completely uncited/original research. It isn't obviously wrong (I did not review the text of v1) but pretty sure it is not GA quality.
    • Version 3
      • Reams of independent third-party commentary was written on v3 (scholarly example); is it appropriate/neutral/reliable to rely on Stallman (the author) and the FSF (primary promoter of the license) for information about v3? Obviously they can be resource, particularly for discussing their motivations, but other sources are available. As an example of where this is problematic, I don't think anyone other than FSF would describe the DRM clause as "stripping DRM of its legal value". Besides the paper I already linked to, here's some (relatively) independent commentary on that clause. There is also no mention of the committee system that allowed corporate feedback into the process; I can't say whether that's because of the lack of third-party sources, but it probably doesn't help.
    		 Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research)
    • Lead:
      • fns 15 and 16 are primary sources, bordering on original research. Definitely don't belong in the lead, and possibly not anywhere. These are referenced in other works (e.g., I think Heather Meeker's book discusses them; and maybe Karl Fogel's?), which could be used instead.
    • Sec. 1, History:
      • fn 17 is a primary source that is not present in/discussed in fn 18. Original research?
    • Version 3:
      • Counting comments from the live comment system is almost paradigmatic original research, no?
    		 Neutral Undetermined
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Did not evaluate. Neutral Undetermined
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) I'd suggest that the history section is too long (especially given the lack of citations in sections 1.1 and 1.2) and could be trimmed back or broken into a separate article. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Version 1:
    • first sentence speaks of "two main ways... distributors restricted freedoms"; rest speaks of "problems". I think "restriction" is probably more neutral than "problem".
    • I might say "restricted a recipient's ability to use and modify the software" or something like that, rather than the less neutral "restricted the freedoms..." Not everyone agrees those are freedoms.

    Version 3:

    • See comments above (2(b)) for concerns about over-relying on Stallman and FSF. Applies particularly to this section, but a concern throughout.
    		 Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

Result

Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LuisVilla/sandbox/GPL_review&oldid=770521275"