Template:Did you know nominations/Open Government Licence
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Open Government Licence
[edit]
- ... that the United Kingdom government's Open Government Licence (wordmark shown) is compatible with the CC-by licence?
- Comment: Chimes well with our mission.
Created by Mike Peel (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 23:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
- The relevant line in the article does not have an inline citation as required by the Within policy criteria, consider adding one :) other than that it's good, but not particularly extraordinary. Certainly interesting, though. --MarkTraceur (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The citation is on the factoid on the body, not the repetition of it in the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Andy that it is inline - Ref1 covers it. Length. Age. Qty of refs. Hook fine. Suggest this for January 1st picture lead. Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC) (@MarkTraceur - sorry to jump in - do count this as your review Victuallers (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC))
- No problem about jumping in. I disagree that ref1 covers it - the article talks about "work[ing] in parallel with...Creative Commons", but doesn't mention compatibility and doesn't specifically mention CC-BY. ref3 also mentions CC generally, but only to say that the OGL is "based on" the CC family of licences. I don't see any obvious reference to the fact that they're compatible, here, so until that's added I suggest holding off. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 3 says
"Based on the world-leading Creative Commons family of licences, the new licence works in parallel with them and mirrors their Attribution Licence"
, with the words "Attribution Licence" linked to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)- Mirroring is also not the same as being compatible! Unless I see a specific statement from a reliable legal source saying that the OGL is "compatible with", i.e., literally those two words, the CC-BY license, I seriously doubt the accuracy and verifiability of the hook here, especially given what I know about licenses...oh, but wait, the actual text of the license says that CC-BY 4.0 is compatible. You should really just link to that. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 3 says
- No problem about jumping in. I disagree that ref1 covers it - the article talks about "work[ing] in parallel with...Creative Commons", but doesn't mention compatibility and doesn't specifically mention CC-BY. ref3 also mentions CC generally, but only to say that the OGL is "based on" the CC family of licences. I don't see any obvious reference to the fact that they're compatible, here, so until that's added I suggest holding off. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
