From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Why add the licenses here?

pacman -S licenses

—This unsigned comment is by Gog (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2009‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Exactly - and why do we have even Category:Licenses? It could be deleted right away, Wikipedia does much better job at documenting all licenses. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed all articles from Category:Licenses, except Licenses and (since the wiki is licensed under FDL 1.3.) Licenses:FDL1.3. -- Alad (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
edit: I've also moved the content to ArchWiki:Copyrights, and removed Category:Licenses. -- Alad (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but since the footer and ArchWiki:Copyrights have external links to the license, I'm wondering if we need the full wording at all? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, doesn't the license require a copy to be included with the document text (or "combined document" in this case):
5. Combining Documents
The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy.
ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents
To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:
-- Alad (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 for keeping the full license in ArchWiki:Copyrights. — Kynikos (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Very well, I guess this can be closed then. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)