Talk:Open Source Routing Machine
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep/withdrawn. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Text
[edit]Bot noticed this was copied which is true, but project is open source so should be okay for now. Miserlou (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
STOP TRYING TO DELETE THIS PAGE
[edit]I literally just started working on it, guys. Jesus christ. It's been 10 minutes. I'm clearly actively working on it. You fucking busybodies have ruined wikipedia. This isn't fun anymore. Miserlou (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to disappoint you, but all articles must at all times meet our inclusion criteria as described at WP:N. If you want to work on a draft without fear of immediate deletion, you can create it in your user space, e.g. in User:Miserlou/Open Source Routing Machine. Sandstein 20:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright question
[edit]This article was flagged for copyright investigation by Madman bot due to duplication of content from http://project-osrm.org/.
While the software is licensed under GNU GPL, Gnu licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia's requirements for text. See WP:COMPLIC. Is there anything in the website that confirms compatibility with CC-By-SA? If not, unless we can get permission, the material will very likely need to be written in original language.
If it is compatibly licensed, it needs to be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Verbatim copying from public domain or compatibly licensed sourced must be explicitly acknowledged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I am the author of the text on the OSRM website. Wikipedia has the permission to reproduce the text from the site. A corresponding notice will be posted on the website shortly.DennisOSRM (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fabulous. :) Please be sure that the statement releases it under a compatible license; we aren't allowed to accept material that is released for Wikipedia because of our own liberal license, which permits republication by others. Where possible, we do like to have dual release under CC-By-SA and GFDL to allow maximum flexibility for our reusers, but only CC-By-SA is required. This is the recommended statement:
- The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
- Thanks much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. The above clause is online. DennisOSRM (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know this is a few years old, but it should be noted that if the author of the text says "just fucking use it", that's as good as your blurb if not better. Your version does not add anything, other than more words. I agree with User:Miserlou about busybodies.
Category
[edit]the category "routing software" is for network routing not for navigation routing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.47.115.125 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)