Talk:Q308915
Latest comment: 6 years ago by D1gggg in topic Why only "software license"?
Autodescription — Mozilla Public License (Q308915)
description: permissive free software license scheme developed by the Mozilla organization
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Mozilla Public License” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Mozilla Public License (Q308915)
- software license (Q207621)
- license (Q79719) (@)→
- copyright license (Q77205602)
- →(@) license (Q79719)
- contract (Q93288)
- permit (Q882991)
- →(@) license (Q79719)
- software license (Q207621)
- Mozilla Public License (Q308915)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
Mozilla Public License⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Removing subclass of
editI'm removing subclass of (P279) free software license (Q3943414) because (if I understand well Help:Frequently used properties) it's enough instance of (P31) free software license (Q3943414).--Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, I reverted this because MPL-1.0, MPL-1.1 and MPL 2.0 are MPL licenses. Ideally, MPL should not having the statement "instance of free software license" because it is not a license itself : only specifics versions are; but in practice MPL is used to say a software is distributed under a MPL specific license and we don't know which one. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but, for what I understand, also MPL-1.0 should be an istance of this, not a subclass of. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)- Uhm. So also for GNU General Public License (Q7603)? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan: Yes. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- And we should remove instance of (P31) in both cases? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- No need to remove it : some sources don't make the distinction and consider this "group of license" as one license. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- And we should remove instance of (P31) in both cases? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan: Yes. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Uhm. So also for GNU General Public License (Q7603)? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Metamorforme42 is right, you might be interested in first part of Help:Basic membership properties. d1g (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Why only "software license"?
editHello @D1gggg:! Why Special:Diff/504184715? That it's too generic. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- MPL 1.0 wasn't considered by anyone.
- P279 is very fragile when at least one counter-example is present (e.g. MPL 1.0) d1g (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- In fact this is not the element regarding the MPL 1.0. This is: Mozilla Public License, version 1.0 (Q26737738). Please restore the instance of... as the above discussion :) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Again @D1gggg: please stop reverting my changes Special:Diff/509907187 without discussing. See the english description: «permissive free software license developed by the Mozilla organization». Please revert your changes :) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- In fact this is not the element regarding the MPL 1.0. This is: Mozilla Public License, version 1.0 (Q26737738). Please restore the instance of... as the above discussion :) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I will repeat if it wasn't clear: which organization considers MPL 1.0 (Q26737738) as free license?
- Please read at least en:Mozilla Public License before you make edits...
- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0
- https://opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0
- You should pay attention to 2.0 and never 1.0 above d1g (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @D1gggg: I understand what you say but saying generically "MPL" now you mean always the latest. In fact this element threats the latest MPL as you can see in the official website (as for GNU General Public License (Q7603)) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- It has several issues, this item clearly needs separate items... d1g (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @D1gggg: I've added as preferred rank the actual value, and as old rank what you say :) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I removed claims at other items, so it is less relevant what is stated at Mozilla Public License (Q308915) d1g (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @D1gggg: I understand what you say but saying generically "MPL" now you mean always the latest. In fact this element threats the latest MPL as you can see in the official website (as for GNU General Public License (Q7603)) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan: Both GNU General Public License (Q7603) and Mozilla Public License (Q308915) are about group of licenses
- Claims at Q7603 probably need further sorting. d1g (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)