User:LuisVilla/sandbox/GPL review

GA Review

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.

Status: I have only made it through the first three sections; it is a bit of a slog. Probably won't come back to this for a while; suffice to say the article needs a lot of work before it can be GA.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

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. Terms and Conditions: Terms and conditions of which version of the GPL? Some parts of the text call out specific version numbers, while others don't. Perhaps a hatnote that says "unless otherwise noted, all comments apply to GPL v2 and GPL v3" would be helpful? Use of Licensed Software: Here, a citation to the four freedoms might be useful, to show the underlying concerns that motivate the license's restrictions on use. It might even be worth attempting to rewrite this section by organizing it through the four freedoms: what terms in the license support "running" the program? what terms support changing? redistribution? I'm not 100% sure that would work, but might better than the current muddle. I find the structure of this section somewhat confusing. It discusses distribution as a type of use (they're distinct in the license and the copyright law); and much of it is (essentially) a list of different use cases, somewhat redundant to the FSF FAQ. Perhaps turning this into a bullet point list, or editing it down to mostly say "use is unrestricted; for details on particular use cases, see the FSF FAQ"? It's weird to discuss a lot of copyleft issues before defining copyleft - consider moving those into the copyleft discussion. Copyleft Starts with a mention of the distribution rights, which is odd since they haven't gotten their own section yet. I would consider retitling this something like "Distribution and copyleft", since the two are somewhat inextricable. Did not read this in detail, given the lack of citation (below). The license v. contract question is interesting, but does it really belong in the general discussion of the terms of the license? Just as in the license itself, this feels somewhat confusing here, since in day-to-day use this has no impact (unlike the copyleft and permissions to use). Consider cutting to a single paragraph and/or putting it under legal status, rather than T&Cs. Derivations I'd put this towards the end of the article; it is not nearly as important/relevant/interesting as the question of linking/derived works. In terms of balance, it is odd that AGPL and LGPL get less coverage than the license of the text of the GPL. I would flesh out discussions of those licenses, and cut back on this administrativa.	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? Copyleft: "There has been debate" - among whom? consensus among whom?	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	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. 2.1, use of licensed software: where it uses citations at all, relies completely on FSF FAQs. Again, reams of third-party commentary on this (see below for two high-quality, independent books that explain the license concisely and clearly). 2.2, Copyleft: the only citation here is to a comment on LWN. I like LWN a lot! But this section needs {{unreferenced}}. 3, Derivations: as above; mostly uncited or citing only to a primary document (the license itself) or a not-super-neutral document (the FSF FAQ).	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? Lead of Section 2 (Terms and Conditions) is completely uncited and makes a variety of legal conclusions. I might recommend using Heather Meeker's book "the Open Source Alternative", chapter 3 (common open source licenses); or Van Lindberg's IP and Open Source, a Practical Guide, as good references for this section.	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Did not evaluate.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	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.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

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.

Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.