User talk:2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:2FDA

File:QM code gen.jpg

This very clearly does not qualify for {{subst:nsd}}, especially once it has already been removed once. If you feel it needs to be deleted absent better sourcing, nominate it for deletion. Do not edit war by adding {{subst:nsd}} again. Storkk (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Storkk. Revert is hardly edit warring. I'm ok with regular deletion but the file is in violation of copyright law and Commons policy so it needs to go. Have a nice day. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:2FDA 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Once a speedy tag has been removed, re-adding it instead of nominating it for deletion is pushing the boundaries of AGF pretty far. I did AGF however, and wrote you here instead of taking you to COM:ANV. Have a nice day. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't know all the rules I'm just trying to write an encyclopedia here. What are those 2 software applications? We need to know to be able to tell whether they are proprietary. I'd say that is likely and as it's the default, the opposite needs to be proven for this image to remain here. Will you kindly nominate it for regular deletion then Storkk? 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:2FDA 10:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The file's title is "QM code gen". The very first non-sponsored google hit on "QM code generator" is https://state-machine.com/qm/ce.html . In general, if you are unfamiliar with the rules, I would suggest you steer clear of speedy deletion templates and use only full DRs. Storkk (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To save you some clicking around, please see the licensing here. Storkk (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's the window on the left, GPL is good. What about the other application Storkk? Apparently it's "Atolli..." something. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:2FDA 11:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe GPL is good for the one on the left... I think that applies to the generated code, which I think is inside the window on the right, which appears to be an Atollic software. Storkk (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seems atollic Storkk but I don't see any indication of free license for it, so to me it looks proprietary. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:2FDA 11:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to consider which would invalidate speedy deletion tagging is that proprietary software whose UI falls underneath the COM:Threshold of originality (or which comes from a LGPL library) can be screenshotted without violating the source code's copyright. If the situation is at all complex or ambiguous, use a full DR. Storkk (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The TOO thing I understand (while I think both UIs seem non-trivial) but I'm not sure if what you say about LGPL is right here, in fact I think it's not. Also, I was too hasty saying that the image on the left would be covered by GPL, probably it isn't because the licensing page you linked to above says "The licensing information provided in this section pertains to our _embedded code_, such as the QP™ active object frameworks. The non-embedded software, such as the QM modeling tool, is offered under a simple click-through EULA license." so looks like both applications are proprietary Storkk. Thanks for working with me on this. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:2FDA 11:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's what I said last time. If the UI elements are individually LGPL, then I think their arrangement would need to be pretty original for the UI to have its own separate copyright attached, but I may be mistaken. Storkk (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)