File talk:Cpp in GNU emacs.png

Wrong license?

I just don't understand the purpose of the {{Wrong license}}. What source code? Was that tagging implying that GNU emacs is not open?--Praveen:talk 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Praveenp: The source code is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to the image, per GNU GPL. The license requires conveying the source code and providing installation information. In case any copyrightable Emacs elements are depicted, this upload is a copyright violation of Emacs' source. It's also unclear what your source for this screenshot is, and I see no written offer for the source code to reproduce the image. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 11:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. GPL need access to souce code. In this case GNU emacs source code is publicly available in GNU repos. I think you are misinterpreting licence. I created the screenshot myself from my personal installation as part of a Malayalam Wikipedia discussion (but this is GPL, image source is not important(?).). @Sreejithk2000: , @Jdx: .--Praveen:talk 16:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Section 3(c) of GPLv2 and section 6(c) of GPLv3 do not apply to Commons, because it can only be used occassionally and noncommercially if and when you've received such offer from Emacs in accord with section 6(b). You cannot pass the offer of the offer received from Emacs (which even hasn't been attempted or done here) unless you are the copyright holder of Emacs; you must must make your own offer if so. Screenshots are derivative works and require consent of the copyright holders. The consent is the GPL license and its conditions, if there's copyrightable elements in the screenshot. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC) To clarify, the source code must be made available (offered) always during distribution and three years after last moment of distribution. This also means even in the event that GNU's hosted repositories go down, nevermind that their offer doesn't apply here. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 05:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you are talking about the code that we see in the image, I believe User:Praveenp wrote it. The screenshot of the program is covered under the license template. If it is still unclear, I suggest taking this discussion to Commons:Village pump/Copyright --Sreejith K (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello world has no creativity in it, it's most probably in the public domain. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 02:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(1) Open licenses are for proper reuse. You are totally misinterpreting it as a reuse restriction. I seriously doubt you are trolling the project by creating disturbance. (2) Please don't edit my comments. I know how to indent. Thanks--Praveen:talk 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I left guidance on indentation on your talk page, Praveenp. Considered ordered lists for accessibility, too. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)