The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File is listed as non-free, but appears to be under a free use license as stated on
the website: "This dragon image is owned by Apple Inc. and is available for your download and use royalty-free. By downloading this image, Apple grants you, and you accept, a non-exclusive license to use this image. All right, title and interest in the image, including the copyright therein, is retained by Apple." The software itself is released under the
UIUC license and is in the process of being converted to a
version of the
Apache License.
HapHaxion(
talk /
contribs)19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retain as nonfree - that is not a free license. There is no statement about derivative works or commercial use. --
Whpq (
talk)
19:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
That is a good question.
County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition - the ruling cited in the template - was about a California county, so that sounds like PD-CAGov applies to all levels of government irrespective of whether they are state, county or city. The court ruling does not unambiguously state the reach of the decision, but it seems like it wasn't meant to apply to counties only. Official websites bearing spurious copyright claims is something that happens frequently.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
07:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. According to the Commons version of the template, it applies to "a government unit (including state, county, city, and municipal government agencies) that derives its powers from the laws of the State of California". Also, transfer to Commons. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs)
12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.