User talk:LassiPulkkinen

When you added the license back, you said that the license should stay because "lots of original text still remains" and that " it is not a complete rewrite".

But looking at all change made after the wiki.vg import, basically nothing is still the same, with the longest remaining part being "Minecraft requires several arguments", and I don't think that's enough for copyright.

I really don't see why we should keep the wiki.vg license for an article that's now in the Main section and that has no wording directly taken from wiki.vg. Thefrostypixel (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

> longest remaining part being "Minecraft requires several arguments"

This is not true. See for instance:

• "The Mojang Access Token or the final token in the Microsoft authentication scheme" vs "The Mojang Access Token or the final token in the Microsoft authentication scheme used to authenticate the game."
• "The authentication scheme to use for logging in" vs "The authentication scheme to use for logging in."

It does seem to be closer to a rewrite than I initially thought, though. I'm also in the progress of rewriting it further.

In any case though, I think the removal of a license template warrants at least a mention in the edit message. Since this is a legal issue I'm not sure if anyone other than an admin is supposed to be removing them. LassiPulkkinen () 09:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

> Derivative works must be licensed using the same or a compatible license.

That's the important part here. The licene has to stay forever on that page as all the subsequent edits are still using that license and not the wiki's general one.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  09:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the article really was fully rewritten by User:Thefrostypixel and/or others (which it currently is not), then I think it would no longer be a derivative work (IANAL, not sure if there is specific precedent on ships of theseus) and could be licensed under CC BY-NC-SA at the new author's agreement. LassiPulkkinen () 09:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not a derivative work anymore once the article has been fully rewritten, as the only part still derived at that point is the information itself which can't be copyrighted.

The theseus-situation also isn't problem because once we have fully rewritten the article we can publish it under whatever license we want. That we previously published it part by part under a different license doesn't mean that we can't republish everything under a new license.

So as long as all authors of the rewrite agree, which I at least do, we can switch to the wiki's regular license once everything copyrightable from the previous versions is gone.

And I don't see anything else left on the page that is long enough to count for copyright, as something like "The authentication scheme to use for logging in" is too short, so if LassiPulkkinen agrees, we should be fine switching licenses. Thefrostypixel (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter at what point it doesn't equal the original source -- those refactoring edits are still licensed under the wiki.gg license. You can't change the license of those edits after the fact, same as the edits that were made on wiki.gg in the first place.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  09:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)