At the risk of starting another huge bikeshed like [1] I feel like we need
some good guidance on just how in the heck we are required to license
extensions/images/source code files. With the help of Marktraceur we now
have
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Coding_conventions#Source_File_Headers
On 2013-04-24 6:46 PM, "Matthew Walker" wrote:
>
> At the risk of starting another huge bikeshed like [1] I feel like we need
> some good guidance on just how in the heck we are required to license
> extensions/images/source code files. With the help of Marktraceur we now
> have
>
http://www.media
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
> Says who? I do not believe this is a requirement. It perhaps would be nice,
> if done sanely, but not a requirement.
>
Says the GPL. To be specific:
From section 0
> To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties
On 25 April 2013 00:36, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>> Says who? I do not believe this is a requirement. It perhaps would be nice,
>> if done sanely, but not a requirement.
> Says the GPL. To be specific:
I understand Luis was working on sane ways
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 25 April 2013 00:36, Tyler Romeo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>
>>> Says who? I do not believe this is a requirement. It perhaps would be nice,
>>> if done sanely, but not a requirement.
>
>> Says the GPL.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Brad Jorsch wrote:
>
> It certainly doesn't count as source code: "The source code for a work
> means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"
> hardly describes minified JavaScript.
>
>
Irrelevant. The first sentence of section 6 indicate
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Brad Jorsch wrote:
>
>>
>> It certainly doesn't count as source code: "The source code for a work
>> means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"
>> hardly describes minified JavaScript
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Brad Jorsch wrote:
> But not in every individual compiled file.
Most likely, but even so, for some resources we don't convey the license
*anywhere*. In other words, if I have a JS file from an external library
that is not GPL licensed (maybe it's LGPL or somethi
Additional pressure to update Special:Version is going to come when we
start using noun project icons -- like the ones that came out of the
Iconathon. The license there is CC-BY but they strongly recommend we put
statements to that effect in our 'About' pages for each image resource we
use.
I'll t
On 04/25/2013 09:27 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Brad Jorsch wrote:
>
>>
>> It certainly doesn't count as source code: "The source code for a work
>> means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"
>> hardly describes minified JavaScript.
>>
>>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Matthew Flaschen
wrote:
> I believe you're quoting GPLv3 ("Conveying Non-Source Forms").
> MediaWiki is under GPLv2 or later. Of course, that raises the question
> of which version the WMF is trying to comply with...
>
Also irrelevant. ;) GPL v2 has similar requir
On 26 April 2013 06:40, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Matthew Flaschen
> wrote:
>> I believe you're quoting GPLv3 ("Conveying Non-Source Forms").
>> MediaWiki is under GPLv2 or later. Of course, that raises the question
>> of which version the WMF is trying to comply with.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> As I noted, the continued bikeshedding while we wait on the actual
> lawyer is a waste of bytes and of people's attention.
>
Then stop replying. Mute this thread. Seriously, if you think a discussion
is not worthwhile or is not in alignment
Luis, the thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/352923
On 04/26/2013 06:00 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> it's straight up obnoxious to come into a thread and undermine
> a topic people care about by calling it "a waste of bytes and people's
> attention".
No, David isn't calling
Look ma, I'm a lawyer!
I'll note that yesterday I was a fireman.
And an astronaut the day before.
Isn't pretending fun?
-Chad
-Chad
On Apr 26, 2013 7:25 AM, "Sumana Harihareswara"
wrote:
> Luis, the thread:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/352923
>
> On 04/26/2013 06:00
Cool it, Chad.
-Sumana
On 04/26/2013 07:33 AM, Chad wrote:
> Look ma, I'm a lawyer!
>
> I'll note that yesterday I was a fireman.
>
> And an astronaut the day before.
>
> Isn't pretending fun?
>
> -Chad
>
> -Chad
> On Apr 26, 2013 7:25 AM, "Sumana Harihareswara"
> wrote:
>
>> Luis, the thre
Sorry everyone, was trying to ease the tension.
-Chad
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Sumana Harihareswara
wrote:
> Cool it, Chad.
> -Sumana
>
> On 04/26/2013 07:33 AM, Chad wrote:
>> Look ma, I'm a lawyer!
>>
>> I'll note that yesterday I was a fireman.
>>
>> And an astronaut the day before.
>
> MediaWiki is violating the license of third party tools it uses.
This is not a clear fact, please don't express it like it is one. The
weird part about this issue is that reasonable lawyers can (and probably
will) disagree on this very topic. This is one of the biggest lessons I
learned while I
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Matthew Walker wrote:
> At the risk of starting another huge bikeshed like [1] I feel like we need
> some good guidance on just how in the heck we are required to license
> extensions/images/source code files. With the help of Marktraceur we now
> have
> http://www
19 matches
Mail list logo
