Hey,
I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In
particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3
--
___
Wikitech-l mailing lis
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In
> particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?
I'm sure it is already deployed on WMF servers. Can you elaborate?
e.g. deployed is not the same as bein
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In
> particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?
jQuery is deployed (MIT), Redis too (3 clause BSD) and Bugzilla is
under the MPL.
What was the t
On 2013-08-25 6:20 PM, "Jeremy Baron" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw
wrote:
> > I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed
code. In
> > particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?
>
> I'm sure it is already deployed on WMF servers.
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
> I'd be surprised if there was a problem with any open
> source license.
>
Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise
using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Steve
On 26-08-2013 02:59, Tyler Romeo wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>
> I'd be surprised if there was a problem with any open
> source license.
Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise
using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's ow
Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension means
that the extension can never be distributed with core.
The idea that deployment of software on a server entails license
obligations is a GPLv3 feature; mediawiki is licensed under the GPL v2 ("or
later" for theoretical redi
>> Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise
>> using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.
>
>Wrong. WMF can use any software they like on their servers... even
>propriatary software. They are _using_ it, not _distributing_ it.
>
>Compatible
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Derric Atzrott <
datzr...@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
> I might have to look into licenses again and make sure what I use is GPL
> compatible. The GPL is such a pain sometimes
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main is a useful guide.
--scott
--
(
VisualEditor is MIT licensed. It was originally GPLv2 by default as per my
contract with Wikimedia, but early on we got written permission from all
authors to change it. We did this because we wanted to ensure maximum
license compatibility for re-use in non-MediaWiki systems.
- Trevor
On Mon, Au
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
> VisualEditor is MIT licensed. It was originally GPLv2 by default as per my
> contract with Wikimedia, but early on we got written permission from all
> authors to change it. We did this because we wanted to ensure maximum
> license compatib
As long as it is a separate extension there is no problem, but if you
bundle it in such a way that it is an integral part of the core then
you might get into trouble.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Derric Atzrott
wrote:
>>> Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherw
Le 26/08/13 22:03, Ryan Lane a écrit :
> Aren't our contracts generally written to allow us to use any OSI compliant
> license, with a preference to GPL 2?
My company has a joint copyright agreement with Wikimedia. So I guess
the foundation can publish the work under whatever license :)
My code i
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM, C. Scott Ananian
wrote:
>
> The idea that deployment of software on a server entails license
> obligations is a GPLv3 feature;
To be clear, that's AGPL-only, not GPL v3.
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
N
On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension means
> that the extension can never be distributed with core.
That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL allows verbatim
copies of source code, with no restrictions on the
Tim, thanks, I found this a very interesting aspect that I have not
considered before.
2013/8/28 Tim Starling
> On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension
> means
> > that the extension can never be distributed with core.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension
> means
> > that the extension can never be distributed with core.
>
> That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL al
Just for fun, I added some license-parsing logic to Template:Extension on
mediawiki.org. I think the job queue is still updating the categories, but
so far we have:
Extensions with no license specified: 596
Extensions with an unknown license: 779
GPL licensed extensions: 667
MIT licensed extensions
Just out of curiosity, what code are you using to do license parsing? If
you want seriously robust parsing, you might take a peek at
https://github.com/dmgerman/ninka
Luis
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Just for fun, I added some license-parsing logic to Template:Extensi
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, what code are you using to do license parsing? If
> you want seriously robust parsing, you might take a peek at
> https://github.com/dmgerman/ninka
>
> Luis
>
> standard parser functions via the template
{{lc:{{{license|
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:40 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, what code are you using to do license parsing? If
> > you want seriously robust parsing, you might take a peek at
> > https://github.com/dmgerman/ninka
> >
> > Lui
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In
> particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?
>
>
Was this just grenade lobbing? You still haven't clarified your question,
though a number of f
22 matches
Mail list logo
