One thing to point out is that: 1) Even right now, under the GPL, if extensions do qualify as “derivative works” or w/e, they do have to be GPL licensed. 2) Source code only has to be provided to users of the program. So presuming this is some private wiki with a secret extension, source code does not have to be provided or published to the general public.
-- Tyler Romeo 0x405D34A7C86B42DF On February 7, 2015 at 18:49:29, David Gerard (dger...@gmail.com) wrote: On 7 February 2015 at 23:39, wctaiwan <wctaiwan+li...@gmail.com> wrote: > IANAL, but if there is some flexibility here, I would argue that extensions > should *not* be considered derivatives. Legally, because extensions do not > contain MediaWiki code (beyond using the programming API provided by core > classes); Ah, good! Yeah, programming to a provided and documented API should be fine. (With WordPress, themes and plugins are very much programs running in the same process, etc.) > in practice, because we have many extensions licensed under > licenses that are incompatible with GPL,[1] and I don't think we should > require people to choose a GPL-compatible licence should they want to write > MediaWiki extensions. > [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:MIT_licensed_extensions - d. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
