On 26 December 2012 16:47, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Da: janI > > >> > >> From a licensing perspective the MWiki content is a can of worms. > >> This may or may not be important as this is not included in releases > >> but the general consensus was to keep the MWiki content contained > >> and only accept ALv2 content from now on. > >> > > > > We should have put our ALv2 license in place long time ago, there is a > > separate policy page for that. That has not happened and therefore all > > content is totally without any license (except of course those that have > > explecitly written something). Please do not mix the mediawiki license > with > > the contents license. > > > > The MediaWiki software license is not a problem, just like the CWiki > license > is not a problem. > correct !
> > We do have licensing issues with the content of both the wiki and the > website. > If you check the lengthy discussion we had about it you will find that the > documentation is mostly licensed under PDL. As I said it's a can of worms, > but it doesn't mean we won't have to open it. > Now I get it, I thought you meant the mediawiki general license. There are for sure bigger issues with the general content, also according to our ICLA we cannot simply copy it. > > > > As far as I can judge (but I am no expert) mwiki provides more facilities > > than cwiki in respect of graphics, and in the discussion (see earlier > mail > > thread) everybody seemed convinced that mwiki was the future and cwiki > was > > old (I cannot judge those statements). > > > > Absolutely. MediaWiki is superior to CWiki, > > > > >> > >> There is also a huge -1 in the current MWiki for me: if MWiki is > >> here to stay ldap access must be enabled so that committers > >> have access to it without opening a new account. > >> > > I cannot agree more about ldap access...but I actually had the same > problem > > with cwiki, we are not all committers !! > > > > When I consider the user base is about 6.200 (after spam removal) and > only > > a small fraction are committers, I would place ldap as important, but a > > reason for a -1. > > > > It limits my ability to contribute to the MediaWiki content as it seems > the wiki > is unconnected to the rest of Apache. I think it's something that can be > solved: > my understanding is that accepting LDAP doesn't exclude volunteers from > using > the existing authentication accounts. > well I am right now doing my best to connect it better to apache, LDAP is one small step, which I am actually sitting right now and reading about. Other things are the monitoring and other infra stuff, where I help out a bit. If you have other ideas how to connect mwiki and apache, then I am all open ears (or more correctly eyes). > > It's a -1 for me but I am not saying it's binding. > In Denmark we once had a prime minister who said "you have a stand until you make a new one" :-) and as I said I am just listening, > > Pedro. >
