On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Rillke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yes, it clearly states that all software has to be under an Open > > Source license. But I see no requirement that the software has to be > > publicly released anywhere, although it would presumably be > > permissible under the required Open Source license for anyone else > > with access to it on Labs to publicly redistribute it. > > There is an important misconception: Never assume the author licensed > their code implicitly because the Terms of Use required them to only use > open Source software on Labs or because it's linked to a component > requiring copyleft. Only the author is able to grant a license but if > they refuse to for code one got into ones fingers or if they are > obviously closed source software, the right course of action here would > be to drop their software from Labs immediately. > > This alone is actually an excellent reason to require that code be publicly accessible, with a license associated before tools are allowed to be run. This was a pretty major problem in toolserver. When the migration occurred there were a number of tools that had no license and couldn't be moved because of that. I'd be in favor of pushing to make it a requirement for new tools. - Ryan
_______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
