On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Platonides <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/03/15 21:23, Ryan Lane wrote: > >> 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 >> > > Toolserver required a default license for years, and you had to agree with > that when renewing your account. So I'm quite sure there was a license > applicable for all tools. The license could be propietary though, and that > could impede the migration Ah. That must have been the issue. Thanks for the clarification! - Ryan
_______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
