I think continuing the license discussion is worthwhile.
For the purpose of this conversation as I see it the WikiMedia
Foundation is providing services (defined next) to two facets of the
MediaWiki community (core and extensions developers):
a) Repository to store/revision code (svn or soon git)
On 7 November 2011 15:08, Olivier Beaton olivier.bea...@gmail.com wrote:
To make it clear, copyright assignments (what I had in my original
request) are common in the FOSS community, as you pointed out you
talked about them yourself on your blog and wmf talked about having
Copyright
Copyright assignments are harmful. They are not some sort of standard
thing in open source. They would be harmful to MediaWiki.
At the risk of de-railing the discussion, I think everyone can agree
that having good high quality extensions for MediaWiki is good for
MediaWiki. The license an
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Olivier Beaton olivier.bea...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is should a WMF-funded service (and the MediaWiki
community) allow 3rd party to make use of said services if they have
dual-licensed code.
Well, in addition to dual-licensing and asking everyone to
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:40:58 +
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] License exceptions in Wikimedia's repo (was
Re: SVN Extension Access)
To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
caj0tu1eepsqjt41rryy9gnkcvj
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Could you elaborate on that?
Given that I wasn't using the GPL, I was concerned that anyone
committing against my code would do so under all rights reserved and
would effectively be forking my code from the point of their
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Olivier Beaton
olivier.bea...@gmail.com wrote:
My first stab at this was to use a contributor agreement that
contained a copyright assignment, as people do for dual-licensing with
GPL code. A little bit later I found the Zend Framework license, which
uses a
Olivier Beaton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Could you elaborate on that?
Given that I wasn't using the GPL, I was concerned that anyone
committing against my code would do so under all rights reserved and
would effectively be forking my code
On 08/11/11 02:08, Olivier Beaton wrote:
And here's where I currently stand with my own work. I'm no expert on
licensing and my wording so far may not be great, but there seems to
be some concern in BSD-like licenses that without such a clause in a
shared-commit environment can lead to
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
My recommendation is that you contact people who commit code to your
extension, and request that they agree to license their contributions
under a BSD-style license.
That would of course be the (please print out this
Hi everyone,
There's a ton of issues conflated in the SVN Extension access thread.
I'm sure there are things we can improve about that process, and I'll
talk to the people involved next week about it. I've asked Sumana not
to rush out a response on this thread today, and I ask that we table
11 matches
Mail list logo
