On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think this is a solvable problem without changing our current
licensing. Let's not have a big legal discussion on-list about this
(or if we must hash this out publicly, let's do it on a list that
deals with legal
On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
While the license sounds like it is Public Domain that can cause
problems in various places. Also in trying to find the code that is
referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its
license was. The second site doesn't recommend
On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Also in trying to find the code that is
referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its
license was. The second site doesn't recommend that code anymore but
recommends a GPL2+ updated version.
I see
On 13 May 2012 06:36, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
While the license sounds like it is Public Domain that can cause
problems in various places. Also in trying to find the code that is
referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to
Stephen Smoogen has opened a bug about the license in CSS Janus. This
needs wider discussion, though, so I'm copying it here.
From https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/36747:
I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for Fedora EPEL
project. While putting together the package for 1.19 it
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for Fedora EPEL
project. While putting together the package for 1.19 it was found
that the license to maintenance/cssjanus is ASL 2.0 and the license
for
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
2) we need to look at mediawiki being used as GPL 3.0 even though it
is not explicitely licensed that way.
I'm not 100% sure what's being asked here? Is this a request to relicense
MediaWiki under GPLv3 instead
I think this is a solvable problem without changing our current
licensing. Let's not have a big legal discussion on-list about this
(or if we must hash this out publicly, let's do it on a list that
deals with legal issues rather than tech issues).
I've assigned the bug to myself, and I'll be
On 11 May 2012 16:41, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not 100% sure what's being asked here? Is this a request to relicense
MediaWiki under GPLv3 instead of v2? Or is this a question of it being
mis-licensed under v3 when we actually specify v2? Clarification is
needed :)
If it's
On 11 May 2012 09:03, Mark A. Hershberger m...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Stephen Smoogen has opened a bug about the license in CSS Janus. This
needs wider discussion, though, so I'm copying it here.
From https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/36747:
I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for
10 matches
Mail list logo