On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Regarding "keeping the big header is important", I don't think anyone
> barely into CS on this century can not know what the GPL is (and not
> figure out in 5 minutes).
>
> An excerpt like this would be perfectly fine imho:
> «This MediaWiki f
> Who are "the legal guys"? Do they assume liability for fu-
> ture claims with regard to that matter so that authors are
> effectively indemnified?
That's a very good point. Sometimes I forget that MediaWiki
does not use CLA (which is another discussion).
In that case I go back on what I said,
On 27/10/15 19:54, Antoine Musso wrote:
I think we standardized the MediaWiki core files at one point to
include the recommended GPL headers. The commit history should have
such trace.
We did. Copyright headers were added for files which lacked it, much to
my dismay. Actual descriptions of wh
On 10/27/15, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Le 27/10/2015 10:44, Gergo Tisza a écrit :
>> In a recent blog post ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867 ) ESR writes:
>>
>> High on my list of Things That Annoy Me When I Hack is sourcefiles that
>>> contain huge blobs of license text at the top. That is valuable t
worth the
cost to user comprehension.
Thanks,
Zhou
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:21:53 -0600
> From: Stephen Niedzielski
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Short license blocks
> Message-ID:
> nh7gupd4kebjbyczvsvk6...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-
SPDX use for all our projects and licenses, we will
> have to do a little more research on this. Happy to talk off-thread about
> this as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zhou
>
>
>
> > From: Tyler Romeo
> > Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [W
ensing information.
As to the specifics of SPDX use for all our projects and licenses, we will
have to do a little more research on this. Happy to talk off-thread about
this as well.
Thanks,
Zhou
> From: Tyler Romeo
> Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-
The Apache license, which is also permissive, has a similar recommended
file header.
I'd say we just standardize on having the warranty disclaimer and license
notice in every file. It's an easy approach to make sure somebody reading
the file can easily tell the license without having to maintain
c
Le 27/10/2015 10:44, Gergo Tisza a écrit :
> In a recent blog post ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867 ) ESR writes:
>
> High on my list of Things That Annoy Me When I Hack is sourcefiles that
>> contain huge blobs of license text at the top. That is valuable territory
>> which should be occupied by
I was saying that we could go ahead and make this the standard for non-GPL
MediaWiki code (basically, the few MIT licensed extensions). I'm not sure
if the advantage of doing that would outweigh the disadvantage of having a
non-standard standard though.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Tyler Rome
Are you saying adopting the short license blocks? Or the MIT license?
Because I'm not sure how the licenses of extensions would affect the
license headers in core.
On Oct 27, 2015 12:43, "Ryan Kaldari" wrote:
>
> I totally support switching to license identifiers instead of headers,
> provided t
I totally support switching to license identifiers instead of headers,
provided that we also switch our licensing from GPL to MIT or BSD ;)
On a serious note, we do have a fair number of extensions that are MIT
Licensed and could go ahead and adopt this (
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:
Tyler Romeo wrote:
> IANAL, but the GPL explicitly prescribes adding the header to every source
> file to "most effectively state the exclusion of warranty".
> If the legal guys can give the OK that we don't necessarily need that, then
> we can definitely remove the notices and replace them with
Gergo Tisza wrote:
> In a recent blog post ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867 ) ESR writes:
> High on my list of Things That Annoy Me When I Hack is sourcefiles that
>> contain huge blobs of license text at the top. That is valuable territory
>> which should be occupied by a header comment explain
IANAL, but the GPL explicitly prescribes adding the header to every source
file to "most effectively state the exclusion of warranty".
If the legal guys can give the OK that we don't necessarily need that, then
we can definitely remove the notices and replace them with something
smaller.
*-- *
*
In a recent blog post ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867 ) ESR writes:
High on my list of Things That Annoy Me When I Hack is sourcefiles that
> contain huge blobs of license text at the top. That is valuable territory
> which should be occupied by a header comment explaining the code, not a
> boatl
16 matches
Mail list logo
