Ok
On Thursday, 12 February 2015, 14:42, Bryan Tong Minh
bryan.tongm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 23:19, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact I would prefer to go to a less
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 23:19, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact I would prefer to go to a less restrictive license, but that is
probably not worth the fight.
And is also infeasible. For a web
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in proprietary
software.
For me, allowing as many people to use our libraries as
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than
the v3.
GPL v2+ is a superset of GPL v3. I don't know why you find that so hard to
understand.
[...] I do not think it is possible to add
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in
On February 11, 2015 at 12:53:54, C. Scott Ananian (canan...@wikimedia.org)
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than
the v3.
GPL v2+ is a superset of GPL v3. I don't know why you
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
And, as a result, since MediaWiki is licensed under the v2+ rather than
v3, we cannot accept Apache-licensed code into core.
We cannot. But our users can. And our users can also combine with GPL
v2-only code.
The set
On 2015-02-11 10:06 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
And, as a result, since MediaWiki is licensed under the v2+ rather than
v3, we cannot accept Apache-licensed code into core.
We cannot. But our users can. And our users
On February 11, 2015 at 15:32:00, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote:
Companies don't need to give back with GPL either, even if they make mods.
They only need to do so if they distribute. There's lots of Apache2
projects that have a very large amount of contribution, so maybe this would
happen,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than the
v3. Yeah, maybe in the case of extensions it’s OK, but I do not think it is
possible to add Apache code into MediaWiki core and still allow licensing
MediaWiki under both the v2 and the v3.
Maybe if legal can provide
Hi!
And is also infeasible. For a web service. GPL is effectively weak
copyleft already; I think that's quite weak enough. (As I noted, there
is no actual evidence that permissive licenses secure more
This is very plausible, as the decision to contribute is rarely driven
by the license as a
On Mon Feb 09 2015 at 21:25:16 Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
It's your choice to not participate in any project for any reason, but try
to understand that some people (such as myself) much prefer to work on
software that's truly free, rather than virally free.
I hope you
On 10 February 2015 at 23:19, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact I would prefer to go to a less restrictive license, but that is
probably not worth the fight.
And is also infeasible. For a web service. GPL is effectively weak
copyleft already; I think that's quite weak
On 9 February 2015 at 08:28, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
OpenOffice's woes are unrelated to its license, it was already dead by
forking when Oracle transferred it to Apache, facilitating a change from
GPL+proprietary CLA to the Apache license.
Indeed, but they touted the
This entire conversation is a bit disappointing, mainly because I am a
supporter of the free software movement, and like to believe that users should
have a right to see the source code of software they use. Obviously not
everybody feels this way and not everybody is going to support the free
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
This entire conversation is a bit disappointing, mainly because I am a
supporter of the free software movement, and like to believe that users
should have a right to see the source code of software they use. Obviously
On 9 February 2015 at 04:51, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Also, one cost of copyleft licenses is that they are much, much more
complicated than permissive licenses. Even though many people feel
comfortable with the compliance requirements of most OSI-approved
licenses, the
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2015 at 04:51, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Also, one cost of copyleft licenses is that they are much, much more
complicated than permissive licenses. Even though many people feel
comfortable
On February 9, 2015 at 15:17:22, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote:
You're implying that Apache2 licensed software is somehow not part of the
free software movement and that's absurd. Apache2 is technically a freer
license than GPLv(anything). Like GPL3, it also provides patent protection.
In
Le 09/02/2015 21:10, Thomas Mulhall a écrit :
Should we create a page on mediawiki and allow people to vote for it or
against. And advertise it on Wikimedia wiki so that users know there is a
vote going on for GPL3. and we should hold the vote for 2 to 3 months giving
time for users to vote
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On February 9, 2015 at 15:17:22, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote:
You're implying that Apache2 licensed software is somehow not part of the
free software movement and that's absurd. Apache2 is technically a freer
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you don’t seriously think GPL software is not “truly free”.
Well, it all depends on point of view on what is free. The FSF
interpretation is you can do it your own way if it's done just how I say.
Not everyone
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 20:10 +, Thomas Mulhall wrote:
Should we create a page on mediawiki and allow people to vote for it
or against.
Nope, as software development is not a popularity contest.
andre
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
Hi!
This entire conversation is a bit disappointing, mainly because I am
a supporter of the free software movement, and like to believe that
users should have a right to see the source code of software they
use. Obviously not everybody feels this way and not everybody is
going to support the
On 09/02/15 20:37, Tyler Romeo wrote:
This entire conversation is a bit disappointing, mainly because I am a
supporter of the free software movement, and like to believe that users
should have a right to see the source code of software they use.
Obviously
not everybody feels this way and not
Should we create a page on mediawiki and allow people to vote for it or
against. And advertise it on Wikimedia wiki so that users know there is a vote
going on for GPL3. and we should hold the vote for 2 to 3 months giving time
for users to vote and since this would probably be a big update to
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
**However**, I’d like to take this opportunity and jump a step further.
What would everybody think of switching to the AGPLv3 instead? The
advantage that this provides, for those who don’t know, is a single
additional
On February 8, 2015 at 03:47:26, Max Semenik (maxsem.w...@gmail.com) wrote:
Honestly, I'm no big fan of strongly copyleft licenses, especially AGPL. In
addition to scaring off corporate users (yes, even soulless for-profit
drones deserve the right to use FLOSS), it creates a lot of uncertainty
On 8 February 2015 at 11:12, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
(Also, we actually can’t switch to the MIT license without express
permissions from every developer who ever contributed to core anyway.)
Same applies
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
(Also, we actually can’t switch to the MIT license without express
permissions from every developer who ever contributed to core anyway.)
Same applies to AGPL.
--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing to point out is that:
1) Even right now, under the GPL, if extensions do qualify as “derivative
works” or w/e, they do have to be GPL licensed.
2) Source code only has to be provided to users of the
program. So presuming this is some
TBH as open source developer I don't feel like publishing kernel
sources makes it any easier for me to create applications for their
platform.
If I want to create an application for android, I can download android
studio and run it on Windows, Linux or Mac. The studio itself is open
source and
GPL v2+ already includes v3, so people wanting to use MediaWiki under v3
already can without us needing to do anything about it. As such, I don't see
the point of making contributions going forwards v3-only. I don't particularly
care either way, but I vote for the easier route of maintaining
] GPL upgrading to version 3
I don't really understand if apple provides their OS for free, why they can't
create a lightweight version that would run in virtual box, for open source
developers only... But that's their choice. Let's go back to original topic.
GPL v 3 is a good idea :) I am just
I don't really understand if apple provides their OS for free, why
they can't create a lightweight version that would run in virtual box,
for open source developers only... But that's their choice. Let's go
back to original topic. GPL v 3 is a good idea :) I am just not sure
if you don't need
Regarding AGPL: please no
That would not just kill nearly all commercial usage of mediawiki, but
it would also introduce insane requirements to most of small wiki
maintainers who would have to start distributing the source code of
their customized wikis to public somehow + in case they wouldn't
Le 07/02/2015 20:57, Thomas Mulhall a écrit :
Hi should we upgrade GPL to version 3 since version 3 is more modern
then version 2. Should it be updated in extensions, skins and
MediaWiki.
Hello Thomas,
MediaWiki is under GPLv2 or later and I guess most extensions and
skins as well.
GPLv3 is
What can I say, I always had a feeling that apple hates open source
and likes to block open source devs in all possible ways, this just
ensures me in this feeling. One more reason for me to be happy not to
have to work with their products.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
Le 08/02/2015 15:26, Petr Bena a écrit :
What can I say, I always had a feeling that apple hates open source
and likes to block open source devs in all possible ways, this just
ensures me in this feeling. One more reason for me to be happy not to
have to work with their products.
You have
Oh ok.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, 15:34, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 07/02/2015 20:57, Thomas Mulhall a écrit :
Hi should we upgrade GPL to version 3 since version 3 is more modern
then version 2. Should it be updated in extensions, skins and
MediaWiki.
Hello
On Feb 8, 2015 8:17 AM, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing to point out is that:
1) Even right now, under the GPL, if extensions do qualify as
“derivative works” or w/e, they do have to be GPL licensed.
2) Source code only has
Hi!
I will assume good faith for the WMF. I was just making a quick jab; I know
the WMF is not going to make MediaWiki proprietary.
However, I will not assume good faith for every other software company out
there that may take MediaWiki, modify it or improve it in some way, and
then begin
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
The GPLv3 is not more restrictive.
As I mentioned, if anything it’s more permissive, since it is compatible with
more licenses, and because it allows distributors to add some certain
additional clauses to the license at
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Our code is GPLv2 or later, which is the functional equivalent of
being multi-licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and all later versions of
the GPL) Therefore, the set of licenses that GPLv2 or later is
compatible with is a
The GPLv3 is not more restrictive.
As I mentioned, if anything it’s more permissive, since it is compatible with
more licenses, and because it allows distributors to add some certain
additional clauses to the license at their discretion. If a developer wants to
release their personal code
Hi any even if you say GPL 2.0+ GPL 3 is not compatible with GPL 2.
On Monday, 9 February 2015, 1:15, Thomas Mulhall
thomasmulhall...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 this link for any one who
wants to read apache license 2.0
On Monday, 9
Here is http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 this link for any one who
wants to read apache license 2.0
On Monday, 9 February 2015, 0:59, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
The GPLv3 is not more
Tyler,
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I will not assume good faith for every other software company out
there that may take MediaWiki, modify it or improve it in some way, and
then begin selling it as proprietary software. It's nice to think
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is virtually identical to how the old MPL multi-licensing
boilerplate is worded:
https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/
...which is widely considered sufficient for GPL compatibility.
Not sure exactly what
any =
On Monday, 9 February 2015, 1:16, Thomas Mulhall
thomasmulhall...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi any even if you say GPL 2.0+ GPL 3 is not compatible with GPL 2.
On Monday, 9 February 2015, 1:15, Thomas Mulhall
thomasmulhall...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Our code is GPLv2 or later, which is the functional equivalent of
being multi-licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and all later versions of
the GPL)
Hi Tyler
More comments inline:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure exactly what you mean. The MPL is compatible with both GPL 2.0 and
3.0.
MPL v1.1 was not compatible with any version of the GPL, hence the
reason why Mozilla eventually
I think the question is: What advantages and disadvantages has a the new
license version? Extensions and skins can use the license they want, if it is
compatible with GPLv2 or newer :)
Best,
Florian
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
I am not a lawyer, but I am a little bit of a Free Software geek. Very
briefly, GPL 3 adds restrictions on using software patents and DRM with the
programs that use it. I'm not even entirely sure what these restrictions
are.
My very wild guess us that MediaWiki probably can go the GPL 3 way.
I’ve been meaning to make this thread for a while. I also believe we should
switch over to GPL 3.
== Reasons to switch ==
First, to address the reason of why, there are a couple of reasons.
Reference:
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
===
It also has it here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html on reasons
why to upgrade version 3.
On Saturday, 7 February 2015, 22:21, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
wrote:
I’ve been meaning to make this thread for a while. I also believe we should
switch over to GPL 3.
MediaWiki is already available under GPL 2 *or any later version*. Why
would we want to disallow distribution under GPL 2?
(Not that it's even possible. We could only state that new changes to
MediaWiki code are only available on GPL 3+, we can't re-license existing
code.)
--
Bartosz
David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com writes:
What about extensions? Would they count as derivatives of MediaWiki
for license purposes? (I suspect they would, given Automattic regards
WordPress themes and plugins as derivatives and requires them to be
GPL.)
IANAL, but if there is some
I think we should upgrade to GPL 3 because it I more modern only released
sometime in 2007 where as GPL 2 was released in 1991 when the internet started
to begin. The update to GPL 3 wont cause many issue.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, 1:17, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org wrote:
On 7 February 2015 at 22:20, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
**However**, I’d like to take this opportunity and jump a step further. What
would everybody think of switching to the AGPLv3 instead? The advantage that
this provides, for those who don’t know, is a single additional
On 7 February 2015 at 23:39, wctaiwan wctaiwan+li...@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL, but if there is some flexibility here, I would argue that extensions
should *not* be considered derivatives. Legally, because extensions do not
contain MediaWiki code (beyond using the programming API provided by core
One thing to point out is that:
1) Even right now, under the GPL, if extensions do qualify as “derivative
works” or w/e, they do have to be GPL licensed.
2) Source code only has to be provided to users of the program. So presuming
this is some private wiki with a secret extension, source code
Hi could i have some help to resize the image and also optimise it please at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vector-bullet-icon.svg i got it to go
full size on ios.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, 0:00, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing to point out is that:
1)
Pinging WMF Legal to request their comments.
Pine
On Feb 7, 2015 5:19 PM, Thomas Mulhall thomasmulhall...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think we should upgrade to GPL 3 because it I more modern only released
sometime in 2007 where as GPL 2 was released in 1991 when the internet
started to begin. The
Cool :-)
What about extensions? Would they count as derivatives of MediaWiki
for license purposes? (I suspect they would, given Automattic regards
WordPress themes and plugins as derivatives and requires them to be
GPL.)
This would mean that, if MediaWiki went AGPL, in-house extensions
would
Assuming they are using unmodified MediaWiki, yes a link to mediawiki.org
would probably suffice. I am going to look more into it, but what we have
right now (link in the footer and extension information on Special:Version)
should fulfill compliance automatically for third parties.
--
Tyler
I like the GPLv3 and the aforementioned AGPL in general, but I doubt the
code base would benefit from them at this point.
Changing GPL-2.0+ to GPL-3.0+ is almost one-way, and I'm afraid some
unhappy developers could even fork the project to keep it GPL-2.0+.
Il 07/02/2015 20:57, Thomas Mulhall
On Feb 7, 2015 3:57 PM, Thomas Mulhall thomasmulhall...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi should we upgrade GPL to version 3 since version 3 is more modern
then version 2. Should it be updated in extensions, skins and MediaWiki.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Hi I have uploaded the patch https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/189294/ here so
which ever license that gets pick the commit can get updated for the new
license so if we decide to change to AGPLv3 then the commit can be updated for
that license or any other one.
On Saturday, 7 February
71 matches
Mail list logo
