Olivier Beaton olivier.bea...@gmail.com writes:
What do I gain by not using gpl? Commercial use and forking under a license
of your choice. The only thing that concerns me using bsd is how to accept
contributions that im not merging in safely.
Others have said here, and I agree, that if you
On 08/11/11 02:52, Olivier Beaton wrote:
What do I gain by not using gpl? Commercial use and forking under a license
of your choice. The only thing that concerns me using bsd is how to accept
contributions that im not merging in safely. Is zend framework concern with
bsd and their use of a
If it's on company time it's All Rights Reserved and will never see
the light of day. Way too many lawyers over here. Anyways it looks for
my perticular case I'll probably end up with just a BSD header (was
most likely overthinking/overparanoid), but as I keep repeating, and
which Rob pointed out,
On 8 November 2011 18:02, Olivier Beaton olivier.bea...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's on company time it's All Rights Reserved and will never see
the light of day. Way too many lawyers over here. Anyways it looks for
my perticular case I'll probably end up with just a BSD header (was
most likely
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:08 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
To what degree are extensions derivatives, under copyright law, of
MediaWiki code? Enough to have to be GPLed? That's a thorny one.
IIRC, we've discussed this before but never come up with a solid
answer. We really do need
To what degree are extensions derivatives, under copyright law, of MediaWiki
code?
IANAL, but I'd think that extensions are derivative of MediaWiki in the same
manner that my email is derivative of the English Language Dictionary.
DanB
___
On 09/11/11 04:50, Platonides wrote:
On 08/11/11 02:52, Olivier Beaton wrote:
What do I gain by not using gpl? Commercial use and forking under a license
of your choice. The only thing that concerns me using bsd is how to accept
contributions that im not merging in safely. Is zend framework
The FSF's theory of GPL inheritance is based on the idea that your code has
only one purpose: to extend the capabilities of GPL'ed code. It has no
other use or function. So, to distribute it under any other license is an
attempt to create a collective work that violates the GPL. This case is
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
Olivier Beaton olivier.bea...@gmail.com writes:
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 revision.
I wanted
What do I gain by not using gpl? Commercial use and forking under a license
of your choice. The only thing that concerns me using bsd is how to accept
contributions that im not merging in safely. Is zend framework concern with
bsd and their use of a contrib agreement ?
My employer asked me to
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
