Le 06/03/13 13:34, Chad wrote:
Jack Phoenix wrote:
we'll soon be debating about the very meaning of the word is.
Jack is not alone.
^^
Care to elaborate the meaning there?
--
Antoine hashar Musso
Sorry it had to be made
___
Wikitech-l
On 06/03/13 16:28, Jay Ashworth wrote:
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user
through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not
conveying.
As javascript is executed in the client, it
MZMcBride wrote:
You'd have to ask Lee, I suppose. I think he's still around.
https://github.com/lcrocker/OneJoker
It seems Lee is alive and well and still waiving his rights. :-)
MZMcBride
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 05/03/13 21:55, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
If it does turn out we legally *need* more license
preservation/disclosure, we should add more license preservation.
Getting a special get out of jail free card for WMF only is not
acceptable. Our sites run free software, software that anyone can
On 06/03/13 13:24, Platonides wrote:
I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense our
css and javascript as MIT, MPL, GPL-with-explicit-exception...
I was going to provide the full list:
$ git log
- Original Message -
From: Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it
not?
Mediawiki minifies things regardless of if its being run by the WMF or
somebody else.
Ah; thanks. Have not looked at internals lately. Since
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
People will say any spurious bollocks
What's the license on that observation, David? :-)
Cheers,
-- jr 'I wanna steal that' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer
- Original Message -
From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea:
http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero.
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions
- Original Message -
From: Chris Grant chrisgrantm...@gmail.com
This is based on a flawed reading of the GPL. The GPL covers the
distribution of program code. The license specifically states that “The act
of running the Program is not restricted”. (Furthermore: “Activities other
than
- Original Message -
From: Platonides platoni...@gmail.com
Regarding GPL requisites, it seems clear that minified javascript is
“object code” [1], which we can convey per section 6d [2], which is
already possible if you know how the RL works, although we should
probably provide those
The need for minification suggest that maybe the web needs a bytecode
format for css / javascript / xml, one designed to save space.
I know text is the tradition in unix, but anyway.
--
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
On 03/06/2013 07:30 AM, Platonides wrote:
On 06/03/13 13:24, Platonides wrote:
I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense our
css and javascript as MIT, MPL, GPL-with-explicit-exception...
I was
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Israel pleasest...@live.com wrote:
On 03/06/2013 07:30 AM, Platonides wrote:
On 06/03/13 13:24, Platonides wrote:
I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense
- Original Message -
From: Jack Phoenix j...@countervandalism.net
Let me just state this for the record: I find copyright paranoia and
associated acts, such as this very thread with 59 (and counting!)
messages absurd, ridiculous and a complete waste of time.
We note that you have
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jack Phoenix j...@countervandalism.net
Let me just state this for the record: I find copyright paranoia and
associated acts, such as this very thread with 59 (and counting!)
messages
On 6 March 2013 15:20, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
People will say any spurious bollocks
What's the license on that observation, David? :-)
WTFPL of course!
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
I don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's code is bike-shedding at all.
As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source
project.
There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide freedom for
developers and users. If MW were completely licensed under the
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's code is bike-shedding at all.
As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source
project.
There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide
Non-lawyers arguing over how to interpret licenses, uses, and other
stuff with the minimised code doesn't prevent such screwing over either.
It is undoubtedly an open-source project; the question is the legal one
of where all things need to be attributed and cited, and at the end of
the day
Well then maybe we could just wait for a response from the counsel in this
thread rather than interpreting licenses and then complaining about it...
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com
- Original Message -
From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com
Jack is not alone. The amount of bikeshedding on this list has reached
truly epic proportions in the last couple of weeks...to the point where I've
started ignoring the vast majority of the list (and I've always been
an
I'm pretty sure I have memories of this exact thread happening when
minification was first introduced, With counsel at the time (Mike)
weighing in on the matter.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Since this thread is slowly moving over to a debate as to whether it
constitutes bikeshedding or not (and people can't seem to agree on
that either), I'm going to unsubscribe to this mailing list by the end
of today (in 15 hours or so) as I get way
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to include
several licenses here, making it ridiculously long. All JS run on
Wikimedia sites is free, and if some software believes otherwise, that
software needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote:
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to
include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long.
Please see the
On 5 March 2013 11:56, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:
GNU LibreJs[0] reports that several of the Javascript sources
embedded by different parts of Wikipedia are proprietary[1].
Is this a conscious anti-social choice[2], or have you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/03/13 14:38, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah, calling people antisocial when you ask them for something is
definitely the approach to take. Let us know how it works out for
GNU LibreJS.
I did not call anyone antisocial. Furthermore I am not
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:
All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
that is the freely-licensed (MIT)
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:56:23PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.
I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript
post-minification. Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or
redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable
source files.
It would be good form to add licence information to all the JS
Le 05/03/13 03:56, Alexander Berntsen a écrit :
Is it not possible to insert the licence as part of your build
process? What I do with compiled or minified Javascript is to
build everything, and then insert the licence to all files using
BASH.
PLEASE NO. Let's not start a drama.
The JS are
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Luke Welling WMF lwell...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript
post-minification. Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or
redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not
a question of whether we want to support some labeling program that reads
JavaScript
On 03/05/2013 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it
I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that
the matter is
Yes. There seems little value in unqualified people debating if it is
legally required.
The mainstream FOSS licences all predate minification and seem to have been
written with compiled languages in mind, not interpreted languages. Most
have language that requires the licence in the source
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the
matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.
It's like taking a file out of a page and then complaining that it has
no
Is there a Counsel we can refer this to?
On Mar 5, 2013 11:47 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js
winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the page to
all contain the licensing information
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not
a question of
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Caroline E Willis
cewillism...@gmail.comwrote:
Is there a Counsel we can refer this to?
Yes. :) This was already on my radar, and I am following this discussion
(which has been useful; specifically, I did not know about the bug already
filed on the issue).
For
On 3/5/13 5:53 AM, Helder . wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:
All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
that
- Original Message -
From: Mark Holmquist mtrac...@member.fsf.org
The minification process, however, does *not* cause a problem. We can
simply add the comments to the file(s) after the minification. It does
mean we'll need to include, potentially, multiple license headers in
one HTTP
On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos wrote:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.
It's like taking a file out of a page
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
I am neither an engineer, nor a WMF staffer, but I want to throw a flag
here anyway.
Yes, it will cause an issue. If that extra data is going in every reply,
multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you? I
On 5 March 2013 11:55, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos wrote:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
Yes, it will cause an issue. If that extra data is going in every
reply,
multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you? I don't
know
what that number is, but I'm quite certain it's substantial.
*Every
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Certainly. But I see no reason to think it's legally required. And
while I, too, only play one on the Internet, I've been doing it since 1983.
If you read the licenses, it's pretty obvious. Also, popular libraries
(such as
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
That would depend on the type of license the wmf got.
But hopefully it wouldn't come to that, as quite frankly that would be
insane.
-bawolff
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
This JS which was mentioned in the forwarded email that started this
discussion is available via a wiki page so is probably under a CC-BY-SA-3.0
as it is
On 2013-03-05 4:28 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to Isarra's comment:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js
On 03/05/2013 12:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And in the unlikely event that's not good enough, the Foundation may well
be able to get a codicil license on the relevant libraries, acknowledging
that it needn't include the license text in on-the-wire minified copies.
If it does turn out we
On 03/05/2013 12:27 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
No, ResourceLoader and the
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless
to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it.
My 2 points - during my own research about free licenses, I've decided
that for JS, a good
On 3/5/13 1:03 PM, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it.
My 2 points - during my own research about free
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want
people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have
claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
On 5 March 2013 22:08, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want
people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have
claimed
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free
software!
The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea:
http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero.
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their
On 05/03/13 14:07, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote:
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to
include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long.
Please see the
quote name=Ryan Kaldari date=2013-03-05 time=14:01:42 -0800
What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license?
Now that's free software!
Relevant link for those interested in more background:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081
--
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1
On 06.03.2013, 2:01 Ryan wrote:
I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I
want people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people
have claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
thinking about switching to CC-Zero instead.
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to Isarra's comment:
The licensing information
On 2013-03-05 6:29 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free
software!
The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea:
http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero.
A number of former and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, popular libraries
(such as Google's hosted versions of jQuery and others) always include
license headers in the minified versions.
That's not what I see.
If I look at jQuery as hosted by Google [1], it starts with
On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public domain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker.
Does that include is work on the OCaml tool that
On 2013-03-05 9:17 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public
domain:
Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public
domain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker.
Does that include is work on the
On 05/03/13 23:45, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
This is based on a flawed reading of the GPL. The GPL covers the
distribution of program code. The license specifically states that “The act
of running the Program is not restricted”. (Furthermore: “Activities other
than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
License; they
71 matches
Mail list logo
