Not a lawyer, but my understanding: The licence exemption refers to a project-specific license choice, e.g. Wikidata's choice for a CC0 licence. For a gadget/userscript to be published on a wiki, it must be released under that project's chosen license, CC BY-SA 4.0 for enwiki.
In response to your second point: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation>. In this case "linking" to Codex from a gadget/userscript by using its UI elements would most probably count as a modified version and not an aggregate. > On 29 Dec 2024, at 22:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Il 27/12/24 18:17, Siddharth VP ha scritto: >> Also, some concerns have been raised previously about GPL not being >> compatible with CC-BY-SA. Since all code hosted on-wiki are implicitly >> under CC-BY-SA, they cannot also be GPL-licensed, *meaning that gadgets and >> user scripts cannot use Codex at all.* > > Is the premise of this theory that gadgets and user scripts *must* in all > cases be licensed under CC BY-SA? That's incorrect, as > <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use#7> makes plainly > clear, because various cases exist where other licenses apply. Of course you > can't take GPL code as is and expect to relicense it under CC BY-SA, but > that's not necessary. > > It seems we have already two interesting questions for WMF legal: > > 1) To clarify that Wikimedia wikis may host gadgets and user scripts licensed > under GPL and not CC BY-SA. > > 2) In which cases a user script or gadget using Codex would trigger §5(3) > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section5 [as opposed to creating a > mere "aggregate"]. > > There's no need to rush any decisions until such questions are answered. > > On (1) I'll note: > > * This can leverage the ToS provision that «The only exception is if the > Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you > agree to license any text you contribute under the particular license > prescribed by the Project edition or the feature.» > * Conversion from CC BY-SA to GPLv3 for legacy content is explicitly allowed > by the importing clause thanks to the one-way compatibility: > <https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/>. > * The text import clause is not particularly useful for GPL text because the > compatibility is one way. > * I would not recommend having GFDL-only code, though it may be allowed by > the terms of use. > > Best, > Federico > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
