> 1) To clarify that Wikimedia wikis may host gadgets and user scripts > licensed under GPL and not CC BY-SA.
We'd need some technical changes to make that possible on top of the policy changes, I think? Insofar as submitting a JS page currently gets the exact same licensing blurb above the publish button as all other wiki content, so there's currently no way to submit something *without* licensing it as (generally, depending on project) CC-BY-SA4+GDFL. Apart from arguably using Special:Import for all edits, I guess, but almost nobody is allowed to use that. (There's probably a bunch of other complications about having some random bits of on-wiki content licensed differently, given usage of the database dumps by various people. But that's for the lawyers to think about.) On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 7:35 AM 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/
