On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Ryan Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > You'd have an issue with a proprietary application using the wikitext > parser as a library? You really find the LGPL completely unacceptable > in this situation?
I prefer to license my own code under GPL instead of the the LGPL, yes. I'm not dogmatic about it, it's just a personal preference. If people want to release proprietary code, that's fine by me, but they can do it without my help. > Seems like kind of a hardline position to take. That same application > could make API calls to MediaWiki, using it in essentially the same > way, without the license restrictions. Yep, it's possible to hack around the GPL in some cases. I'm okay with that. I don't think proprietary code is immoral or anything, so I'm fine with just making it more difficult. Doesn't have to be impossible. > Also, GPL, in our use case, is > fairly ineffective. Even if an application makes PHP calls directly > into MediaWiki, that application doesn't necessarily need to be GPL, > since there is no actual linking occurring. The only mention of the word "link" in the GPLv3 terms and conditions, outside an example, is in the phrase "link or combine" in section 13: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv2 doesn't use it at all in the terms and conditions: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html Linking has no special status in the GPL -- it's just a question of what legally constitutes a derivative work. If a C program that dynamically links to a library is legally a derivative work of that library, a PHP program that dynamically calls functions from another PHP program is almost surely a derivative work too. The decision would be made by a judge, who wouldn't have the faintest idea of the technical details and therefore would only care about the general effect. > Not all MediaWiki extensions are GPL, for instance. This has been discussed before: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-July/048436.html The opinion of the lawyers employed by the FSF and SFLC implies that all typical MediaWiki extensions and skins must be licensed GPL-compatibly. The SFLC did a detailed analysis of Wordpress plugins, and concluded they all had to be GPL for reasons that apply identically to MediaWiki: http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ Our README file says that MediaWiki extensions have to be GPL also. However, we don't enforce any of this at mediawiki.org, since most developers don't seem to be in favor of it (although I personally am). As far as I know, no one's consulted Wikimedia lawyers about it, although by the interpretation of the FSF/SFLC Wikimedia is hosting copyright-infringing extensions at mediawiki.org. > Meh. If we have a GPL library, I'll just wrap it in a wsgi python > library to act as a shim. There is no interpretation of the GPL that I'm aware of that would say linking is not allowed, but calling a Python library function is allowed. Either both create a derivative work, or neither does. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
