Assuming they are using unmodified MediaWiki, yes a link to mediawiki.org would probably suffice. I am going to look more into it, but what we have right now (link in the footer and extension information on Special:Version) should fulfill compliance automatically for third parties.
-- Tyler Romeo On Feb 7, 2015 6:00 PM, "David Gerard" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 February 2015 at 22:20, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **However**, I’d like to take this opportunity and jump a step further. > What would everybody think of switching to the AGPLv3 instead? The > advantage that this provides, for those who don’t know, is a single > additional restriction: when the software is used over the network, source > code must still be provided. In other words, the requirements all remain > the same (providing a copy of the source code, ensuring all modifications > are also GPLed, etc.). The only difference is that the requirements take > effect over the Internet rather than only when the software is distributed > in object code form. > > > This would primarily affect third-party MediaWiki sites. Would a link > to http://mediawiki.org/download be sufficient for AGPL compliance? > (In the DFSG threat model of protecting a well-meaning reuser from a > vindictive author.) Or, per the letter of the license, would we be > required to keep a tarball on-site of what we're using? > > Also, how does GPLv3 or AGPL affect the license of extensions? > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
