Cool :-) What about extensions? Would they count as derivatives of MediaWiki for license purposes? (I suspect they would, given Automattic regards WordPress themes and plugins as derivatives and requires them to be GPL.)
This would mean that, if MediaWiki went AGPL, in-house extensions would need to be made available on the site. This would lead to people running out-of-date MediaWiki so as not to reveal their s3kr1t sauce - which is a terrible reason, but you know it'll happen. I have no personal objection to AGPL and quite like the idea, but the extensions issue springs to my mind 'cos I'm adminning a site with a few extensions which are "you can use this locally" (i.e. non-free) that I doubt I could get permission to release, and that I doubt I could personally rewrite from scratch. At this point I suspect we need a lawyer who knows free software licenses weighing in. Luis, are you able to give an informal opinion at this point in the thread? (cc'd) - d. On 7 February 2015 at 23:02, Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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" <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7 February 2015 at 22:20, Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> 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 >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
