The GPLv3 is not more restrictive. As I mentioned, if anything it’s more permissive, since it is compatible with more licenses, and because it allows distributors to add some certain additional clauses to the license at their discretion. If a developer wants to release their personal code under the Apache 2.0 license, they can do so and still contribute to MediaWiki. Or if a distributor wants to offer their own warranty on MediaWiki, they can.
Maybe it was a little presumptuous of me to bring up AGPL, because I’ll admit I even have bad feelings about it, especially considering the whole security patch issue. However, if somebody would like to offer up an actual reason for why upgrading from v2 to v3 is a bad idea, I’m all ears. (Also, some relevant links, it seems RESTBase is currently under AGPL, so we may eventually be enveloped by it anyway: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78212.) -- Tyler Romeo 0x405D34A7C86B42DF On February 8, 2015 at 10:40:03, Thomas Mulhall ([email protected]) wrote: GPLv3 is not a simple upgrade, it is merely a switch to a more restrictive license. It is quite unlikely to happen. Each time the subject has been raised, we ended up with a license flame war and no strong arguments to switch.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
