On 09/02/15 20:37, Tyler Romeo wrote:
This entire conversation is a bit disappointing, mainly because I am a
>supporter of the free software movement, and like to believe that users
>should have a right to see the source code of software they use.
Obviously
>not everybody feels this way and not everybody is going to support the
free
>software movement, but I can assure you I personally have no plans on
>contributing to any WMF project that is Apache licensed, but at the very
>least MediaWiki core is still GPLv2, even if it makes things a bit
more difficult.
Also, I have no idea how the MPL works, but I can assure you that licensing
> under the “GPLv2 or any later version” cannot possibly imply it is
available
> under both the v2 and v3. The different GPL versions have conflicting
terms.
>You cannot possibly use the terms of the v2 and v3 simultaneously. It is
>legally impossible. What is means is that you can use the software under
>the terms of the v2 *or* the v3. And, as I mentioned, since Apache is
only
>compatible with v3, as long as using the software under the v2 is an
option,
>you cannot combine code that is under Apache.
It is *available*. You can use, at your choice either of them (or any
later version not yet released). Though your options may be decreased if
you combine the work with a different one not compatible with both of them.
Also note we have traditionally held the position of not considering MW
extensions derived works (and thus allowing them to be licensed like eg.
MIT), which would be arguable.
I wouldn't even be surprised if -supposing we had an AGPL mediawiki- a
troll came requesting the full LocalSettings.php contents to be
published, password DB included.
I also vote for maintaining the current GPLv2+ license.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
