I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than the v3. Yeah, maybe in the case of extensions it’s OK, but I do not think it is possible to add Apache code into MediaWiki core and still allow licensing MediaWiki under both the v2 and the v3.
Maybe if legal can provide an explanation, but at this point so many people are dying to use a permissive license that I doubt anything is ever going to change. Also, I understand everybody seems to be worried about using the AGPL in libraries because then the libraries cannot be used by outside companies in proprietary software. But at that point it’s really just a difference in opinion. What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in proprietary software. -- Tyler Romeo 0x405D34A7C86B42DF On February 10, 2015 at 18:23:32, David Gerard ([email protected]) wrote: On 10 February 2015 at 23:19, Bryan Tong Minh <[email protected]> wrote: > In fact I would prefer to go to a less restrictive license, but that is > probably not worth the fight. And is also infeasible. For a web service. GPL is effectively weak copyleft already; I think that's quite weak enough. (As I noted, there is no actual evidence that permissive licenses secure more contributions than copyleft, and some evidence the other way; despite fans of permissive licenses repeating the claims ad nauseam over the last fifteen years, they're notably short on examples.) - d. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
