Il 27/12/24 05:47, diskdance via Wikitech-l ha scritto:
- I'm the maintainer of some on-wiki gadgets. Many of them are very tiny so
licensing them under GPL doesn't make much sense
I sympathise and I'd often do the same, but can you elaborate? If you
mean because you don't want to include the text of the GPL in your
scripts, there are ways around that.
The LGPL is mostly useful when you're trying to replace a proprietary
library in a proprietary piece of software which cannot be made free.
When your dependencies *can* be GPL, the LGPL is actually discouraged:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
If switching our own gadgets and scripts to GPL is just an
inconvenience, that's no good reason to switch Codex to LGPL. If a
permissively licensed script ends up being a Codex derivative, they can
be switched to GPL any time. Vice versa, if they used a more restrictive
license, it might be possible to remove the additional restrictions by
invoking ยง7. (But if they're hosted on wiki, they're probably dual
licensed to CC BY-SA anyway.)
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section7
Cheers,
Federico
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
