To give more explanations, in my understanding, Codex is designed to replace OOUI which is MIT licensed. Even if to me I can just change the license of my projects, I believe there definitely exist more complex scenarios where this is not viable, which prevents them from migrating to Codex as a whole.
Best regards, diskdance -------- Original Message -------- On 12/27/24 3:04 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
