Hi folks, can we stay on topic? We are discussing Codex licensing problems (GPL
as a strongly copyleft license) for use in other projects like gadgets, not
something else. Thank you.
Best regards,
diskdance
On Monday, December 30th, 2024 at 1:38 AM, David Lynch <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> 1) To clarify that Wikimedia wikis may host gadgets and user scripts
>> licensed under GPL and not CC BY-SA.
>
> We'd need some technical changes to make that possible on top of the policy
> changes, I think? Insofar as submitting a JS page currently gets the exact
> same licensing blurb above the publish button as all other wiki content, so
> there's currently no way to submit something *without* licensing it as
> (generally, depending on project) CC-BY-SA4+GDFL. Apart from arguably using
> Special:Import for all edits, I guess, but almost nobody is allowed to use
> that.
>
> (There's probably a bunch of other complications about having some random
> bits of on-wiki content licensed differently, given usage of the database
> dumps by various people. But that's for the lawyers to think about.)
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 7:35 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Il 27/12/24 18:17, Siddharth VP ha scritto:
>>> Also, some concerns have been raised previously about GPL not being
>>> compatible with CC-BY-SA. Since all code hosted on-wiki are implicitly
>>> under CC-BY-SA, they cannot also be GPL-licensed, *meaning that gadgets and
>>> user scripts cannot use Codex at all.*
>>
>> Is the premise of this theory that gadgets and user scripts *must* in
>> all cases be licensed under CC BY-SA? That's incorrect, as
>> <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use#7> makes
>> plainly clear, because various cases exist where other licenses apply.
>> Of course you can't take GPL code as is and expect to relicense it under
>> CC BY-SA, but that's not necessary.
>>
>> It seems we have already two interesting questions for WMF legal:
>>
>> 1) To clarify that Wikimedia wikis may host gadgets and user scripts
>> licensed under GPL and not CC BY-SA.
>>
>> 2) In which cases a user script or gadget using Codex would trigger
>> §5(3) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section5 [as opposed to
>> creating a mere "aggregate"].
>>
>> There's no need to rush any decisions until such questions are answered.
>>
>> On (1) I'll note:
>>
>> * This can leverage the ToS provision that «The only exception is if the
>> Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case,
>> you agree to license any text you contribute under the particular
>> license prescribed by the Project edition or the feature.»
>> * Conversion from CC BY-SA to GPLv3 for legacy content is explicitly
>> allowed by the importing clause thanks to the one-way compatibility:
>> <https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/>.
>> * The text import clause is not particularly useful for GPL text because
>> the compatibility is one way.
>> * I would not recommend having GFDL-only code, though it may be allowed
>> by the terms of use.
>>
>> Best,
>> 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/
