The FSF's theory of GPL inheritance is based on the idea that your code has
only one purpose: to extend the capabilities of GPL'ed code. It has no
other use or function. So, to distribute it under any other license is an
attempt to create a collective work that violates the GPL. This case is
trivially destroyed by creating unit test code which isn't GPL'ed.
On Nov 8, 2011 1:08 PM, "David Gerard" &l
On 8 November 2011 18:02, Olivier Beaton <olivier.beaton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If it's on company time it's All Rights
Reserved and will never see
the light of day. Way too many lawyers over here. Anyways it looks for
my perticular case I'll probably end up with just a BSD header (was
most likely overthinking/overparanoid), but as I keep repeating, and
which Rob pointed out, it would be a good thing to a have a documented
guideline (based on consensus) about what can be accepted into the
repo. Key questions like is-gpl-compatability a must? Not all OSI
licenses are IIRC.
To what degree are extensions derivatives, under copyright law, of
MediaWiki code? Enough to have to be GPLed? That's a thorny one.
(WordPress says all WordPress themes are derivatives and must
therefore be GPL, for example. There's a thriving cottage industry in
selling WordPress themes, but this would mean they wouldn't have much
leverage to stop customers then giving them away, even if that's not
how copyright technically works.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l