Non-lawyers arguing over how to interpret licenses, uses, and other
stuff with the minimised code doesn't prevent such screwing over either.
It is undoubtedly an open-source project; the question is the legal one
of where all things need to be attributed and cited, and at the end of
the day pretty much none of us are qualified to answer that in any full
capacity. Some speculation can be fine and help people get an idea as to
how to proceed, but this is indeed to the point of bikeshedding.
This is not bitching. This is a legitimate complaint that this thread is
getting out of hand with little productive value.
On 06/03/13 21:42, Tyler Romeo wrote:
I don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's
code is bike-shedding at all.
As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source
project.
There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide freedom for
developers and users. If MW were completely licensed under the WTFPL,
others could copy MW, change it, and then make it proprietary, whereas with
the GPL there is a restriction on that. When I contribute my code to this
project, I am fully aware and happy with the fact that it will *never* be
used in a closed source product.
Just because some people don't care enough about how laws exist in this
world and we have to operate under them doesn't mean everybody else should
be screwed over. So if we could actually get back on topic rather than
bitching and complaining about doing things some of us don't necessarily
enjoy.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
-— Isarra