I’m considering this issue RC.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
CSSMin.php is Apache 2.0 License
This is GPLv3+ compatible whereas the rest is GPLv2+ or compatible, which means this should be not an issue, except for needing to document that in debian/copyright. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
IEContentAnalyzer is non-free actually. "It may be redistributed without restriction" is missing some things we require for main.
Right. Tim Starling, you claim copyright on that file. Can you please confirm which DFSG-free Open Source™ licence(s) we can use and distribute that file under?
JavaScriptMinifier.php is Apache,MIT,GPL,LGPL - and so falls under GPL, but it wouldnt be bad to list the options it offers for users looking into the copyright file. While you modify it anyways. :)
jsminplus is MPL1.1 or GPL or LGPL. Please list, for completness.
Aye. These weren’t an issue for the mediawiki package before the split (which I still don’t agree with but will only passively oppose).
I’ve got more:
IEUrlExtension.php does not have any licence at all. Is it safe to assume it’s GPLv2+ as “all of the rest of MediaWiki”?
HttpStatus.php has no complaints ;-) it’s not code and certainly not copyrightable.
I’ll be removing IEContentAnalyzer.php and IEUrlExtension.php from MediaWiki in Debian within this month if I do not get any positive feedback or a good reason to delay this.
bye, //mirabilos
On 07/08/13 10:23, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
I’m considering this issue RC.
IEContentAnalyzer is non-free actually. "It may be redistributed without restriction" is missing some things we require for main.
Right. Tim Starling, you claim copyright on that file. Can you please confirm which DFSG-free Open Source™ licence(s) we can use and distribute that file under?
(...)
I’ve got more:
IEUrlExtension.php does not have any licence at all. Is it safe to assume it’s GPLv2+ as “all of the rest of MediaWiki”?
(...)
I’ll be removing IEContentAnalyzer.php and IEUrlExtension.php from MediaWiki in Debian within this month if I do not get any positive feedback or a good reason to delay this.
bye, //mirabilos
Yes, it is safe to assume that the code would be GPLv2+ just as the rest of mediawiki.
Code by Tim Starling is available under any OSI license: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling
As he is the main author of IEContentAnalyzer.php and IEUrlExtension.php that should clear their issue.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Platonides wrote:
Right. Tim Starling, you claim copyright on that file. Can you please confirm which DFSG-free Open Source™ licence(s) we can use and distribute that file under?
Code by Tim Starling is available under any OSI license: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling
As he is the main author of IEContentAnalyzer.php and IEUrlExtension.php that should clear their issue.
Indeed, that will, and that removes the release-criticalness of this issue and reduces it into a documentation issue.
IEUrlExtension.php does not have any licence at all. Is it safe to assume it’s GPLv2+ as “all of the rest of MediaWiki”?
Yes, it is safe to assume that the code would be GPLv2+ just as the rest of mediawiki.
Thanks. Then all we need is to document these special cases in debian/copyright.
bye, //mirabilos
mediawiki-distributors@lists.wikimedia.org