I like the idea of Daniel Schwen. We could learn a lot if we could look into the scripts of the other users and could reuse parts of it. Every editor on wikipedia publish each content under free licences, so why should this be on toolserver not so? I wouldn't publish all scripts to the world but they should be readable for all users with a toolserver account.
So I would like to ask: Is somebody against this way? And what are the reason?
So than we should ask at the next expired account mail which free license everybody like and ok.
Greetings Kolossos
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Tim Alder tim@alder-digital.de wrote:
So than we should ask at the next expired account mail which free license everybody like and ok.
Maybe I didn't understand you properly, but wouldn't it be better to make a list of acceptable licenses, instead of a single license?
Titoxd.
Maybe I didn't understand you properly, but wouldn't it be better to make a list of acceptable licenses, instead of a single license?
Those are minor details. And I would dare guessing that for most of the users it would make pretty much zero difference which free license (FSF approved) the choose for their projects. P.S.: by making source world-readable I was referring to unix permissions, which would of course only have an effect for people with toolserver accounts.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
Maybe I didn't understand you properly, but wouldn't it be better to make a list of acceptable licenses, instead of a single license?
Those are minor details. And I would dare guessing that for most of the users it would make pretty much zero difference which free license (FSF approved) the choose for their projects. P.S.: by making source world-readable I was referring to unix permissions, which would of course only have an effect for people with toolserver accounts.
I have no idea how TS works, or what features are available to users, but what about a SVN/GIT/* version control system that people can use to store the work that they want publically available since as you mention the talk of unix permissions means it would only be available to those on the TS.
-Peachey
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I have no idea how TS works, or what features are available to users, but what about a SVN/GIT/* version control system that people can use to store the work that they want publically available since as you mention the talk of unix permissions means it would only be available to those on the TS.
All users can request SVN repositories. git and hg are installed too, and it's easy to set those up yourself via HTTP. However, this isn't enough, because users won't bother committing all their files to the repositories all the time, and the committed copy will become outdated.
Daniel Schwen a écrit :
I would dare guessing that for most of the users it would make pretty much zero difference which free license (FSF approved) the choose for their projects.
viral/nonviral could be a significant difference to some developers. Guillaume
@Eusebius:
I would dare guessing that for most of the users it would make pretty much zero difference which free license (FSF approved) the choose for their projects.
viral/nonviral could be a significant difference to some developers. Guillaume
I don't really see how even this is significant. It's not like any of the tools on the TS, which are all pretty specialized niche programs, would be interesting for derivative works or inclusion in commercial software.
@Pathoschild:
requests nor collects user credentials; users provide temporary access directly to me, knowing the risks of doing so. The Toolserver is
That looks like word play to me. You are proceccessing Wikimedia account details on the toolserver (I'm assuming you use centralauth token and session cookies? Just as bad.). That's all that matters to me.
The license indicates what freedoms the author intends for his tools. It makes no sense to license a tool for redistribution if you don't want it redistributed.
This whole discussion is not about redistribution, it is about developers being able to pick up and rescue abandoned tools.
Trust between Toolserver users is irrelevant here, since home directories are not world-readable.
If you read my initial proposal carefully (well actually just read it at all), you'll see that I proposed just that.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
P.S.: by making source world-readable I was referring to unix permissions, which would of course only have an effect for people with toolserver accounts.
As long as it is not automatic that is fine. Because users either forget or are just plain stupid they will for sure forget to remove the world-read bit from password files.
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org