Hello, At Friday 05 February 2010 15:45:21 DaB. wrote:
I requested such a policy (with a draft (even a english one))
If somebody is interested, the DRAFT can be found under [1]. I updated it today and added some stuff from the discussion here. I'm of corse interested in response (and fixing of my bad english), but I can't guarantee that it will ever accept by the WMDE.
Sincerly, DaB.
[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toollizenz/draft/en
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:49 AM, DaB. WP@daniel.baur4.info wrote:
Hello, At Friday 05 February 2010 15:45:21 DaB. wrote:
I requested such a policy (with a draft (even a english one))
If somebody is interested, the DRAFT can be found under [1]. I updated it today and added some stuff from the discussion here. I'm of corse interested in response (and fixing of my bad english), but I can't guarantee that it will ever accept by the WMDE.
Sincerly, DaB.
[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toollizenz/draft/en
-- wp-blog.de
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Looks good, but there is one bit in the page that has a bit of unclear wording:
"The source code of every tool is licensed under a free (like BSD) or * GPL-compatible*[1]https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toollizenz/draft/en#cite_note-0 license by default, if it is at all possible. If this is not possible due to a less free component (like a code library), the source code adopts the license of the library by default." Would it be safe to say that the source code would be dual-licensed here, or am I reading it wrong?
Titoxd.
is not possible due to a less free component (like a code library), the source code adopts the license of the library by default."
Adopting the license of the library by default makes not much sense. A free license that allows linking unfree libraries would be the way to go.
Titoxd @ Wikimedia wrote:
Looks good, but there is one bit in the page that has a bit of unclear wording:
"The source code of every tool is licensed under a free (like BSD) or /GPL-compatible/^[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toollizenz/draft/en#cite_note-0 license by default, if it is at all possible. If this is not possible due to a less free component (like a code library), the source code adopts the license of the library by default."
Would it be safe to say that the source code would be dual-licensed here, or am I reading it wrong?
Titoxd.
No. That text would allow to use the code under GPL (BSD is itself GPL-compatible).
Titoxd @ Wikimedia wrote:
"The source code of every tool is licensed under a free (like BSD) or /GPL-compatible/^[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toollizenz/draft/en#cite_note-0 license by default, if it is at all possible. If this is not possible due to a less free component (like a code library), the source code adopts the license of the library by default."
I support this move, but I don't like the wording.
First, I believe it would be better to start it with explicitly stating something like: "By having an account on the toolserver, you agree to license your tools..."
Second, this bit doesn't mean a lot: "licensed under a free (like BSD) or GPL-compatible license by default". Is it dual-licensed? Released under all the licenses simultaneously? I suggest to change this to simply: "licensed under the GNU GPL v3 or any later version." The next clause "Source code is exempted from this if it is explicitly licensed" provides for people who want to release their tools under BSD.
Nikola Smolenski:
I suggest to change this to simply: "licensed under the GNU GPL v3 or any later version."
I don't think this is a good idea. The GPL is one of the most restrictive open source licenses and using it automatically could hinder reuse later. A better choice might be something like the CDDL or MPL, which are also copyleft.
Users who want to use a very strict license would still have the option of doing so.
(BTW: I like the suggestion to let users specify a license for all of their tools, rather than having to do each one individually.)
- river.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM, River Tarnell river.tarnell@wikimedia.de wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea. The GPL is one of the most restrictive open source licenses and using it automatically could hinder reuse later. A better choice might be something like the CDDL or MPL, which are also copyleft.
Using a non-GPL-compatible license would create problems too, since it couldn't be integrated into GPL or LGPL projects, and those are two of the most popular licenses in existence. We could use the LGPL, or another GPL-compatible weak-copyleft license. Or we could just use an MIT-style license.
Users who want to use a very strict license would still have the option of doing so.
They would not have an option of applying a strict license to already-published versions of their work, if they signed up without reading the terms carefully. On the other hand, if a very strict license is the default, users who don't like it could release their code more openly even retroactively.
They would not have an option of applying a strict license to already-published versions of their work, if they signed up without reading the terms carefully. On the other hand, if a very strict license is the default, users who don't like it could release their code more openly even retroactively.
Very very free licenses (MIT/X11 or WTFPL, for example) can be revoked.
Fahad Sadah
Very very free licenses (MIT/X11 or WTFPL, for example) can be revoked.
IANAL, but as far as I know, even if I would 'revoke' (i.e. change 'MIT' to 'GPL') the license, you are still allowed to use and distribute it under the original license. Do you have a source for your statement?
-Merlijn
Дана Friday 05 February 2010 21:53:15 River Tarnell написа:
Nikola Smolenski:
I suggest to change this to simply: "licensed under the GNU GPL v3 or any later version."
I don't think this is a good idea. The GPL is one of the most restrictive open source licenses and using it automatically could hinder reuse later. A better choice might be something like the CDDL or MPL, which are also copyleft.
They aren't GPL compatible, and the MediaWiki itself (where the code may end up being used) is GPL. If you think GPL is too restrictive, LGPL at least.
(BTW: I like the suggestion to let users specify a license for all of their tools, rather than having to do each one individually.)
Have I suggested that?
DaB. wrote:
Hello, At Friday 05 February 2010 15:45:21 DaB. wrote:
I requested such a policy (with a draft (even a english one))
If somebody is interested, the DRAFT can be found under [1]. I updated it today and added some stuff from the discussion here. I'm of corse interested in response (and fixing of my bad english), but I can't guarantee that it will ever accept by the WMDE.
Sincerly, DaB.
What is understood by the term "tool"?
--vvv
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org