Hello,
I have submitted my project application for GSoC '13. Please review it.
Link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kiran_mathew_1993
Thanks,
--
Kiran Mathew Koshy
Electrical Engineering,
IIT Patna,
Patna,
India.
Hello
I am a 3rd year student of Computer Science and Engineering at Manipal
Institute of Technology. I came to know about GSoC through the local Linux
Users Group. I am relatively new to the world of open source. i enjoy
coding and am pretty dedicated towards it.
I have put up a proposal for the Language Coverage Matrix Dashboard project
listed in GSoC 2013. It would provide a much more visually attractive LCM
alongside highly useful functionalities like search, filters and data
visualization.
Following is my proposal
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Parth4992
The bug as filed on bugzilla
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46651
--
Regards
Parth Srivastav
Hi,
I am an applicant for Google Summer of Code and proposing to build an
Authorship Tracking mediawiki extension.
I am looking for mentors and would appreciate feedback on the proposal
which can be found here
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Mshavlovsky/Authorship_Tracking .
Many many thanks,
Michael
At the risk of starting another huge bikeshed like [1] I feel like we need
some good guidance on just how in the heck we are required to license
extensions/images/source code files. With the help of Marktraceur we now
have
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Coding_conventions#Source_File_Headers
which
is somewhat specific to PHP but could be generalized to JS, CSS, and SQL.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-March/067217.html
But I have some additional questions... breaking this up into bits; my
current thought matrix is that:
== Extensions ==
* Must have a LICENSE file in the root with the full text of the license
for the extension, and appended any additional licenses for
libraries/resources they've pulled in
** How do we specify what license goes to what included component?
== PHP Files ==
* For generic files, include a statement like
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Coding_conventions#Source_File_Headers
* If it's the Extension.php file $wgExtensionCredits array should have the
following items
** author
** version
** url
** license?
** If we include additional libraries, so we add another entry to the
wgExtensionCredits array?
== JS/CSS Files ==
This gets a bit confusing because apparently we're supposed to have a
license in every bit of content pushed to the user; did we ever settle that
huge thread in any meaninful way? E.g. how to push minimized but licensed
files?
== Image Files ==
Really shouldn't be licensed under GPLv2; but right now they implicitly
are. Is there a way to explicitly identify image/binary content as being CC
licensed? Do we just add a line to the license file about this?
== And... go! ==
______
< moo. >
------
\ ^__^
\ ($$)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
U ||----w |
|| ||
~Matt Walker
Wikimedia Foundation
Fundraising Technology Team
Hi,
The deadline for submissions to the FOSS Outreach Program for Women is
*** 19:00pm UTC on May 1, 2013 ***
You must send your application to opw-list{}gnome.org before the
deadline. No exceptions!
https://live.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen#Send_in_an_Application
You can keep improving your proposal in your project wiki page after the
deadline. It is ok if you haven't completed your mandatory contribution
yet. It is also ok if you don't have two co-mentors confirmed yet.
Also remember:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-April/068842.html
If you hesitate, just apply. You will have more days to ask questions
and improve your proposal.
After applying you can add yourself to
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women#Candidates
What happens after submitting your OPW proposal:
* If you are also applying to GSoC then focus on GSoC. The first
evaluation will be done in that context following the GSoC process and
without any gender specific considerations.
* If your proposal is strictly for OPW then we will start evaluating it
and we might come back to you with questions.
The official announcement of accepted interns will be done by the OPW
program on May 27:
https://live.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2013/JuneSeptember#Schedule
However, we might confirm some or all the Wikimedia interns by May 10.
It will partially depend on the GSoC selection process.
Good luck to everybody!
--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
My apologies for not weighing in earlier. I'm actually subscribed to
the list (no need to cc me) but have been extremely busy with... well,
among other things, hiring someone to free me up to do more things
like this. :)
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:59 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25 April 2013 00:36, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Says who? I do not believe this is a requirement. It perhaps would be nice,
> >> if done sanely, but not a requirement.
>
> > Says the GPL. To be specific:
>
>
> I understand Luis was working on sane ways to do this in minified JS
> (and whether it is in fact required, or that counts as a compiled
> binary; though obviously it would be nice). So AIUI we're waiting on
> him.
Suffice to say that GPL was never designed or drafted with this use
case in mind, making all the usual disclaimers about the difficulty of
GPL interpretation even stronger. Frankly, I don't see much benefit to
spending list cycles arguing about the precise meaning.[1][2]
With that as background, I think it would be compatible with our
mission/culture, and with some interpretations of the license, to
provide licensing information (including links to relevant source
code) for any embedded third-party javascript as part of a default MW
install. If the solution for that also provides relevant information
on the non-minified-javascript parts of the source code base, that
would be a terrific side effect.
In a nutshell, there are two primary approaches to doing this (not
necessarily either-or):
* Add licensing information to About:Version or something similar.
Obviously some of this is already there (general GPL v2 license
statement) but having per-extension information, and in particular
ensuring that any extension with javascript has the necessary
metadata, would be useful. (I'm happy to help straighten out the
metadata for any extension where the licensing is unclear or messy.)
* Improve LibreJS so that it uses less obtrusive metadata, and then
work on Mediawiki to publish that metadata.
If someone on the list has interest *and time* to write code for
either/both of the above projects I'd be happy to talk to you about
the details, including introducing you to relevant other people
outside of Mediawiki where that makes sense.
Thanks-
Luis
[1] Relatedly: even if you disagree, and see a benefit in having a
discussion, I'm not going to engage in it. It isn't just a waste of
time unless it is paired with code; there are also people who'd love
to have a public statement so they can say "see, WMF agrees with me",
and I'm not going to place myself (or WMF) in any such camp.
[2] The utter annoying-ness of having this discussion at all is
basically why jquery is now solely MIT-licensed, which is a loss for
the GPL community.
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about
the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for
legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
personal capacity.