This entire conversation is a bit disappointing, mainly because I am a supporter of the
free software movement, and like to believe that users should have a right to see the
source code of software they use. Obviously not everybody feels this way and not everybody
is going to support the free software movement, but I can assure you I personally have no
plans on contributing to any WMF project that is Apache licensed, but at the very least
MediaWiki core is still GPLv2, even if it makes things a bit more difficult.
Also, I have no idea how the MPL works, but I can assure you that licensing under the
“GPLv2 or any later version” cannot possibly imply it is available under both the v2 and
v3. The different GPL versions have conflicting terms. You cannot possibly use the terms
of the v2 and v3 simultaneously. It is legally impossible. What is means is that you can
use the software under the terms of the v2 *or* the v3. And, as I mentioned, since Apache
is only compatible with v3, as long as using the software under the v2 is an option, you
cannot combine code that is under Apache.
On February 9, 2015 at 04:06:54, David Gerard (dgerard(a)gmail.com) wrote:
On 9 February 2015 at 08:28, Max Semenik <maxsem.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OpenOffice's woes are unrelated to its license, it
was already dead by
forking when Oracle transferred it to Apache, facilitating a change from
GPL+proprietary CLA to the Apache license.
Indeed, but they touted the mythical attractiveness of a permissive
license over the bondage of copyleft. And it didn't work that way at
all in practice.
Again: data, rather than anecdote or surmise? As far as I can tell,
the claim that permissive attracts more contributions than copyleft is
entirely a myth.
Wikitech-l mailing list