Il 27/12/24 18:17, Siddharth VP ha scritto:
Also, some concerns have been raised previously about GPL not being compatible with CC-BY-SA. Since all code hosted on-wiki are implicitly under CC-BY-SA, they cannot also be GPL-licensed, *meaning that gadgets and user scripts cannot use Codex at all.*
Is the premise of this theory that gadgets and user scripts *must* in all cases be licensed under CC BY-SA? That's incorrect, as https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use#7 makes plainly clear, because various cases exist where other licenses apply. Of course you can't take GPL code as is and expect to relicense it under CC BY-SA, but that's not necessary.
It seems we have already two interesting questions for WMF legal:
1) To clarify that Wikimedia wikis may host gadgets and user scripts licensed under GPL and not CC BY-SA.
2) In which cases a user script or gadget using Codex would trigger §5(3) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section5 [as opposed to creating a mere "aggregate"].
There's no need to rush any decisions until such questions are answered.
On (1) I'll note:
* This can leverage the ToS provision that «The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under the particular license prescribed by the Project edition or the feature.» * Conversion from CC BY-SA to GPLv3 for legacy content is explicitly allowed by the importing clause thanks to the one-way compatibility: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/. * The text import clause is not particularly useful for GPL text because the compatibility is one way. * I would not recommend having GFDL-only code, though it may be allowed by the terms of use.
Best, Federico