On 05/03/13 23:45, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2 https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to Isarra's comment:
"The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js winds up a part."
As far as I can tell, that is not true for the *code* license(s) for core and extensions.
Matt Flaschen
Did you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/COPYING ?
Do you really expect people to find that?
We're basically talking about what is visible in the "binary" version of the site.
We all know they can get license information from the source by doing git clones.
I don't think it's realistic that people will successfully guess they can visit that /w/COPYING url. And not all the code is under GPLv2 anyway, though it should all be free on WMF sites.
Matt Flaschen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Alternately, it's the same as how people can find the license of any of it from the front ('binary') end. The content is specified in the footer and there is a link to mediawiki for platform information, and the resulting javascript is a combination of both of those...
But I guess my point was more that I just find it a little strange that folks would be taking javascript out of that context when such would never be done with other pieces of a page like images, which have a similar process to find their copyright information and yet tend to perhaps be more meaningful out of context than the js.
Although if such images needed to have licensing included in their file headers as well, while that would result in a complete ruddy mess, it might actually prove useful to reusers.