On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
This is virtually identical to how the old MPL multi-licensing
boilerplate is worded:
...which is widely considered sufficient for GPL compatibility.
Not sure exactly what you mean. The MPL is compatible with both GPL 2.0 and
3.0. What I'm saying is that GPLv2 to GPLv3 is a one-way direction. Once
code is licensed under v3, you cannot go back to v2. The Apache license is
only compatible with v3, and code under v2 cannot be combined with Apache
code, so the only way to add in Apache code to a GPL project is if the
entire project is v3.
My main point about not thinking too hard about GPLv3
because I'm generally a little skeptical about GPL's general
applicability to our use case.
Please assume good faith.
There is absolutely no intention by the WMF to make our software
proprietary. The only reason we'd entertain a switch to a more
permissive license is as a means of collaborating with entities
(companies, individuals, and organizations) who might steer clear of
GPL software but otherwise be good open source collaborators out of
enlightened self interest.
I will assume good faith for the WMF. I was just making a quick jab; I know
the WMF is not going to make MediaWiki proprietary.
However, I will not assume good faith for every other software company out
there that may take MediaWiki, modify it or improve it in some way, and
then begin selling it as proprietary software. It's nice to think the world
is an ideal place where everybody shares their source code, but
unfortunately we are not living in the ideal, and in fact that is the
entire reason the GPL was written in the first place: in response to
companies acting in bad faith.
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science