There are several Wikimedia-deployed extensions including DiscussionTools, TemplateWizard and WikiLove which use the MIT license. Requiring these extensions to switch to GPL just for using Codex seems poor form. That might not even be possible, considering that you need to get the consent of all significant contributors to switch the license.

Since Codex is relatively new, it would be more convenient for it to be dual-licensed to a GPL+MIT or GPL+Apache scheme instead.

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.

-- SD0001

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 at 20:56, diskdance via Wikitech-l <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

To give more explanations, in my understanding, Codex is designed to replace OOUI which is MIT licensed. Even if to me I can just change the license of my projects, I believe there definitely exist more complex scenarios where this is not viable, which prevents them from migrating to Codex as a whole.

Best regards,
diskdance

-------- Original Message --------
On 12/27/24 3:04 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Il 27/12/24 05:47, diskdance via Wikitech-l ha scritto:
> > - I'm the maintainer of some on-wiki gadgets. Many of them are very tiny so licensing them under GPL doesn't make much sense
>
> I sympathise and I'd often do the same, but can you elaborate? If you
> mean because you don't want to include the text of the GPL in your
> scripts, there are ways around that.
>
> The LGPL is mostly useful when you're trying to replace a proprietary
> library in a proprietary piece of software which cannot be made free.
> When your dependencies *can* be GPL, the LGPL is actually discouraged:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> If switching our own gadgets and scripts to GPL is just an
> inconvenience, that's no good reason to switch Codex to LGPL. If a
> permissively licensed script ends up being a Codex derivative, they can
> be switched to GPL any time. Vice versa, if they used a more restrictive
> license, it might be possible to remove the additional restrictions by
> invoking §7. (But if they're hosted on wiki, they're probably dual
> licensed to CC BY-SA anyway.)
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section7
>
> Cheers,
> Federico
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/