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 ยง7. (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/