One thing to point out is that:
1) Even right now, under the GPL, if extensions do qualify as “derivative works” or w/e,
they do have to be GPL licensed.
2) Source code only has to be provided to users of the program. So presuming this is some
private wiki with a secret extension, source code does not have to be provided or
published to the general public.
--
Tyler Romeo
0x405D34A7C86B42DF
On February 7, 2015 at 18:49:29, David Gerard (dgerard(a)gmail.com) wrote:
On 7 February 2015 at 23:39, wctaiwan <wctaiwan+lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:
IANAL, but if there is some flexibility here, I would
argue that extensions
should *not* be considered derivatives. Legally, because extensions do not
contain MediaWiki code (beyond using the programming API provided by core
classes);
Ah, good! Yeah, programming to a provided and documented API should be
fine. (With WordPress, themes and plugins are very much programs
running in the same process, etc.)
in practice, because we have many extensions licensed
under
licenses that are incompatible with GPL,[1] and I don't think we should
require people to choose a GPL-compatible licence should they want to write
MediaWiki extensions.
[1]
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:MIT_licensed_extensions
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l