Not a lawyer, but my understanding:
The licence exemption refers to a project-specific license choice, e.g. Wikidata's choice for a CC0 licence. For a gadget/userscript to be published on a wiki, it must be released under that project's chosen license, CC BY-SA 4.0 for enwiki.
In response to your second point: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation. In this case "linking" to Codex from a gadget/userscript by using its UI elements would most probably count as a modified version and not an aggregate.
On 29 Dec 2024, at 22:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Il 27/12/24 18:17, Siddharth VP ha scritto:
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.*
Is the premise of this theory that gadgets and user scripts *must* in all cases be licensed under CC BY-SA? That's incorrect, as https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use#7 makes plainly clear, because various cases exist where other licenses apply. Of course you can't take GPL code as is and expect to relicense it under CC BY-SA, but that's not necessary.
It seems we have already two interesting questions for WMF legal:
To clarify that Wikimedia wikis may host gadgets and user scripts licensed under GPL and not CC BY-SA.
In which cases a user script or gadget using Codex would trigger §5(3) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section5 [as opposed to creating a mere "aggregate"].
There's no need to rush any decisions until such questions are answered.
On (1) I'll note:
- This can leverage the ToS provision that «The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under the particular license prescribed by the Project edition or the feature.»
- Conversion from CC BY-SA to GPLv3 for legacy content is explicitly allowed by the importing clause thanks to the one-way compatibility: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/.
- The text import clause is not particularly useful for GPL text because the compatibility is one way.
- I would not recommend having GFDL-only code, though it may be allowed by the terms of use.
Best, 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/