I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than the v3. Yeah,
maybe in the case of extensions it’s OK, but I do not think it is possible to add Apache
code into MediaWiki core and still allow licensing MediaWiki under both the v2 and the
Maybe if legal can provide an explanation, but at this point so many people are dying to
use a permissive license that I doubt anything is ever going to change.
Also, I understand everybody seems to be worried about using the AGPL in libraries because
then the libraries cannot be used by outside companies in proprietary software. But at
that point it’s really just a difference in opinion. What is more important: allowing as
many people to use our libraries as possible, or protecting against our libraries from
being used in proprietary software.
On February 10, 2015 at 18:23:32, David Gerard (dgerard(a)gmail.com) wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 23:19, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In fact I would prefer to go to a less restrictive
license, but that is
probably not worth the fight.
And is also infeasible. For a web service. GPL is effectively weak
copyleft already; I think that's quite weak enough. (As I noted, there
is no actual evidence that permissive licenses secure more
contributions than copyleft, and some evidence the other way; despite
fans of permissive licenses repeating the claims ad nauseam over the
last fifteen years, they're notably short on examples.)
Wikitech-l mailing list