Non-lawyers arguing over how to interpret licenses, uses, and other stuff with the minimised code doesn't prevent such screwing over either. It is undoubtedly an open-source project; the question is the legal one of where all things need to be attributed and cited, and at the end of the day pretty much none of us are qualified to answer that in any full capacity. Some speculation can be fine and help people get an idea as to how to proceed, but this is indeed to the point of bikeshedding.
This is not bitching. This is a legitimate complaint that this thread is getting out of hand with little productive value.
On 06/03/13 21:42, Tyler Romeo wrote:
I don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's code is bike-shedding at all. As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source project.
There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide freedom for developers and users. If MW were completely licensed under the WTFPL, others could copy MW, change it, and then make it proprietary, whereas with the GPL there is a restriction on that. When I contribute my code to this project, I am fully aware and happy with the fact that it will *never* be used in a closed source product.
Just because some people don't care enough about how laws exist in this world and we have to operate under them doesn't mean everybody else should be screwed over. So if we could actually get back on topic rather than bitching and complaining about doing things some of us don't necessarily enjoy.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l