Assuming they are using unmodified MediaWiki, yes a link to mediawiki.org
would probably suffice. I am going to look more into it, but what we have
right now (link in the footer and extension information on Special:Version)
should fulfill compliance automatically for third parties.
--
Tyler Romeo
On Feb 7, 2015 6:00 PM, "David Gerard"
dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
> On 7 February 2015 at 22:20, Tyler Romeo
tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > **However**, I’d like to take this opportunity and jump a step further.
> What would everybody think of switching to the AGPLv3 instead? The
> advantage that this provides, for those who don’t know, is a single
> additional restriction: when the software is used over the network, source
> code must still be provided. In other words, the requirements all remain
> the same (providing a copy of the source code, ensuring all modifications
> are also GPLed, etc.). The only difference is that the requirements take
> effect over the Internet rather than only when the software is distributed
> in object code form.
>
>
> This would primarily affect third-party MediaWiki sites. Would a link
> to
http://mediawiki.org/download be sufficient for AGPL compliance?
> (In the DFSG threat model of protecting a well-meaning reuser from a
> vindictive author.) Or, per the letter of the license, would we be
> required to keep a tarball on-site of what we're using?
>
> Also, how does GPLv3 or AGPL affect the license of extensions?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l