On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Rob Lanphier
Our code is "GPLv2 or later", which is
the functional equivalent of
being multi-licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and all later versions of
the GPL) Therefore, the set of licenses that "GPLv2 or later" is
compatible with is a strict superset of the licenses that "GPLv3 or
later" is compatible with.
This is not true. The GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible licenses, and if you
read the actual license disclaimer, you will see it is not the "functional
equivalent" of having our code licensed under both.
Rather, what the disclaimer says is that our code is GPLv2 only, *but*,
anybody who modifies or distributes it is free to, at their discretion,
change the license to any later version of the GPL. You legally cannot have
both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 because they are conflicting in their terms.
This is virtually identical to how the old MPL multi-licensing
boilerplate is worded:
...which is widely considered sufficient for GPL compatibility.
I've already described the numerous changes and
fixes that have been made
in the GPLv3, specifically easier enforcement due to changed policies on
infringement, better international wording, etc. If you'd like to dispute
any of the good ideas I've listed, then go ahead, but I think the
improvements v3 makes are more than enough of a goal.
My apologies. I'll take those into consideration.
As for your point on it being useless because of the
server-side nature of
PHP, I semi-agree, which is why I proposed the AGPL, but nonetheless the
advantages of the v3 will still help distributors who download MediaWiki
from our site. The server-side nature of PHP has nothing to do with it.
My main point about not thinking too hard about GPLv3 specifically is
because I'm generally a little skeptical about GPL's general
applicability to our use case.
In general, I
believe we should move more of our licensing toward
Apache 2.0. It seems to provide a nice tradeoff between simplicity
and providing some basic legal protections for the projects.
That is quite depressing to hear. MediaWiki is supposed to be an open
source software movement, so I would think one of the goals of our
community would be to preserve that and keep MediaWiki open source, but if
the WMF has some future goals to make its software proprietary, then I can
understand why we might want to aim toward something that allows that, such
as the permissive Apache 2.0.
Please assume good faith.
There is absolutely no intention by the WMF to make our software
proprietary. The only reason we'd entertain a switch to a more
permissive license is as a means of collaborating with entities
(companies, individuals, and organizations) who might steer clear of
GPL software but otherwise be good open source collaborators out of
enlightened self interest.