On 2013-04-24 6:46 PM, "Matthew Walker" mwalker@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the risk of starting another huge bikeshed like [1] I feel like we need some good guidance on just how in the heck we are required to license extensions/images/source code files. With the help of Marktraceur we now have
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Coding_conventions#Source_File_Headers
which is somewhat specific to PHP but could be generalized to JS, CSS, and SQL.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-March/067217.html
But I have some additional questions... breaking this up into bits; my current thought matrix is that:
== Extensions ==
- Must have a LICENSE file in the root with the full text of the license
for the extension, and appended any additional licenses for libraries/resources they've pulled in ** How do we specify what license goes to what included component?
By saying in the license file component x is under license y.
== PHP Files ==
- For generic files, include a statement like
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Coding_conventions#Source_File_Headers
- If it's the Extension.php file $wgExtensionCredits array should have the
following items ** author ** version ** url ** license? ** If we include additional libraries, so we add another entry to the wgExtensionCredits array?
Adding license info to extension credits is interesting idea. I have no idea how we would displsy it though.
== JS/CSS Files == This gets a bit confusing because apparently we're supposed to have a license in every bit of content pushed to the user; did we ever settle
that
huge thread in any meaninful way? E.g. how to push minimized but licensed files?
Says who? I do not believe this is a requirement. It perhaps would be nice, if done sanely, but not a requirement.
== Image Files == Really shouldn't be licensed under GPLv2; but right now they implicitly are. Is there a way to explicitly identify image/binary content as being
CC
licensed? Do we just add a line to the license file about this?
Yes they should be licensed under gplv2 as they are part of the software. It would be nice if they were dual licensed under something cc-by-sa like as well. Line in the license file sounds fine.
I think you are slightly over thinking things. We just need to adequetely communicate license to potential reusers. It doesnt overly matter as to how provided the people are informed.
-bawolff