Simetrical wrote:
The interface, however, would have to be released under the GPL if it's derived from the base MediaWiki interface, or so I understand it. The same is in all likelihood true for in-house JS libraries and so forth.
Interesting point. Are the js linked to the server code? By the usual definition, i'd say no, as they run on a different process and even different computer. But given that the server code relies on it, sometimes very tightly, it's dubious. Is JavaScript sent to view a site "distributed", or remains "used internally"? IMHO cases which provide a new full functionality, like some user scripts gfiving page preview, are a separate work and sending them to the user client, distributes it. I'm fine with treating short and dumb snippets, like detecting cookies or if javascript is enabled as if they were part of the server code, but they would be inelligible :/
Given that, I've often wondered whether the same must not apply to content -- if we were more careful about copyright we would probably write that as an exception into our licensing terms, for the interface files at least. It's definitely not intended to apply to content, though (which would put Wikipedia in violation, since the GFDL is not GPL-compatible!), so you might take that as an implicit license even if technically we should have a special exemption.
A document written with OpenOffice is not under the LGPL. Compiling a program with gcc doesn't make it GPL. Writting a text in MediaWiki doesn't make it GPL.* I am not so sure about the Mediawiki: messages, which should probably be released under a Public Domain / Only-attribution license.
*Unless they fall under those license by any other reason, like linking with a GPL library or adding the text to a wiki which requires it to be GDFL.