Evan-
Sections of code written exclusively by Lee
Crocker or Erik
Moeller are also released into the public domain, wich does
not impair the obligations of users under the GPL for use
of the whole code or other sections thereof.
First, I'm pretty sure you can't release
something under the GPL and
also disclaim copyright to it.
I would recommend removing the word "also" from the above paragraph, but I
didn't write it. Maybe Lee had a reason for phrasing it this way.
Derivative copyright is a thorny issue (and underscores the idiocy of the
whole concept of copyright), so I won't get into it too deeply. What it
essentially is supposed to say (IMO) is, "Everything by these contributors
that *can* be legally put in the public domain, is." The more other coders
follow our example, the larger that body of work will be.
Lastly, who benefits from this? Why make this
confusion for users? How
am I supposed to figure out what parts of MediaWiki aren't encumbered by
the GPL?
You don't have to if you want to use the GPL, since GPL'd code can legally
include PD source, just as GFDL documents can legally include public
domain texts and images. If you want to be on the safe side, just adhere
to the GPL. But if I added, say, a major new extension to MediaWiki, then
you could use the first version of that extension that is not incorporated
into a GPL work by someone else and do with it whatever you want.
By the way, since >99% of our users never download or install MediaWiki
(they use the wiki through someone else's web server), the difference
between GPL and PD is surprisingly small for all practical purposes. You
could, for example, add lots of proprietary libraries to MediaWiki or port
the whole thing over to .NET, but never give anyone the source - if you
don't distribute it at all, you don't have to.
This is not theoretical. There is at least one person running a quite
expensive wiki hosting service on the basis of a heavily modified UseMod
codebase which has never been made publicly available, for instance. And
the Scoop weblog/diary system has been significantly extended and
localized by the people at nensch.de, but they have explicitly stated that
they don't want to share the code because of the effort they have put into
it. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, more examples already.
The next major GPL release will supposedly address this, but existing code
is not affected by any such change.
Using the GPL (copyleft) to creepingly subvert copyright is at face value
a good idea, but it puts you in a position where you have to actually
enforce and defend copyright, and I don't want to be in that position. If
copyright was abolished, then you could not force me to open the code of a
proprietary MediaWiki fork, though you could reverse engineer it and copy
it freely. The ultimate goal of the GPL is to replace the copyright regime
on software with a copyleft regime, whereas I'd prefer to get rid of the
regimes altogether.
Though not typically, in this instance I find myself agreeing with the
libertarian view ("Do whatever you want") more than with the socialist one
("Sir, please give us your password so that we can share your code with
the community"). I advise anyone who uses the GPL to think about whether
they are willing to enforce it. If so, then the GPL (especially after the
web service "bugfix") is the best choice of license.
In any case, this is not something we should fight about. In the short
term, the differences are minor.
Regards,
Erik