Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)? For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license http://glyphicons.com/license/ is not very clear. Even if it uses them as part of the Twitter Bootstrap, is it legal/fair to embed a piece of software (Glyphicons) that cannot be used freely without another piece (Bootstrap)? Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
Wouldn't it be better to use a really /free/ icon set (such as Font-Awesome https://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ or Elusive Icons http://shoestrap.org/downloads/elusive-icons-webfont/) instead?
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:
Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
That's an upstream bug: https://github.com/gitblit/gitblit
We're getting rid of it anyway in the magical Phabricator future.
-Chad
On Thursday, September 4, 2014, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org javascript:;> wrote:
Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
That's an upstream bug: https://github.com/gitblit/gitblit
We're getting rid of it anyway in the magical Phabricator future.
... and Phabricator comes with Font Awesome support out of the box -- see https://secure.phabricator.com/uiexample/view/PHUIIconExample/
Be ready for iconic comments and descriptions! {icon fa-smile-o}
Il 04/09/2014 04:11, Ricordisamoa ha scritto:
Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)? For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license http://glyphicons.com/license/ is not very clear. Even if it uses them as part of the Twitter Bootstrap, is it legal/fair to embed a piece of software (Glyphicons) that cannot be used freely without another piece (Bootstrap)?
No opinions about the latter question?
I am not employed by the WMF nor do I know the relevant policies of the WMF. I am also not a lawyer.
I do not think that the use of Glyphicons is a problem in the case of Chameleon. 1. The Chameleon skin does not actually contain the Glyphicons Halflings font. In fact, it does not even contain the Bootstrap framework. These are pulled in during the installation process. 2. Even if Chameleon were actually containing Bootstrap directly, the use of Glyphicons would be covered by the Bootstrap license. [1] 3. The developers of Bootstrap ask to "include a link back to Glyphicons whenever possible". I am not sure if this has any legal relevance, I do not think so. However, Chameleon contains a link back to the Glyphicons page in its documentation. This admittedly only since a few days. [2]
On 19 October 2014 08:05, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:
Il 04/09/2014 04:11, Ricordisamoa ha scritto:
Even if it uses them as part of the Twitter Bootstrap, is it legal/fair to embed a piece of software (Glyphicons) that cannot be used freely without another piece (Bootstrap)?
I do not understand the question. Chameleon uses Twitter Bootstrap, but without Bootstrap?
Stephan
[1] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-skins-chameleon/blob/master/docs/cred...
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:
Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)?
I'm unaware of any formal policies, aside from a general requirement that icons (like everything else hosted in git) be under an open license of some sort. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have that written down somewhere.
(I note that there are no icons in the git repo itself, that I can find; this does not excuse problematic licensing, but does make it slightly less urgent to resolve.)
For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license < http://glyphicons.com/license/%3E is not very clear.
The license looks fairly clear to me: png ("free") version is under CC; version included with bootstrap is MIT; other versions are non-free.
Has the author said things elsewhere to indicate that he(?) doesn't understand the MIT terms, or somehow believes they aren't under MIT?
Assuming Chameleon uses the icons included with Bootstrap, this looks fairly straightforward to me.
Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the
free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
If we're using them on git.wikimedia.org, we should probably fix that. (I see Chad says there is an upstream bug, but I can't find it for the life of me, despite looking in three different places. gitblit doesn't strike me as the most... organized project I've ever looked at.)
Wouldn't it be better to use a really /free/ icon set (such as Font-Awesome https://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ or Elusive Icons http://shoestrap.org/downloads/elusive-icons-webfont/) instead?
As discussed above, parts of Glyphicon are CC and/or MIT, which is "really free". There may be a discussion to be had around development models, sustainability, community-friendliness, etc., and if you want to have that discussion, by all means! But please don't confuse/complicate the discussion by saying things under free licenses aren't "really free" - if you're doing that, you're using the terms in a very different way from common, long-term usage.
Hope that helps- Luis
Il 20/10/2014 22:53, Luis Villa ha scritto:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:
Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)?
I'm unaware of any formal policies, aside from a general requirement that icons (like everything else hosted in git) be under an open license of some sort. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have that written down somewhere.
(I note that there are no icons in the git repo itself, that I can find; this does not excuse problematic licensing, but does make it slightly less urgent to resolve.)
For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license < http://glyphicons.com/license/%3E is not very clear.
The license looks fairly clear to me: png ("free") version is under CC; version included with bootstrap is MIT; other versions are non-free.
Thanks! I misunderstood the sentence «you are not required to include attribution on your Bootstrap-based projects» and thought the free license was bound to the presence of the Bootstrap. At a closer look, it is clear I was wrong.
Has the author said things elsewhere to indicate that he(?) doesn't understand the MIT terms, or somehow believes they aren't under MIT?
Assuming Chameleon uses the icons included with Bootstrap, this looks fairly straightforward to me.
Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the
free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
If we're using them on git.wikimedia.org, we should probably fix that. (I see Chad says there is an upstream bug, but I can't find it for the life of me, despite looking in three different places. gitblit doesn't strike me as the most... organized project I've ever looked at.)
Wouldn't it be better to use a really /free/ icon set (such as Font-Awesome https://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ or Elusive Icons http://shoestrap.org/downloads/elusive-icons-webfont/) instead?
As discussed above, parts of Glyphicon are CC and/or MIT, which is "really free". There may be a discussion to be had around development models, sustainability, community-friendliness, etc., and if you want to have that discussion, by all means! But please don't confuse/complicate the discussion by saying things under free licenses aren't "really free" - if you're doing that, you're using the terms in a very different way from common, long-term usage.
Hope that helps-
It helped, as always!
Luis
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org