I checked with the last person that posted a similar request so apologies if this email breaks the rules ...
Lime Wire is looking for an experienced web designer/developer with a mix of strong PHP and web dev skills. We are looking to extend MediaWiki in a serious way amongst other development work.
Required skills: + Bachelors Degree or above. + Experience developing PHP and SQL driven websites. + Good knowledge of HTML, DHTML, Javascript, and CSS. + Ability to code without the use of a WSIWIG editor.
Desired skills: + Experience with Wikis or MediaWiki a large plus. + Experience working on Linux servers with apache via ftp, sftp, a plus. + Experience interacting with payflow and paypal a large plus. + Illustrator and graphic artist experience a large plus. + Music, Movie or Digital Media enthusiast is a plus.
Lime Wire's flagship product, LimeWire, is one of the top p2p file-sharing clients in the world. Check out www.limewire.com. We're located in lovely TriBeCa (NYC) and want someone to join our office full-time. Salary/benefits are competitive, not to mention a fantastic view from the roof and all the foosball you can handle.
If you're interested, or know someone who is, email a cover letter and resume (.doc, .pdf preferred) to webjob1(at)limewire.com.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:21:39AM -0400, Greg Bildson wrote:
I checked with the last person that posted a similar request so apologies if this email breaks the rules ...
He didn't. I think it a good idea if jobs concering mediawiki are kept among the devs or almost devs like me (guess who got the last job...)
But the point why no one might want the job is the location, but tell us if it's not a requirement anymore.
ciao, tom
Well, I'm not sure if you are talking about a location in the mid-west versus New York City but I suspect that you are referring to the USA versus Germany/Europe.
I expect that for a serious MediaWiki developer, we would be willing to have someone work remotely and perhaps help train a developer on this side of the Atlantic as well. I'll check into that a little more but I suspect that we would be willing to work with a very well skilled person part-time in that regard at a minimum.
While we're on the subject of Germany, perhaps someone can explain to me the payment mechanism that Germans use for web purchases. I've been told repeatedly that there is a special form of Bank transfer used. A link pointing to a major payment processor in that regard would be appreciated.
Thanks -greg
-----Original Message----- From: wikitech-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Thomas R. Koll Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:54 AM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki / PHP / SQL / Web Developer
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:21:39AM -0400, Greg Bildson wrote:
I checked with the last person that posted a similar request so
apologies if
this email breaks the rules ...
He didn't. I think it a good idea if jobs concering mediawiki are kept among the devs or almost devs like me (guess who got the last job...)
But the point why no one might want the job is the location, but tell us if it's not a requirement anymore.
ciao, tom
== Weblinks ==
- http://shop.wikipedia.org - WikiReader Internet zu kaufen
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
- http://www.hammererlehen.de - Urlaub in Berchtesgaden
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Would you be willing to sell MediaWiki 1.3.7 (the stable version as published in wikipedia.sf.net) or any next version, together with the MediaWiki Handbook (as available from meta.wikipedia.org) under a license similar to the modified BSD license? and for how much?
Note: All copyright holders should agree with this. How many (C) holders are there?
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:20:23 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
Note: All copyright holders should agree with this. How many (C) holders are there?
That may not be an easy question to answer, let alone actually turn into a list of contact details for permission. For instance, I'm pretty sure there's the odd snippet of code that I wrote in there [and if not, I hope there will be soon ;)] which will have been checked in to CVS by someone else - but as far as I know, this doesn't mean I've assigned my share of the copyright to that person, or released it to the public domain. I'm not sure what kind of search would definitively identify all such minor contributors, and unless I'm mistaken, that would be required for a fully legal re-licensing.
Not that I'm stating an opinion for or against alternative licensing, it's just that *to my understanding* a fully legal re-licencing of a collaborative project where contributors haven't been made to reassign copyright is more than a little tricky. The same problem has caused much consternation amongst those who believe the GFDL is unnecessarily restrictive for Wikipedia's content.
Out of interest, why is it that the GPL doesn't fit your needs?
On Friday 22 October 2004 21:05, Rowan Collins wrote:
That may not be an easy question to answer, let alone actually turn into a list of contact details for permission.
It is always a good idea to keep records with contact information in case relicensing is desired. This is normal practice in many professional opensource projects.
Out of interest, why is it that the GPL doesn't fit your needs?
I don't have any philosophical objection to GPL; I use GNU/Linux and I am a participant in some FSF mailing lists. I do support GPL and GFDL.
However, sometimes BSD is more flexible and allows for more easier combination of code with different licensing terms.
I want to incorporate some of my code in MediaWiki but I cannot release parts of my code under the GPL for several reasons. So, a BSD-licensed MediaWiki would be very helpful.
It is always a good idea to keep records with contact information in case relicensing is desired. This is normal practice in many professional opensource projects.
<Sarcasm>You mean like Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc. <Sarcasm> Please show me where this is "normal practice" except where the intention from the beginning was to release an extended proprietary version.
I think many people choose the GPL because they don't want to see their work incorporated into proprietary projects. And I am certain that some of the developers of MediaWiki feel that way.
So, I think you are going to be out of luck here, even if you are somehow able to track down every person who ever contributed to the project, because some of them are committed to the ideals of free software.
If you just want to USE an extended version of the software with your own code that's fine, the GPL allows that. With the GPL you are always free to modify the code, and use it however you wish. And it goes without saying that you are always free 'not to distribute' your modifications. But if you do distribute them you must allow those same rights to the recipients.
--Mark Ramm-Christensen
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:12, Mark Ramm wrote:
I think many people choose the GPL because they don't want to see their work incorporated into proprietary projects. And I am certain that some of the developers of MediaWiki feel that way.
Perhaps the developers would be interested to sell a BSD-licensed MediaWiki 1.3.7 (or 1.3.8) for a fair price.
Projects that keep excellent track of contributors or require copyright assignments include MySQL and OpenOffice.org.
Even Linus Torvalds now wants kernel programmers to provide their real names and e-mail addresses. Linus will not accept patches if you don't give this info.
My site also works this way: I don't want articles if the author cannot be contacted.
On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:20 AM, NSK wrote:
Would you be willing to sell MediaWiki 1.3.7 (the stable version as published in wikipedia.sf.net) or any next version, together with the MediaWiki Handbook (as available from meta.wikipedia.org) under a license similar to the modified BSD license? and for how much?
No. We put a lot of work into this and have benefited from code from other people using the GPL; please either share it on the same terms or write your own code.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:27, Brion Vibber wrote:
No. We put a lot of work into this and have benefited from code from other people using the GPL; please either share it on the same terms or write your own code.
I do write my own code and some of it will be released under GPL. I do like and support the GPL. But a BSD MediaWiki would be very desired and useful in some occasions where some parts of my code have to be non-GPL.
How about LGPL?
NSK wrote:
How about LGPL?
I have co-licensed my waikiki module under LGPL some time ago for use at WikiRover (http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikirover/ ). Don't know about their status, though.
Magnus
If I am not mistaken, some parts of MediaWiki code are released in the public domain. Is there any list showing where the PD code is and which parts are GPL?
NSK wrote:
If I am not mistaken, some parts of MediaWiki code are released in the public domain. Is there any list showing where the PD code is and which parts are GPL?
Hello,
According to the README, contributions by Lee Crocker and Erik Moeller are placed under the public domain. You will have to check cvs logs :o)
As far as I know and at least in France, content placed under public domain is non free anyway (cause an author or whoever is in charge of the rights can claim their rights whenever they want).
cheers,
On Oct 22, 2004, at 3:22 PM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
NSK wrote:
If I am not mistaken, some parts of MediaWiki code are released in the public domain. Is there any list showing where the PD code is and which parts are GPL?
According to the README, contributions by Lee Crocker and Erik Moeller are placed under the public domain. You will have to check cvs logs :o)
This is true only to the limited extent that this code is not derived from and does not contain others' copyrighted code. You might find a few untainted lines here and there if you spend a long time looking.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:39, Brion Vibber wrote:
This is true only to the limited extent that this code is not derived from and does not contain others' copyrighted code. You might find a few untainted lines here and there if you spend a long time looking.
Even if you dislike BSDL, you might want to consider LGPL which is a license published by FSF. I use opensource software in my site as revealed through this page: http://portal.wikinerds.org/thanks - I do support the opensource idea and ethics, it's just that in some cases some non-GPLable code cannot easily be combined with GPL. I think that's a common problem and I am sure many people would benefit from less restrictive MW licensing. You should certainly consider LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
NSK wrote:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:39, Brion Vibber wrote:
This is true only to the limited extent that this code is not derived from and does not contain others' copyrighted code. You might find a few untainted lines here and there if you spend a long time looking.
Even if you dislike BSDL, you might want to consider LGPL which is a license published by FSF. I use opensource software in my site as revealed through this page: http://portal.wikinerds.org/thanks - I do support the opensource idea and ethics, it's just that in some cases some non-GPLable code cannot easily be combined with GPL. I think that's a common problem and I am sure many people would benefit from less restrictive MW licensing. You should certainly consider LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
I would personally not place my code under LGPL .
On Saturday 23 October 2004 02:58, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
I would personally not place my code under LGPL .
Of course you have the right to do that and I do recognise that GPL is more "complete" in comparison with LGPL.
However, I think that LGPL/BSDL can help a piece of software to become very popular in the corporate world.
Although most GNU developers don't like BSDL, they should not be afraid of LGPL: LGPL protects your contributions while allowing them to be linked with non-GPL code. That's of great importance in the modern world and can help you to attain a much broader user base.
Think about it, sometimes even FSF reccomends LGPL.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:10:30 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
Although most GNU developers don't like BSDL, they should not be afraid of LGPL: LGPL protects your contributions while allowing them to be linked with non-GPL code. That's of great importance in the modern world and can help you to attain a much broader user base.
Perhaps one of the stumbling points in this discussion (apart from the fact that, like it or not, there *isn't* a definitive list of code contributors) is that you are coming from a very different angle from that from which most MediaWiki developers see things. I don't think, in general, the main developers *care* about MediaWiki obtaining a "broader user base" - the code is primarily developed for use by Wikimedia projects, and the fact that other people want to use it is a bonus, and a satisfying compliment.
Thus, the benefits of dual-licensing are, subjectively, very few - as far as this core of Wikimedia-based MediaWiki developers is concerned, it's far more important that any improvements that *are* made filter back for possible inclusion in the core software.
[Experienced devs feel free to flame me viciously at this point for mis-representing you!]
On Saturday 23 October 2004 05:06, Rowan Collins wrote:
I don't think, in general, the main developers *care* about MediaWiki obtaining a "broader user base"
Perhaps a non WP-specific codebase needs to be developed, then. I have already started some work on a new mediawiki to be used in my site but I would want it to be usable by anybody. This project will be GPL so you will be able to import code in MW1.4/1.5 if you like. Now, if some developer wants to join me, that would be great...
NSK wrote:
Although most GNU developers don't like BSDL, they should not be afraid of LGPL: LGPL protects your contributions while allowing them to be linked with non-GPL code. That's of great importance in the modern world and can help you to attain a much broader user base.
I don't want a broader user base. Non-Wikimedia users just waste my time and give nothing back.
All pages in the main namespace are protected and only a sysop can change them. Users can only update the Test: namespace where the articles are developed and this has replaced the Talk: namespace which is substituted by phpBB threads. Anons are of course not allowed in the wiki but they are more than welcome to post in the forum.
Then you're not running a wiki. I wish you the best of luck in your experiment, whatever you want to call it.
I should note that I discourage excessive editing in my wikis and I encourage extensive discussion and collaboration in the mailing list and the forum before applying changes in an article. The motto is: "first we discuss, then we edit".
Wikipedia gets as many edits every 3 minutes as your site has had in its entire existence. Don't judge the wiki process before you understand it.
One thing which I believe has been discussed is diff-based storage, which would dramatically decrease the space needed for storing an article's history.
That's great! I wonder why this is not implemented already. Do you have enough programmers in MW? Does WMF pay for development costs?
I wrote an experimental system for history compression based on concatenating and gzipping, last weekend. I might do a diff-based one this weekend.
Wikimedia doesn't pay us for development costs, they don't have that sort of money. Actually if they have money burning a hole in their pockets, I'd prefer it if they'd rethink their aversion to buying proprietary software. Currently they buy large amounts of proprietary hardware instead.
-- Tim Starling
On Saturday 23 October 2004 07:53, Tim Starling wrote:
Don't judge the wiki process before you understand it.
I understand it and I know the wiki model allows disruptive people to do whatever they want very easily, so I want to try an alternative and see how it goes.
I wrote an experimental system for history compression based on concatenating and gzipping, last weekend. I might do a diff-based one this weekend.
Great
Currently they buy large amounts of proprietary hardware instead.
Someday you might be able to buy Free hardware, too: http://www.opencores.org
On Sat, 2004-23-10 at 14:53 +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
I wrote an experimental system for history compression based on concatenating and gzipping, last weekend. I might do a diff-based one this weekend.
That's a splendid idea. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
~ESP
As far as I know and at least in France, content placed under public domain is non free anyway (cause an author or whoever is in charge of the rights can claim their rights whenever they want).
But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?
Andre Engels
But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?
By the way, this is actually a point against the GNU/FDL too. According to Dutch law, I cannot waive my right to disallow changes to my work. So technically speaking I am not able to give you the rights under the GNU/FDL. I can only allow republication as is, or with modifications I explicitly allow.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?
By the way, this is actually a point against the GNU/FDL too. According to Dutch law, I cannot waive my right to disallow changes to my work. So technically speaking I am not able to give you the rights under the GNU/FDL. I can only allow republication as is, or with modifications I explicitly allow.
Andre Engels
I imagine someone editing nl:Main Page and having a box saying
"Please email the following people to get a permission to edit their work: <long list>"
On 23 Oct 2004, at 00:40, Andre Engels wrote:
As far as I know and at least in France, content placed under public domain is non free anyway (cause an author or whoever is in charge of the rights can claim their rights whenever they want).
But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?
Andre Engels
Sounds like somebody has to write a "reinforced PD license" for France then.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org