Hi! As some of you may have noticed, I am currently promoting the clarification of several extensions' licenses. Specifically, every MediaWiki extension should register itself with one of the SPDX-compliant license codes http://spdx.org/licenses/ and include a valid FOSS license as a file whose name matches the pattern "^((COPYING)|(LICENSE))(.txt)?$". As part of this process, Gerrit change 187178 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/187178/ was merged causing license files to be shown in raw format, and a request for bot flagging https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Requests/User_rights/SamoaBot was filed to speed up the conversion of extension pages. Then, more than 80 patches were filed against extension repos (mostly with "license-name" as topic) and merged with help from maintainers. This first batch of updates is almost complete, so I'd like to thank Kunal Mehta, Siebrand Mazeland, Luis Felipe Schenone, Santhosh Thottingal, Thiemo Mättig, Marius Hoch, Tony Thomas, Peter Coombe, Antoine Musso, Max Semenik, Umherirrender, PleaseStand, He7d3r, Niklas Laxström, Federico Leva, Bartosz Dziewoński, Gilles Dubuc, Thomas Pellissier Tanon, Jon Robson, Florian Schmidt, Brad Jorsch and Timo Tijhof (in no particular order) for their valuable support. However, several repositories are still lacking license information completely, or have inaccurate notices. I'd suggest to create a Phabricator project/tracking task to manage licensing issues across the codebase.
Thanks! This is a nice cleanup. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_with_unknown_license has 1379 pages now, is your bot going to continue working there? As for the code itself, I count 710 extensions with $wgExtensionCredits, of which 127 use license-name. ~600 estensions to fix means that most don't have a component in the issue tracker, let alone jenkins-bot running; so we have no general way to communicate with their authors. Also, SPDX license-name patches don't require specialised reviewers. So, you can file a report in MediaWiki>General/Unknown, but don't expect magical elves to pop up. The best way to "report" the missing license-name is still to send a patch in gerrit. For this task, I don't see us creating a self-merging account à la l10n-bot; but please file a bug if you need extra tools.
Nemo
Il 08/02/2015 10:32, Federico Leva (Nemo) ha scritto:
Thanks! This is a nice cleanup. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_with_unknown_license has 1379 pages now, is your bot going to continue working there?
Actually, my 'bot' is me going through each extension, inspecting its code and feeding the correct license to a helper script :-) I only fixed the simplest cases so far...
As for the code itself, I count 710 extensions with$wgExtensionCredits, of which 127 use license-name. ~600 estensions to fix means that most don't have a component in the issue tracker, let alone jenkins-bot running; so we have no general way to communicate with their authors. Also, SPDX license-name patches don't require specialised reviewers.
What are you basing this data from? That'd be useful to me.
So, you can file a report in MediaWiki>General/Unknown, but don'texpect magical elves to pop up. The best way to "report" the missing license-name is still to send a patch in gerrit. For this task, I don't see us creating a self-merging account à la l10n-bot; but please file a bug if you need extra tools.
If we had a "licensing" tag, tasks could still be collected properly. I will of course send a patch for non-controversial cases, but sometimes I'll have to call on maintainers, as in T88251 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88251. Many extensions are license-free instead of being under a free license (pun intended)
Nemo
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 8 February 2015 at 19:32, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! This is a nice cleanup. https://www.mediawiki.org/ wiki/Category:Extensions_with_unknown_license has 1379 pages now, is your bot going to continue working there?
That category is a bit dodgy, It's based on a very limited set of switches in the Extension Infobox. When I first started working on it, there was ~6 pages in the category and I was cleaning up the pages (did about just under half) to use a standard based output using Template:EL (Wasn't aware about SPDX when i searched), with the goal of removing that category magic out of the infobox directly for the unknown cat then work on the other categories to clean up their usage as well.
Clearly I never got finished. Good luck to who ever works on it.
Il 08/02/2015 11:51, K. Peachey ha scritto:
On 8 February 2015 at 19:32, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! This is a nice cleanup. https://www.mediawiki.org/ wiki/Category:Extensions_with_unknown_license has 1379 pages now, is your bot going to continue working there?
That category is a bit dodgy, It's based on a very limited set of switches in the Extension Infobox. When I first started working on it, there was ~6 pages in the category and I was cleaning up the pages (did about just under half) to use a standard based output using Template:EL (Wasn't aware about SPDX when i searched), with the goal of removing that category magic out of the infobox directly for the unknown cat then work on the other categories to clean up their usage as well.
Clearly I never got finished. Good luck to who ever works on it.
Categorization by license is now handled by Module:Extension https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Module:Extension, which uses a small subset of SPDX codes with few additions, in a much cleaner and more standard way than Template:ExtensionLicense https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:ExtensionLicense. As for me, the latter is deprecated.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org