Are you saying adopting the short license blocks? Or the MIT license?
Because I'm not sure how the licenses of extensions would affect the
license headers in core.
On Oct 27, 2015 12:43, "Ryan Kaldari" <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
<flamebait>
I totally support switching to license identifiers instead of headers,
provided that we also switch our licensing from GPL to MIT or BSD ;)
</flamebait>
On a serious note, we do have a fair number of extensions that are MIT
Licensed and could go ahead and adopt this (
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:MIT_licensed_extensions).
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
In a recent blog post (
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867 ) ESR writes:
High on my list of Things That Annoy Me When I Hack is sourcefiles that
> contain huge blobs of license text at the top. That is valuable
territory
which
should be occupied by a header comment explaining the code, not a
boatload of boilerplate that I’ve seen hundreds of times before.
...and then goes on to explain using SPDX identifiers to refer to
licenses,
which would look something like this:
/* Copyright 2015 by XYZ
* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
*/
Any objections to making that the new standard / replacing existing
blocks
with this? It would make the PHP files a little
more readable.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l