WMFs stance on non-GPL code

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

HTTPS enabled for all logged-in...

Extension OpenID: new version 3.40...

Jeroen De Dauw

26 Aug 2013 26 Aug '13

12:15 a.m.

Hey, I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers? Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 --

Show replies by date

Jeremy Baron

26 Aug 26 Aug

12:19 a.m.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?

Brian Wolff

12:30 a.m.

On 2013-08-25 6:20 PM, "Jeremy Baron" <jeremy(a)tuxmachine.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

...

> I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed

code. In

...

particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?

I'm sure it is already deployed on WMF servers. Can you elaborate? e.g. deployed is not the same as being part of MediaWiki. We use [[Jenkins (software)]] on WMF servers and the enwiki article says it is MIT licensed. What exactly would you like to do? -Jeremy _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

My understanding is several extensions that are deployed are under dwtfywwi license. This is obviously just my personal opinion (which means nothing), but I can't imagine there being a problem with a gpl-compatible license that wasn't the gpl. I'd be surprised if there was a problem with any open source license. -bawolff

Tyler Romeo

12:59 a.m.

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'd be surprised if there was a problem with any open source license.

Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo(a)gmail.com

Erwin Dokter

8:33 a.m.

On 26-08-2013 02:59, Tyler Romeo wrote:

...

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd be surprised if there was a problem with any open source license.

Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.

Wrong. WMF can use any software they like on their servers... even propriatary software. They are _using_ it, not _distributing_ it. Compatible licencing is only relevant on software that is distributed, in the WMF's case, MediaWiki and related extensions. -- Erwin Dokter

C. Scott Ananian

5:12 p.m.

Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension means that the extension can never be distributed with core. The idea that deployment of software on a server entails license obligations is a GPLv3 feature; mediawiki is licensed under the GPL v2 ("or later" for theoretical redistribution purposes). Presumably deployment of a GPLv3-only or [[Affero GPL]] extension on a WMF server might be more problematic, iff WMF were deploying non-GPL-compatible extensions (I don't know whether that's the case one way or another). But that's rather orthogonal to the "openness" of the source. Anyway, we could devolve into a flame war and/or "discussion" of the merits and disadvantages of various software licenses rather easily, so I'm suggesting that we limit further discussion on this thread absent a more focused question from Jeroen. --scott -- (http://cscott.net)

Luis Villa

9:24 p.m.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM, C. Scott Ananian <cananian(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

The idea that deployment of software on a server entails license obligations is a GPLv3 feature;

To be clear, that's AGPL-only, not GPL v3. Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*

Tim Starling

28 Aug 28 Aug

12:52 p.m.

On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

...

Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension means that the extension can never be distributed with core.

That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL allows verbatim copies of source code, with no restrictions on the license of any bundled or dynamically linked code. Only "non-source forms" (or "binaries" in v2) have more restrictive conditions. Since the MediaWiki core and extensions are distributed solely in source form, the non-source (binary) conditions do not apply. -- Tim Starling

Denny Vrandečić

2:20 p.m.

Tim, thanks, I found this a very interesting aspect that I have not considered before. 2013/8/28 Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>

...

On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension

means

that the extension can never be distributed with core.

-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

Luis Villa

4:10 p.m.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension

means

that the extension can never be distributed with core.

Yup. In retrospect, an odd oversight for GPL v3; perhaps more understandable for v2. Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*

Ryan Kaldari

8:36 p.m.

Just for fun, I added some license-parsing logic to Template:Extension on mediawiki.org. I think the job queue is still updating the categories, but so far we have: Extensions with no license specified: 596 Extensions with an unknown license: 779 GPL licensed extensions: 667 MIT licensed extensions: 44 BSD licensed extensions: 23 AGPL licensed extensions: 10 MPL licensed extensions: 1 I was actually surprised to see how few MIT and BSD extensions we have considering how much animosity there is towards the GPL, but I suppose most people just want to match the licensing of MediaWiki. If you haven't specified the license of your extension, now would be a good time to do so :) Ryan Kaldari On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org

wrote:

On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension

means

that the extension can never be distributed with core.

Luis Villa

8:41 p.m.

Just out of curiosity, what code are you using to do license parsing? If you want seriously robust parsing, you might take a peek at https://github.com/dmgerman/ninka Luis On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org

wrote:

On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension

means

that the extension can never be distributed with core.

community

members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* _______________________________________________ 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

-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*

K. Peachey

9:40 p.m.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Just out of curiosity, what code are you using to do license parsing? If you want seriously robust parsing, you might take a peek at https://github.com/dmgerman/ninka Luis standard parser functions via the template

{{lc:{{{license|}}} }} |gpl|gplv2|gplv2 or later|gpl v2|gpl v2 or later|gplv2+|gplv3|gpl v3 = GPL licensed extensions |agpl|agplv2|agplv3 = AGPL licensed extensions |mit|expat|expat (mit)|x11 = MIT licensed extensions |bsd|new bsd|revised bsd|modified bsd|freebsd = BSD licensed extensions |mpl|mplv2|mpl v2 = MPL licensed extensions |#default = Extensions with unknown license }}]]}}}}

Luis Villa

9:54 p.m.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:40 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Oh, the template, not the code itself. Makes sense; ignore lil 'ol me ;) Luis

...

_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Derric Atzrott

26 Aug 26 Aug

7:35 p.m.

...

Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.

I wasn't even aware though that extensions to be distributed needed to be licensed under something that is GPL compatible. It's been a while since I read the GPL. Looking back over it again (well the FAQ actually), that is very non-intuitive... we'd need to fork the Mediawiki process to allow non-GPL extensions to be distributed? I might have to look into licenses again and make sure what I use is GPL compatible. The GPL is such a pain sometimes.... Thank you, Derric Atzrott

C. Scott Ananian

7:43 p.m.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com> wrote:

...

I might have to look into licenses again and make sure what I use is GPL compatible. The GPL is such a pain sometimes....

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main is a useful guide. --scott -- (http://cscott.net)

Trevor Parscal

7:55 p.m.

VisualEditor is MIT licensed. It was originally GPLv2 by default as per my contract with Wikimedia, but early on we got written permission from all authors to change it. We did this because we wanted to ensure maximum license compatibility for re-use in non-MediaWiki systems. - Trevor On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cananian(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com> wrote:

I might have to look into licenses again and make sure what I use is GPL compatible. The GPL is such a pain sometimes....

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main is a useful guide. --scott -- (http://cscott.net) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Ryan Lane

8:03 p.m.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Trevor Parscal <tparscal(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

Aren't our contracts generally written to allow us to use any OSI compliant license, with a preference to GPL 2? - Ryan

Antoine Musso

8:55 p.m.

Le 26/08/13 22:03, Ryan Lane a écrit :

...

Aren't our contracts generally written to allow us to use any OSI compliant license, with a preference to GPL 2?

My company has a joint copyright agreement with Wikimedia. So I guess the foundation can publish the work under whatever license :) My code is licensed under GPLv2+ and the rest under CC-BY-SA (unless mentioned otherwise). -- Antoine "hashar" Musso

John Erling Blad

8:48 p.m.

As long as it is a separate extension there is no problem, but if you bundle it in such a way that it is an integral part of the core then you might get into trouble. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Derric Atzrott <datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com> wrote:

...

Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.

Yuvi Panda

12:21 a.m.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hey, I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?

jQuery is deployed (MIT), Redis too (3 clause BSD) and Bugzilla is under the MPL. What was the thought process that led to the question, btw? -- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog

Ryan Lane

28 Aug 28 Aug

10:23 p.m.

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Hey, I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?

Was this just grenade lobbing? You still haven't clarified your question, though a number of folks asked for clarification. Can you let us know why you're asking this? - Ryan

3917

days inactive

3919

days old

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

21 comments

17 participants

tags (0)

participants (17)

Antoine Musso
Brian Wolff
C. Scott Ananian
Denny Vrandečić
Derric Atzrott
Erwin Dokter
Jeremy Baron
Jeroen De Dauw
John Erling Blad
K. Peachey
Luis Villa
Ryan Kaldari
Ryan Lane
Tim Starling
Trevor Parscal
Tyler Romeo
Yuvi Panda