Seemingly proprietary Javascript

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
72 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Alexander Berntsen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.

03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:

>>>> GNU LibreJs[0] reports that several of the Javascript sources
>>>> embedded by different parts of Wikipedia are proprietary[1].
>>>> Is this a conscious anti-social choice[2], or have you merely
>>>> not set up your source files to properly show their
>>>> licence[3]?
>>>>
>>>> If the latter is the case, please remedy this. If the former
>>>> is the case... please remedy this. It is extremely
>>>> important.[4] In any event I hope to get a reply, as the
>>>> distinction is important to me.
>>>>
>>>> [0]  https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ [1]
>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware
>>>>
>>>>
[2]  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html
>>>>
>>>>
[4]  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:

>>> All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
>>> under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
>>> that is the freely-licensed (MIT) jQuery[3] library. However
>>> some code is actually written by the invidual users, like
>>> English Wikipedia's custom javascript[4], which is licensed as
>>> CC-BY-SA-3.0 since all content pages are automatically licensed
>>> that way[5].
>>>
>>> Additionally, our JavaScript is minified[6] so adding comments
>>> is not possible. If you have further concerns, you can either
>>> respond to me, email the general Wikimedia technical list[7] or
>>> a general Mediawiki help list[8].
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki [2]
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/License [3]
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery [4]
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js [5]
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights [6]
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader [7]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l [8]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>> Is it not possible to insert the licence as part of your build
>> process? What I do with compiled or minified Javascript is to
>> build everything, and then insert the licence to all files using
>> BASH.

On 05/03/13 12:41, Wikipedia information team wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't fully understand how the minification process
> works, so it would probably be better if you asked your question on
> our technical mailing list
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l> and
> someone there would be able to give you a more specific answer.
- --
Alexander
[hidden email]
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlE13WcACgkQRtClrXBQc7VRwAEAhJLHhlpssJIze/B9IJ1un9kT
/ze8DysWeQHBpoGeKCQBALbfVL+yLy74dAEmncPrT3FAPB4WPjUDfOg8A7Vo/pXm
=peks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Max Semenik
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to include
several licenses here, making it ridiculously long. All JS run on
Wikimedia sites is free, and if some software believes otherwise, that
software needs to be fixed.


-----
[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html


On 05.03.2013, 15:56 Alexander wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256

> GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
> sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
> follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.

> 03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>>>>> GNU LibreJs[0] reports that several of the Javascript sources
>>>>> embedded by different parts of Wikipedia are proprietary[1].
>>>>> Is this a conscious anti-social choice[2], or have you merely
>>>>> not set up your source files to properly show their
>>>>> licence[3]?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the latter is the case, please remedy this. If the former
>>>>> is the case... please remedy this. It is extremely
>>>>> important.[4] In any event I hope to get a reply, as the
>>>>> distinction is important to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]  https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ [1]
>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware
>>>>>
>>>>>
> [2]  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
> [4]  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html


--
Best regards,
  Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Alexander Berntsen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote:
> If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
>  [1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to
> include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long.
Please see the JavaScript Web Labels section of the article[0]. Is this
a possibility?

> All JS run on Wikimedia sites is free, and if some software
> believes otherwise, that software needs to be fixed.
Do you have ideas on how to fix it?


[0]  https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html
- --
Alexander
[hidden email]
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlE17h0ACgkQRtClrXBQc7XAaAEAqklgvLuiZMts0H2/T0oloJiL
Cpfn3KXFdvh04ihp+Y0A/jzm281pemFHmwRaPNLutEVYoeUhvoRvo3rIGE02nX4E
=dHAX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Alexander Berntsen
On 5 March 2013 11:56, Alexander Berntsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>>>>> GNU LibreJs[0] reports that several of the Javascript sources
>>>>> embedded by different parts of Wikipedia are proprietary[1].
>>>>> Is this a conscious anti-social choice[2], or have you merely
>>>>> not set up your source files to properly show their
>>>>> licence[3]?


Yeah, calling people antisocial when you ask them for something is
definitely the approach to take. Let us know how it works out for GNU
LibreJS.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Alexander Berntsen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/03/13 14:38, David Gerard wrote:
> Yeah, calling people antisocial when you ask them for something is
> definitely the approach to take. Let us know how it works out for
> GNU LibreJS.
I did not call anyone antisocial. Furthermore I am not affiliated with
GNU LibreJS.
- --
Alexander
[hidden email]
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF0EAREIAAYFAlE19jwACgkQRtClrXBQc7VeUQEAsA4negyyHjMk6954Q4I6SJSp
gKleJiqwcT+ER24DTtoA+K1F7CGSmfVanYT0l0AYiQthigpCdewH7m1xPJGdrDE=
=WSU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Helder .
In reply to this post by Alexander Berntsen
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:
> >>> All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
> >>> under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
> >>> that is the freely-licensed (MIT) jQuery[3] library. However
> >>> some code is actually written by the invidual users, like
> >>> English Wikipedia's custom javascript[4], which is licensed as
> >>> CC-BY-SA-3.0 since all content pages are automatically licensed
> >>> that way[5].

Is that really the case? See e.g.:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/08#Does_Commons_only_accept_code_which_can_be_used_for_evil.3F

Helder

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Mark Holmquist-2
In reply to this post by Alexander Berntsen
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:56:23PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
> sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
> follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36866

We have this issue reported, it's on our radar, and I, at least, intend to fix it in the future.

The user JavaScript and CSS might be an issue. I'm not sure how to handle that. I guess we could indicate in the license headers that some parts of the code are under the CC-BY-SA license, or whatever is set to the default license for the wiki. That should be possible, if not trivial.

The minification process, however, does *not* cause a problem. We can simply add the comments to the file(s) after the minification. It does mean we'll need to include, potentially, multiple license headers in one HTTP response, but that shouldn't cause much issue. Alternatively we could use a "mixed" license header, and link to the texts of multiple licenses, or link to multiple files' source code.

See the linked bug (above) for more discussion of the technical problems presented, and a few proposed suggestions. It looks like the best way to do it would be the "bang comment" syntax, suggested by Timo (Krinkle), which would allow each script to be tagged on its own, and that way each script authour would be responsible for their own licensing.

I hope that helps, and that the bug discussion is a little more kind than wikitech has seemed :)

--
Mark Holmquist
Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Luke Welling WMF
I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript
post-minification.  Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or
redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable
source files.

It would be good form to add licence information to all the JS files in the
same way we do for all the PHP files. Many or all of them are missing that
now.  Given they have a consistent licence, making that clear in each file
is just grunt work.

I don't see the need for that to survive minificaiton though. If somebody
wants to auto verify licence status with software, they can run it on the
original JS source before it get's minified. As others have implied
regardless of whether you think satisfying the FSF is important, satisfying
an automated tool is a concern that can be delegated to the tool owner.

The licence status of on wiki user JavaScript is a separate issue, and
possibly much more complicated.  CC-BY-SA-3.0 is not an ideal licence for
software, and it seems likely that there will be code pasted into some
user JavaScript pages that is licensed under an incompatible licence.

Luke Welling


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Mark Holmquist <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:56:23PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
> > sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
> > follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.
>
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36866
>
> We have this issue reported, it's on our radar, and I, at least, intend to
> fix it in the future.
>
> The user JavaScript and CSS might be an issue. I'm not sure how to handle
> that. I guess we could indicate in the license headers that some parts of
> the code are under the CC-BY-SA license, or whatever is set to the default
> license for the wiki. That should be possible, if not trivial.
>
> The minification process, however, does *not* cause a problem. We can
> simply add the comments to the file(s) after the minification. It does mean
> we'll need to include, potentially, multiple license headers in one HTTP
> response, but that shouldn't cause much issue. Alternatively we could use a
> "mixed" license header, and link to the texts of multiple licenses, or link
> to multiple files' source code.
>
> See the linked bug (above) for more discussion of the technical problems
> presented, and a few proposed suggestions. It looks like the best way to do
> it would be the "bang comment" syntax, suggested by Timo (Krinkle), which
> would allow each script to be tagged on its own, and that way each script
> authour would be responsible for their own licensing.
>
> I hope that helps, and that the bug discussion is a little more kind than
> wikitech has seemed :)
>
> --
> Mark Holmquist
> Software Engineer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Antoine Musso-3
In reply to this post by Alexander Berntsen
Le 05/03/13 03:56, Alexander Berntsen a écrit :
>> Is it not possible to insert the licence as part of your build
>> process? What I do with compiled or minified Javascript is to
>> build everything, and then insert the licence to all files using
>> BASH.

PLEASE NO. Let's not start a drama.

The JS are sent to the client in an optimized version. There is Zero
technical justification to add the long legal header.  The website
serving the files is already showing a link to mediawiki.org and our
license are pretty clear.

I can understand the legal reasons behind it, but lets stop being too
picky on that.
       
--
Antoine "hashar" Musso


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Chad
In reply to this post by Luke Welling WMF
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Luke Welling WMF <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript
> post-minification.  Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or
> redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable
> source files.
>
> It would be good form to add licence information to all the JS files in the
> same way we do for all the PHP files. Many or all of them are missing that
> now.  Given they have a consistent licence, making that clear in each file
> is just grunt work.
>
> I don't see the need for that to survive minificaiton though. If somebody
> wants to auto verify licence status with software, they can run it on the
> original JS source before it get's minified. As others have implied
> regardless of whether you think satisfying the FSF is important, satisfying
> an automated tool is a concern that can be delegated to the tool owner.
>

I think this makes the most sense. Files that don't have licenses
should have them, and they'd be shown in non-minified mode.

Serving license headers in minified mode is kind of silly (it defeats
part of the point)--and I think that "web labels" idea is equally silly.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Tyler Romeo
I would just like to note that while it may be "silly" or "useless" to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not
a question of whether we want to support some labeling program that reads
JavaScript licenses; both the GPL and CC licenses have requirements that
when you convey source code or binaries through any medium that the license
be prominently displayed. I strongly doubt that a company is going to sue
the WMF for something like this, but even so it's not a good idea to
specifically ignore legal requirements for a third-party software.

*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Marc-Andre
On 03/05/2013 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> it is nonetheless *legally
> required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it

I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.  
I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that
the matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
oversimplification that cannot possibly reflect reality.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Luke Welling WMF
Yes.  There seems little value in unqualified people debating if it is
legally required.

The mainstream FOSS licences all predate minification and seem to have been
written with compiled languages in mind, not interpreted languages.  Most
have language that requires the licence in the source version, but not the
binary version.  Deciding whether minified JavaScript is technically or in
spirit a binary form seems like something best left to experts.

My conscience would certainly be clear if we only had a licence in our
source distribution.

Luke


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
>
>> it is nonetheless *legally
>> required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it
>>
>
> I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
>  I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the
> matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
> oversimplification that cannot possibly reflect reality.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Tyler Romeo
In reply to this post by Marc-Andre
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
 I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the
matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
oversimplification that cannot possibly reflect reality.


Agreed, but even without legal training it's pretty clear this is a
requirement. Quoting from CC-BY-SA:

> You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this
License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly
display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. [...] ou must
keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of
warranties.


And then in the GPL:

> b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released
under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This
requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all
notices”.


Later in the license it specifies that also binary forms of the work that
are conveyed must also comply with these restrictions.

--
Tyler Romeo
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Isarra Yos
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.

It's like taking a file out of a page and then complaining that it has
no licensing information when said information was in the page text
right under it.

On 05/03/13 17:36, Tyler Romeo wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
>   I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the
> matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
> oversimplification that cannot possibly reflect reality.
>
>
> Agreed, but even without legal training it's pretty clear this is a
> requirement. Quoting from CC-BY-SA:
>
>> You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this
> License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly
> display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. [...] ou must
> keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of
> warranties.
>
>
> And then in the GPL:
>
>> b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released
> under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This
> requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all
> notices”.
>
>
> Later in the license it specifies that also binary forms of the work that
> are conveyed must also comply with these restrictions.
>
> --
> Tyler Romeo
> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
> Major in Computer Science
> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


--
-— Isarra


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Caroline E Willis
Is there a Counsel we can refer this to?
On Mar 5, 2013 11:47 AM, "Isarra Yos" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js
> winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the page to
> all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.
>
> It's like taking a file out of a page and then complaining that it has no
> licensing information when said information was in the page text right
> under it.
>
> On 05/03/13 17:36, Tyler Romeo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
>>>
>>   I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that
>> the
>> matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
>> oversimplification that cannot possibly reflect reality.
>>
>>
>> Agreed, but even without legal training it's pretty clear this is a
>> requirement. Quoting from CC-BY-SA:
>>
>>  You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this
>>>
>> License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute,
>> publicly
>> display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. [...] ou must
>> keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer
>> of
>> warranties.
>>
>>
>> And then in the GPL:
>>
>>  b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released
>>>
>> under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This
>> requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all
>> notices”.
>>
>>
>> Later in the license it specifies that also binary forms of the work that
>> are conveyed must also comply with these restrictions.
>>
>> --
>> Tyler Romeo
>> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
>> Major in Computer Science
>> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l>
>>
>
>
> --
> -— Isarra
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Krinkle
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would just like to note that while it may be "silly" or "useless" to
> insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
> required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not
> a question of whether we want to support some labeling program that reads
> JavaScript licenses; both the GPL and CC licenses have requirements that
> when you convey source code or binaries through any medium that the license
> be prominently displayed. I strongly doubt that a company is going to sue
> the WMF for something like this, but even so it's not a good idea to
> specifically ignore legal requirements for a third-party software.
>

Sure, but it depends on your definition of "prominently displayed".

First off, I agree our javascript files should have license headers in form of
a code comment on top of the files (like we do for PHP files). But only to
clarify their license, not because it is required. Because we already have a
general LICENSE in our distribution, which if I recall correctly explicitly
states that unless otherwise indicated, all is under said license. We don't
have a license header in our release notes, in jpg, png, svg, sql files etc. A
good example (to make it more complicated) is our README where we mention
certain PNG file (cc icons) and JS files (sajax) are from a different author
and license. We don't alter their PNGs and JS files, instead we mention it
elsewhere (whether it belongs in README is another question).

However I don't think it makes sense in any way for this to be sent to the
browser.

A few examples.

## Media in wiki pages

We don't display the license or attribution of images inside the article near
to the image. You go the the image descriptions page (by clicking the image)
and there it is.

## Content of wiki pages

We do display the license on the bottom of every page (which is about the wiki
content, not the software). But not the authors. You go to the History page of
the current article and find a list of contributors there. Note that the user
doesn't click on the content here, but on the "History" tab.

## Server-side code in the software

Any program code in our software that is not sent to the client. But its
result is sent to the client. Everything you see on the wiki is the result of
executing that server-side code. And if you consider HTML to be part of what
you "see", then there's actually a significant amount of server-side code
being sent to the client, because that is literally or abstractly (Html.php)
explicitly written in the code.

## Client-side code in the software

Any program code in our software that is sent to the client (css, javascript).
These are commonly combined and minified, which means HTTP headers are not an
option (unless you'd implement offsets or delimiters correlating to the
content).

## Media in the software

Any interface images and icons in our software. These are commonly embedded as
base64 encoded data, which means HTTP headers are not a feasible method for
delivery of information.

## Media in print

A photograph used in a magazine or print. It might have the
license/attribution over top of the image or closely to it, but it isn't
uncommon for there to be a dedicated page for it. That then refers back to the
images (by page number, position and/or by title) to disclose the license and
attribution. If you'd look at any single spread (e.g. open it on page 3, you
see page 3 and 4) you wouldn't have a complete legal picture. The same if you
take out a page and "access" it directly. And even more so if you were to take
scissors and take out an individual photo, in which case you'd lose the info
even if it was printed right next to it.

## Conclusion

So let's take the extremes and sum them up:

* A page can contain multiple pieces of content from different sources
(software interface, wiki page content, wiki media embedded) that can all be
from different authors under different licenses (some might even be non-free,
e.g. when embedding fair use, though lets avoid that can of worms for now).

* Our wiki text source does not have license headers. Instead the platform on
which they are primarily displayed (accessing html pages) has a footer. When
accessing it from the API you're circumventing the main portal and are
expected as a consumer to "check out" the primary access point to find out the
license and author.

* Like wise, accessing a multi-media file[1][2] directly does not give you
attribution or license information in the file itself or in its headers, not
even a link to it. I presume the rationale here is similar to the "Media in
print" example. One might argue that because it is accessible over a separate
http request it needs to be standalone, but I'm not sure thats justifiable. It
is an implementation detail of how the web works. You can't require everything
to be in the same web request (imagine MediaWiki ajax loading of article
contents, the footer would be there always and you'd be loading the actual
content over a separate request). You could also consider an individual page
of a book to be a separate "request", again see the "Media in print" section
above.

* We certainly aren't going to embed the GFDL legal text in every http
request…

So given all that, whilst not having a clue whether all that is legal – I'm
assuming so since that's practically how every website in the world operates
(both free and non-free websites) – I think it is acceptable for our program
code to follow similar guidelines as multimedia and text (since code is text).
So it ought to be legal for our software to deliver individual bits and pieces
to the browser that are not a complete package with license and all (like
pages in a book).

Instead one is expected to know about the colophon page. If you are in a
position where you're legally required to have permission to do what you're
about to do (e.g. copy our javascript), you go back up the chain and access
the complete package. Find the "Powered by MediaWiki" button on the bottom of
the page the code was bundled with (the "colophon"). Then, after looking up
MediaWiki's license, go and find that code again in the original MediaWiki
book and find the helloWorld.js in all its glory on page 42.

Not sure how well that analogy flies,

-- Krinkle

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Baantjegracht_Dokkum_2010.jpg/160px-Baantjegracht_Dokkum_2010.jpg
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Baantjegracht_Dokkum_2010.jpg
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Luis Villa
In reply to this post by Caroline E Willis
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Caroline E Willis
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Is there a Counsel we can refer this to?
>

Yes. :) This was already on my radar, and I am following this discussion
(which has been useful; specifically, I did not know about the bug already
filed on the issue).

For those of you who don't know me, I'm new to the foundation, but have
been around foss and foss licensing for a while; a good backgrounder on me
is here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediaannounce-l@.../msg00523.html

Luis


> On Mar 5, 2013 11:47 AM, "Isarra Yos" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js
> > winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the page to
> > all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.
> >
> > It's like taking a file out of a page and then complaining that it has no
> > licensing information when said information was in the page text right
> > under it.
> >
> > On 05/03/13 17:36, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
> >>>
> >>   I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that
> >> the
> >> matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
> >> oversimplification that cannot possibly reflect reality.
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed, but even without legal training it's pretty clear this is a
> >> requirement. Quoting from CC-BY-SA:
> >>
> >>  You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for,
> this
> >>>
> >> License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute,
> >> publicly
> >> display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. [...] ou must
> >> keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer
> >> of
> >> warranties.
> >>
> >>
> >> And then in the GPL:
> >>
> >>  b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released
> >>>
> >> under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This
> >> requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all
> >> notices”.
> >>
> >>
> >> Later in the license it specifies that also binary forms of the work
> that
> >> are conveyed must also comply with these restrictions.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tyler Romeo
> >> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
> >> Major in Computer Science
> >> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> >> ______________________________**_________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > -— Isarra
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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.*
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Helder .
On 3/5/13 5:53 AM, Helder . wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:
>>>>> All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
>>>>> under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
>>>>> that is the freely-licensed (MIT) jQuery[3] library. However
>>>>> some code is actually written by the invidual users, like
>>>>> English Wikipedia's custom javascript[4], which is licensed as
>>>>> CC-BY-SA-3.0 since all content pages are automatically licensed
>>>>> that way[5].
> Is that really the case? See e.g.:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/08#Does_Commons_only_accept_code_which_can_be_used_for_evil.3F

Yes, that's really the case. We took JSMin out of MediaWiki because of
it's stupid evil license.

Ryan Kaldari

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Mark Holmquist-2
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Holmquist" <[hidden email]>

> The minification process, however, does *not* cause a problem. We can
> simply add the comments to the file(s) after the minification. It does
> mean we'll need to include, potentially, multiple license headers in
> one HTTP response, but that shouldn't cause much issue.

I am neither an engineer, nor a WMF staffer, but I want to throw a flag
here anyway.

Yes, it will cause an issue.  If that extra data is going in every reply,
multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you?  I don't know
what that number is, but I'm quite certain it's substantial.

*Every single byte* that goes in a place where it will be included in every
reply directly affects our 95%ile data transfer, I should think, and thus
our budget.  Bytes are not always free.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       [hidden email]
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
1234