Seemingly proprietary Javascript

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

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Matthew Flaschen-2
On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos 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.

What licensing information are you referring to?

Of course, the code is not under the content license (content license
being CC-BY-SA currently for Wikimedia).

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
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 Jay Ashworth-2
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Jay Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>

True, but if it's legally required it's not like we have an option.

*--*
*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

James Forrester-4
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On 5 March 2013 11:55, Matthew Flaschen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos 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.
>
> What licensing information are you referring to?
>
> Of course, the code is not under the content license (content license
> being CC-BY-SA currently for Wikimedia).
>

I think the point is that
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Magnolia_%C3%97_soulangeana_blossom.jpgdoesn't
have any licence information in it either, though
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magnolia_%C3%97_soulangeana_blossom.jpgdoes,
and this is analogous to the output of load.php not having licensing
information in it, but the composited page having it.

(And licensing of Gadgets is a complete mess, but that's somewhat
orthogonal to the point.)

J.
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

[hidden email] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
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 Tyler Romeo
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]>

> > 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.
>
> True, but if it's legally required it's not like we have an option.

Certainly.  But I see no reason to think it's legally required.  And
while I, too, only play one on the Internet, I've been doing it since 1983.

And I haven't been surprised all that often.

Mr Villa will come up with a more researched decision, certainly, but I
am relatively certain that a defensible case can be made that minifying is
equivalent to compiling, for the purposes of the license.

And in the unlikely event that's not good enough, the Foundation may well
be able to get a codicil license on the relevant libraries, acknowledging
that it needn't include the license text in on-the-wire minified copies.

My personal opinion, though, is that the proper approach is that the
license be officially interpreted by its issuer to exempt this sort
of minification-caused potential violation, as otherwise, minification
will negatively affect everyone who uses it, many of whom haven't WMF's
budget.

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Tyler Romeo
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jay Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Certainly.  But I see no reason to think it's legally required.  And
> while I, too, only play one on the Internet, I've been doing it since 1983.
>

If you read the licenses, it's pretty obvious. Also, popular libraries
(such as Google's hosted versions of jQuery and others) always include
license headers in the minified versions.

And in the unlikely event that's not good enough, the Foundation may well
> be able to get a codicil license on the relevant libraries, acknowledging
> that it needn't include the license text in on-the-wire minified copies.


But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.

*--*
*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

Brian Wolff
>
>
> But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
>

That would depend on the type of license the wmf got.

But hopefully it wouldn't come to that, as quite frankly that would be
insane.

-bawolff
_______________________________________________
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 Tyler Romeo
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]>

> But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.

Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Luke Welling WMF
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources

This JS which was mentioned in the forwarded email that started this
discussion is available via a wiki page so is probably under a CC-BY-SA-3.0
as it is submitted, edited and accessed like content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts#Scripts

Luke


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Flaschen <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos 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.
>
> What licensing information are you referring to?
>
> Of course, the code is not under the content license (content license
> being CC-BY-SA currently for Wikimedia).
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Brian Wolff
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
On 2013-03-05 4:28 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]>
>
> > But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
>
> Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
>
> 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

Mediawiki minifies things regardless of if its being run by the WMF or
somebody else.

-bawolff
_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Luke Welling WMF
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
> We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
> https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources

I am referring to Isarra's comment:

"The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part."

As far as I can tell, that is not true for the *code* license(s) for
core and extensions.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
On 03/05/2013 12:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> And in the unlikely event that's not good enough, the Foundation may well
> be able to get a codicil license on the relevant libraries, acknowledging
> that it needn't include the license text in on-the-wire minified copies.

If it does turn out we legally *need* more license
preservation/disclosure, we should add more license preservation.

Getting a special get out of jail free card for WMF only is not
acceptable.  Our sites run free software, software that anyone can also
run under the same (free) licenses.

It may also not be realistic (many authors probably would not
cooperate).  But it's something we shouldn't even ask for.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
On 03/05/2013 12:27 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]>
>
>> But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
>
> Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?

No, ResourceLoader and the minification is part of MW core.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
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

vitalif
In reply to this post by 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.

My 2 points - during my own research about free licenses, I've decided
that for JS, a good license is MPL 2.0: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

Its advantages are:
1) It's "strong file-level copyleft". "File-level" is good for JS,
because it eliminates any problems of deciding whether a *.js file is or
is not a part of a derivative work, and any problems of using together
with differently licensed JS.
2) It's explicitly compatible with GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+ or AGPLv3+.
Incompatibility problem of MPL 1.1 caused triple licensing of Firefox
(GPL/LGPL/MPL).
3) It does not require you to include long notices into every file. You
only "must inform recipients that the Source Code Form of the Covered
Software is governed by the terms of this License, and how they can
obtain a copy of this License". You may even not include any notice in
files themselves provided that you include it in some place "where a
recipient would be likely to look for such a notice".

Also, what I've understood also was that CC-BY-SA is not good for
source code at all, at least because it's incompatible with GPL. So
CC-BY-SA licensed JS may be a problem.

_______________________________________________
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
On 3/5/13 1:03 PM, [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.
>
> My 2 points - during my own research about free licenses, I've decided
> that for JS, a good license is MPL 2.0: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I
want people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people
have claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
thinking about switching to CC-Zero instead. It's funny how most "free
software" is so burdened with inane incompatible restrictions that we
can't legally use it in many situations. What do people think about
using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free software!

1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_15#CC_BY-SA_compatibility

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

Tyler Romeo
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want
> people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have
> claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
> thinking about switching to CC-Zero instead. It's funny how most "free
> software" is so burdened with inane incompatible restrictions that we can't
> legally use it in many situations. What do people think about using CC-Zero
> as a license? Now that's free software!


I'm not sure that's true at all. The MIT license is pretty much a proper
subset of CC-BY-SA, i.e., it has less restrictions and the restrictions it
has are in CC-BY-SA anyway. People are lying to you. ;)

*--*
*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

David Gerard-2
On 5 March 2013 22:08, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want
>> people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have
>> claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
>> thinking about switching to CC-Zero instead. It's funny how most "free
>> software" is so burdened with inane incompatible restrictions that we can't
>> legally use it in many situations. What do people think about using CC-Zero
>> as a license? Now that's free software!

> I'm not sure that's true at all. The MIT license is pretty much a proper
> subset of CC-BY-SA, i.e., it has less restrictions and the restrictions it
> has are in CC-BY-SA anyway. People are lying to you. ;)


People will say any spurious bollocks in a licence discussion. (You've
been on Commons, right?) This is why we have proper lawyers on hand
:-)

I appreciate it would be *nice* to put the licence in the JS, Mako
makes the point as nicely in the bug as the original poster didn't in
this thread. But there must be a method that isn't operationally
insane.


- 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

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free
>software!

The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea:
<http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero>.

A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public domain:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker>.

I've always found CC-Zero and its surrounding arguments to be pretty
stupid. I release most of the code I write into the public domain (though
most of it lacks sufficient creativity in any case).

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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

Platonides
In reply to this post by Alexander Berntsen
On 05/03/13 14:07, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> 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?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/javascript-labels.html

Yes, it would be. I expect the generated page to be insanely huge, but
if LibreJS loads a page so big that blocks your browser, it's not our
fault at all :)

I see however that it tries to confirm that the source js matches the
minified version, which may be quite hard.


Furthermore, the resourceloader can multiple modules in one request,
producing apparently different urls, so if we had to create all possible
urls, expect a factorial growth.


_______________________________________________
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

Greg Grossmeier-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
<quote name="Ryan Kaldari" date="2013-03-05" time="14:01:42 -0800">
> What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license?
> Now that's free software!

Relevant link for those interested in more background:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081

--
| Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg                A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

_______________________________________________
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

Platonides
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
>> We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
>> https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
>
> I am referring to Isarra's comment:
>
> "The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
> js winds up a part."
>
> As far as I can tell, that is not true for the *code* license(s) for
> core and extensions.
>
> Matt Flaschen

Did you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/COPYING ?



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