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

Max Semenik
On 06.03.2013, 2:01 Ryan 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!

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

My extensions are WTFPL;)


--
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

Brian Wolff
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 2013-03-05 6:29 PM, "MZMcBride" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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

I wonder how osi would feel about https://github.com/avar/DWTFYWWI license.

-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

Petr Onderka
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also, popular libraries
> (such as Google's hosted versions of jQuery and others) always include
> license headers in the minified versions.

That's not what I see.
If I look at jQuery as hosted by Google [1], it starts with the
following comment (and nothing more):

/*! jQuery v1.9.1 | (c) 2005, 2012 jQuery Foundation, Inc. |
jquery.org/license //@ sourceMappingURL=jquery.min.map */

It does link to a license (though it doesn't even mention what the
license is directly),
but it certainly doesn't contain the whole license itself.
And, as I understand it, that's what you claim is required and
what others claim would be a waste of bandwidth

[1]: http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.9.1/jquery.min.js

Petr Onderka
[[en:User:Svick]]

_______________________________________________
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 Platonides
On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:

> 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 ?

Do you really expect people to find that?

We're basically talking about what is visible in the "binary" version of
the site.

We all know they can get license information from the source by doing
git clones.

I don't think it's realistic that people will successfully guess they
can visit that /w/COPYING url.  And not all the code is under GPLv2
anyway, though it should all be free on WMF sites.

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

Antoine Musso-3
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
> 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>.

Does that include is work on the OCaml tool that generate the math
rendering?  I am wondering if the rendering result would end up being PD
too.

--
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

Brian Wolff
On 2013-03-05 9:17 PM, "Antoine Musso" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
> > 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>.
>
> Does that include is work on the OCaml tool that generate the math
> rendering?  I am wondering if the rendering result would end up being PD
> too.
>
> --
> Antoine "hashar" Musso
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

The ocaml tool does security verification from what I understand. The
actual rendering is done by TeX.(I think) Also I didnt think the license of
a tool extended to its output. I can make non gpl images in the gimp, etc

-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

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Antoine Musso-3
Antoine Musso wrote:
>Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
>> 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>.
>
>Does that include is work on the OCaml tool that generate the math
>rendering?  I am wondering if the rendering result would end up being PD
>too.

Sorry, I have no idea. You'd have to ask Lee, I suppose. I think he's
still around.

Generated math expressions fall outside of (U.S.) copyright, as I
understand it, though. At least the majority of them. I don't imagine you
could argue that <math>2+2=4</math> is sufficiently creative to warrant
copyright. Though perhaps more advanced math would qualify.

All that said, I don't think Lee has the authority to release (or not
release) any possible copyright on generated math expressions. A piano
maker surely can't release the copyright on the works of a pianist....

This is why I just release everything into the public domain and flee. ;-)

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

Isarra Yos
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On 05/03/13 23:45, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:
>> 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 ?
> Do you really expect people to find that?
>
> We're basically talking about what is visible in the "binary" version of
> the site.
>
> We all know they can get license information from the source by doing
> git clones.
>
> I don't think it's realistic that people will successfully guess they
> can visit that /w/COPYING url.  And not all the code is under GPLv2
> anyway, though it should all be free on WMF sites.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Alternately, it's the same as how people can find the license of any of
it from the front ('binary') end. The content is specified in the footer
and there is a link to mediawiki for platform information, and the
resulting javascript is a combination of both of those...

But I guess my point was more that I just find it a little strange that
folks would be taking javascript out of that context when such would
never be done with other pieces of a page like images, which have a
similar process to find their copyright information and yet tend to
perhaps be more meaningful out of context than the js.

Although if such images needed to have licensing included in their file
headers as well, while that would result in a complete ruddy mess, it
might actually prove useful to reusers.

--
-— 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

Chris Grant
This is based on a flawed reading of the GPL. The GPL covers the
distribution of program code. The license specifically states that “The act
of running the Program is not restricted”. (Furthermore: “Activities other
than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
License; they are outside its scope.”)

The terms you are all referring to relate to the distribution of the
software, not the running of the software. Wikipedia.org, does not
distribute the software, that is MediaWiki.org's job. If Wikipedia wanted
to, we could remove all licensing information from the software and it
would still be completely legal. The GPL *only* comes into effect once you
start distributing the software.

This is why other licenses such as the Affero General Public License have
been written, to stop people using and modifying software like Mediawiki,
but failing to release their modifications back to the community.

The current method of distributing Mediawiki via Mediawiki.org is perfectly
complaint with the GPL.

-- Chris
_______________________________________________
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 MZMcBride-2
MZMcBride wrote:
>You'd have to ask Lee, I suppose. I think he's still around.

https://github.com/lcrocker/OneJoker

It seems Lee is alive and well and still waiving his rights. :-)

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 Matthew Flaschen-2
On 05/03/13 21:55, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> 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

I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense our
css and javascript as MIT, MPL, GPL-with-explicit-exception...

Regarding GPL requisites, it seems clear that minified javascript is
“object code” [1], which we can convey per section 6d [2], which is
already possible if you know how the RL works, although we should
probably provide those “clear directions”. Most problematic would be
that you should also obey sections 4 and 5 (although I see a bit of
contradiction there, how are you supposed to “keep intact all notices”
where most notices are present in comments, designed to be stripped when
compiled?)

But are we conveying it?
> To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
> parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user
>through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

As javascript is executed in the client, it probably is.


1- «The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form
of a work.» - Section 1
       
2- «Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
(gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. If the place to copy the object code is a network
server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated
by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities,
provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying
where to find the Corresponding Source. (...)»


_______________________________________________
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
On 06/03/13 13:24, Platonides wrote:
> I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
> core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense our
> css and javascript as MIT, MPL, GPL-with-explicit-exception...

I was going to provide the full list:

$ git log --format=format:%an --no-merges resources/ | sort -u
Aaron Schulz
Alexandre Emsenhuber
Alex Monk
Amir E. Aharoni
Andrew Garrett
Antoine Musso
Aryeh Gregor
aude
awjrichards
Brad Jorsch
Brandon Harris
Brian Wolff
Brion Vibber
Bryan Tong Minh
Catrope
Chad Horohoe
csteipp
Daniel Friesen
Danny B
Derk-Jan Hartman
edokter
Eranroz
Happy-melon
Hashar
helder.wiki
Henning Snater
Hoo man
Ian Baker
Jeremy Postlethwaite
jeroendedauw
Jeroen De Dauw
Joan Creus
John Du Hart
jrobson
Juliusz Gonera
Kaldari
Kevin Israel
Krinkle
Leo Koppelkamm
Liangent
lupo
Marius Hoch
Mark A. Hershberger
Mark Holmquist
Matěj Grabovský
MatmaRex
Matthew Flaschen
Matthias Mullie
Max Semenik
Minh Nguyễn
Neil Kandalgaonkar
Niklas Laxström
Ori Livneh
Pavel Selitskas
Raimond Spekking
Reedy
Roan Kattouw
Robin Pepermans
Rob Lanphier
Rob Moen
Ryan Kaldari
Sam Reed
Santhosh Thottingal
Siebrand
Siebrand Mazeland
Szymon Świerkosz
Thomas Gries
Timo Tijhof
Tim Starling
Trevor Parscal
Tyler Anthony Romeo
umherirrender
vlakoff


_______________________________________________
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 Brian Wolff
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Wolff" <[hidden email]>

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

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

Ah; thanks.  Have not looked at internals lately.  Since minification to
me as a netadmin is a strategic "size of pipe" issue, I assumed it was
something deployed on WMF sites, not something baked into the base package.

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

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

> People will say any spurious bollocks

What's the license on that observation, David?  :-)

Cheers,
-- jr 'I wanna steal that' a
--
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

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

> 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).

My understanding is that CC-Zero exists *because "the public domain" does
not exist in the IP law of many countries*.

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

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

> This is based on a flawed reading of the GPL. The GPL covers the
> distribution of program code. The license specifically states that “The act
> of running the Program is not restricted”. (Furthermore: “Activities other
> than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
> License; they are outside its scope.”)
>
> The terms you are all referring to relate to the distribution of the
> software, not the running of the software. Wikipedia.org, does not
> distribute the software, that is MediaWiki.org's job. If Wikipedia wanted
> to, we could remove all licensing information from the software and it
> would still be completely legal. The GPL *only* comes into effect once
> you start distributing the software.

The problem here, Chris, is "what constitutes 'distributing the software'?"

WP is *sending a copy of the JS from its servers to a client PC, there to
be executed*.  *We* consider that "incidental", but a court might not;
decisions I'm aware of have gone both ways.  So that might *be* the
distribution step, legally, and trigger the license requirement.

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

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

> Regarding GPL requisites, it seems clear that minified javascript is
> “object code” [1], which we can convey per section 6d [2], which is
> already possible if you know how the RL works, although we should
> probably provide those “clear directions”. Most problematic would be
> that you should also obey sections 4 and 5 (although I see a bit of
> contradiction there, how are you supposed to “keep intact all notices”
> where most notices are present in comments, designed to be stripped
> when
> compiled?)
>
> But are we conveying it?

> > To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
> > parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user
> >through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not
> >conveying.
>
> As javascript is executed in the client, it probably is.

Perhaps.  But HTML is also "executed" in the client, and some legal
decisions have gone each way on whether the mere viewing of a page
constitutes "copying" in violation of copyright (the trend is towards
"no", thankfully. :-)

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

Tei-2
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
The need for minification suggest that maybe the web needs a bytecode
format for css / javascript / xml, one designed to save space.

I know text is the tradition in unix, but anyway.

--
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.

_______________________________________________
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

Kevin Israel
In reply to this post by Platonides
On 03/06/2013 07:30 AM, Platonides wrote:
> On 06/03/13 13:24, Platonides wrote:
>> I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
>> core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense our
>> css and javascript as MIT, MPL, GPL-with-explicit-exception...
>
> I was going to provide the full list: [...]

Don't forget the 58 other authors of skins/ (although some commits
touching that path might not be to CSS or JS):

$ git log --format=format:%an --no-merges resources/ | sort -u >
../resources.txt
$ git log --format=format:%an --no-merges skins/ | sort -u > ../skins.txt
$ comm -23 ../skins.txt ../resources.txt
Adam Miller
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Alex Shih-Han Lin
Alex Z
Anders Wegge Jakobsen
ankur
Arne Heizmann
Benny Situ
Charles Melbye
Daniel Cannon
Daniel Kinzler
Erik Moeller
Evan Prodromou
Gabriel Wicke
Guillaume Blanchard
Guy Van den Broeck
Huji
Ilmari Karonen
isarra
Jack Phoenix
Jan Luca Naumann
Jan Paul Posma
Jens Frank
Jimmy Collins
Jon Harald Søby
Jure Kajzer
karun
Katie Filbert
Laurence Parry
Leon Weber
Lisa Ridley
Lupin
Magnus Manske
Marcin Cieślak
Matt Johnston
Michael Dale
Mohamed Magdy
Nicholas Pisarro, Jr
Nick Jenkins
Nimish Gautam
Patrick Reilly
Philip Tzou
Platonides
Purodha B Blissenbach
Remember the dot
River Tarnell
Rob Church
Robert Stojnić
Rotem Liss
Ryan Schmidt
Shinjiman
SQL
Tobias
Tom Gilder
Tpt
Victor Vasiliev
X!
Zheng Zhu

--
Wikipedia user PleaseStand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand

_______________________________________________
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

Jack Phoenix-2
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Israel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/06/2013 07:30 AM, Platonides wrote:
> > On 06/03/13 13:24, Platonides wrote:
> >> I just checked and there are 73 authors of the resources of MediaWiki
> >> core. More than I expected, but not unworkable. We could relicense our
> >> css and javascript as MIT, MPL, GPL-with-explicit-exception...
> >
> > I was going to provide the full list: [...]
>
> Don't forget the 58 other authors of skins/ (although some commits
> touching that path might not be to CSS or JS):
>
> $ git log --format=format:%an --no-merges resources/ | sort -u >
> ../resources.txt
> $ git log --format=format:%an --no-merges skins/ | sort -u > ../skins.txt
> $ comm -23 ../skins.txt ../resources.txt
> [...]

Jack Phoenix
> [...]
>
Let me just state this for the record: I find copyright paranoia and
associated acts, such as this very thread with 59 (and counting!) messages
absurd, ridiculous and a complete waste of time.
Please feel free to treat my code contributions as you wish; my code has
been Public Domain since 2010 (see
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Jack_Phoenix/extensions) and I'm not
objected to (re)licensing the unlicensed ones to Public Domain (or
alternatively, licensing them under Ævar's awesome Do Whatever The Fuck You
Want With It license, the DWTFYWWI, version 1 or any later version at your
convenience or whatever the fuck you may prefer).

Global user preferences (bug #14950), for example, would be both very nice
and useful to have and certainly a lot more productive than a legalese
discussion on who wrote what and what constitutes/doesn't constitute as
downloading or whatever. At this rate, we'll soon be debating about the
very meaning of the word "is". Now can we please get back to actual
development discussion and writing code?

Thanks and regards,
--
Jack Phoenix
MediaWiki developer
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
1234