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

David Gerard-2
On 6 March 2013 15:20, Jay Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> From: "David Gerard" <[hidden email]>

>> People will say any spurious bollocks

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


WTFPL of course!


- 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

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

> 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.

We note that you have spoken.

Alas, the other 153 people who own copyright in the code in question
haven't and, no offense, Jack, assuming they will have the same outlook
you do -- when it's on the record that developers' opinions on this
range to both ends -- is probably not a safe enough bet for the foundation.

:-}

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

Chad
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Jay Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jack Phoenix" <[hidden email]>
>
>> 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.
>
> We note that you have spoken.
>
> Alas, the other 153 people who own copyright in the code in question
> haven't and, no offense, Jack, assuming they will have the same outlook
> you do -- when it's on the record that developers' opinions on this
> range to both ends -- is probably not a safe enough bet for the foundation.
>

Jack is not alone. The amount of bikeshedding on this list has reached
truly epic proportions in the last couple of weeks...to the point where I've
started ignoring the vast majority of the list (and I've always been an
advocate for the usefulness of this list).

-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 don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's code is bike-shedding at all.
As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source
project.

There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide freedom for
developers and users. If MW were completely licensed under the WTFPL,
others could copy MW, change it, and then make it proprietary, whereas with
the GPL there is a restriction on that. When I contribute my code to this
project, I am fully aware and happy with the fact that it will *never* be
used in a closed source product.

Just because some people don't care enough about how laws exist in this
world and we have to operate under them doesn't mean everybody else should
be screwed over. So if we could actually get back on topic rather than
bitching and complaining about doing things some of us don't necessarily
enjoy.

*--*
*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

Chad
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's code is bike-shedding at all.
> As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source
> project.
>
> There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide freedom for
> developers and users. If MW were completely licensed under the WTFPL,
> others could copy MW, change it, and then make it proprietary, whereas with
> the GPL there is a restriction on that. When I contribute my code to this
> project, I am fully aware and happy with the fact that it will *never* be
> used in a closed source product.
>
> Just because some people don't care enough about how laws exist in this
> world and we have to operate under them doesn't mean everybody else should
> be screwed over. So if we could actually get back on topic rather than
> bitching and complaining about doing things some of us don't necessarily
> enjoy.
>

There's a definite difference between caring about how the code is licensed
and debating whether or not headers should be included in minified versions
or not. I care how our code is licensed (and headers are great for doing this),
but wasting 60+ e-mails over where to include these licenses just to satisfy
an overzealous tool...that's bikeshedding.

-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

Isarra Yos
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
Non-lawyers arguing over how to interpret licenses, uses, and other
stuff with the minimised code doesn't prevent such screwing over either.
It is undoubtedly an open-source project; the question is the legal one
of where all things need to be attributed and cited, and at the end of
the day pretty much none of us are qualified to answer that in any full
capacity. Some speculation can be fine and help people get an idea as to
how to proceed, but this is indeed to the point of bikeshedding.

This is not bitching. This is a legitimate complaint that this thread is
getting out of hand with little productive value.


On 06/03/13 21:42, Tyler Romeo wrote:

> I don't see how the copyright of MediaWiki's code is bike-shedding at all.
> As a volunteer, I'd like to be damn sure MW is actually an open source
> project.
>
> There's a reason copyright licenses exist, and it's to provide freedom for
> developers and users. If MW were completely licensed under the WTFPL,
> others could copy MW, change it, and then make it proprietary, whereas with
> the GPL there is a restriction on that. When I contribute my code to this
> project, I am fully aware and happy with the fact that it will *never* be
> used in a closed source product.
>
> Just because some people don't care enough about how laws exist in this
> world and we have to operate under them doesn't mean everybody else should
> be screwed over. So if we could actually get back on topic rather than
> bitching and complaining about doing things some of us don't necessarily
> enjoy.
>
> *--*
> *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

Tyler Romeo
Well then maybe we could just wait for a response from the counsel in this
thread rather than interpreting licenses and then complaining about it...

*--*
*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

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

> Jack is not alone. The amount of bikeshedding on this list has reached
> truly epic proportions in the last couple of weeks...to the point where I've
> started ignoring the vast majority of the list (and I've always been
> an advocate for the usefulness of this list).

While I disagree as to whether minified code needs a human readable
embedded license, I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the
discussion as bikeshedding, Chad.  I care about the licensing on my
code.  I'm not alone.

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

K. Peachey-2
I'm pretty sure I have memories of this exact thread happening when
minification was first introduced, With counsel at the time (Mike)
weighing in on the matter.

_______________________________________________
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

Since this thread is slowly moving over to a debate as to whether it
constitutes bikeshedding or not (and people can't seem to agree on
that either), I'm going to unsubscribe to this mailing list by the end
of today (in 15 hours or so) as I get way too much email already. I
have made my concerns clear.

Thank you for verifying that your intentions are to use free software.
If anyone were to CC me in any important emails (decisions regarding
licence headers), I would be grateful.

If someone has suggestions for how to make GNU LibreJs[0] accept
Wikipedia, please email me about this. The only solution I can think
of is using a whitelist -- but this may be dangerous, as developers
can just go "oh I don't bother with licences, you can just whitelist
my page".

[0]  https://www.gnu.org/software/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/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlE4R78ACgkQRtClrXBQc7VbwAD/eK5zRRExpYlNx93GmgQmCwwE
DQ5WRp6/ErrbB6XYwygA/3hsN4RFY80gl95TOLU6GzQ9iUKkKkAaxd/qop81IA6+
=Pr4p
-----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

Platonides
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
On 06/03/13 16:28, Jay Ashworth wrote:

>>> 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

Interesting. Although HTML is presentational, while js is executable.

I wouldn't consider most of our javascript as "significant" -even though
we have plenty of usages considered non-trivial by [1]- since it is
highly based on MediaWiki classes and ids. However, we also have some
"big javascript programs" (WikiEditor, VisualEditor...)

@Alexander: I would consider something like
> <script src="//bits.wikimedia.org/www.mediawiki.org/load.php?debug=false&amp;lang=en&amp;modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%2CSpinner%7Cjquery.triggerQueueCallback%2CloadingSpinner%2CmwEmbedUtil%7Cmw.MwEmbedSupport&amp;only=scripts&amp;skin=vector&amp;version=20130304T183632Z"
>  license="//bits.wikimedia.org/www.mediawiki.org/load.php?debug=false&amp;lang=en&amp;modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%2CSpinner%7Cjquery.triggerQueueCallback%2CloadingSpinner%2CmwEmbedUtil%7Cmw.MwEmbedSupport&amp;only=scripts&amp;skin=vector&amp;version=20130304T183632Z&mode=license"></script>

with license attribute pointing to a JavaScript License Web Labels page
for that script (yes, that would have to go up to whatwg).

Another, easier, option would be that LibreJS detected the "debug=false"
in the url and changed it to debug=true, expecting to find the license
information there.
It's also a natural change for people intending to reuse such
javascript, even if they were unaware of such convention.

@Chad: We use free licenses since we care about the freedom of our cde
to be reused, but if the license is not appropiate to what we really
intend, or even worse, is placing such a burden that even us aren't
properly presenting them, it's something very discussion worthy.
Up to the point where we could end up relicensing the code to better
reflect our intention, as it was done from GFDL to CC-BY-SA with
wikipedia content.


1- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html


_______________________________________________
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 Chad
Le 06/03/13 13:34, Chad wrote:
> Jack Phoenix wrote:
> > we'll soon be debating about the very meaning of the word "is".
>
> Jack is not alone.
       ^^

Care to elaborate the meaning there?

--
Antoine "hashar" Musso
"Sorry it had to be made"


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