WMFs stance on non-GPL code

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Jeroen De Dauw-2
Hey,

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

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3
--
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Jeremy Baron
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In
> particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?

I'm sure it is already deployed on WMF servers. Can you elaborate?

e.g. deployed is not the same as being part of MediaWiki. We use
[[Jenkins (software)]] on WMF servers and the enwiki article says it
is MIT licensed.

What exactly would you like to do?

-Jeremy

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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Yuvi Panda
In reply to this post by Jeroen De Dauw-2
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed code. In
> particular, could such code be deployed on WMF servers?

jQuery is deployed (MIT), Redis too (3 clause BSD) and Bugzilla is
under the MPL.

What was the thought process that led to the question, btw?

--
Yuvi Panda T
http://yuvi.in/blog

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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Brian Wolff
In reply to this post by Jeremy Baron
On 2013-08-25 6:20 PM, "Jeremy Baron" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> > I'm curious what the stance of WMF is on BSD, MIT and MPL licensed
code. In

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

My understanding is several extensions that are deployed are under dwtfywwi
license.

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

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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Tyler Romeo
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [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: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Erwin Dokter
On 26-08-2013 02:59, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be surprised if there was a problem with any open
> > source license.
>
> Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise
> using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.

Wrong. WMF can use any software they like on their servers... even
propriatary software. They are _using_ it, not _distributing_ it.

Compatible licencing is only relevant on software that is distributed,
in the WMF's case, MediaWiki and related extensions.

--
Erwin Dokter


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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

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

The idea that deployment of software on a server entails license
obligations is a GPLv3 feature; mediawiki is licensed under the GPL v2 ("or
later" for theoretical redistribution purposes).

Presumably deployment of a GPLv3-only or [[Affero GPL]] extension on a WMF
server might be more problematic, iff WMF were deploying non-GPL-compatible
extensions (I don't know whether that's the case one way or another).  But
that's rather orthogonal to the "openness" of the source.

Anyway, we could devolve into a flame war and/or "discussion" of the merits
and disadvantages of various software licenses rather easily, so I'm
suggesting that we limit further discussion on this thread absent a more
focused question from Jeroen.
 --scott

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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Derric Atzrott
In reply to this post by Erwin Dokter
>> Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise
>> using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.
>
>Wrong. WMF can use any software they like on their servers... even
>propriatary software. They are _using_ it, not _distributing_ it.
>
>Compatible licencing is only relevant on software that is distributed,
>in the WMF's case, MediaWiki and related extensions.

I wasn't even aware though that extensions to be distributed needed to be licensed under something that is GPL compatible.  It's been a while since I read the GPL.

Looking back over it again (well the FAQ actually), that is very non-intuitive... we'd need to fork the Mediawiki process to allow non-GPL extensions to be distributed?

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

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott


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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

C. Scott Ananian
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Derric Atzrott <
[hidden email]> wrote:

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

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main is a useful guide.
 --scott

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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Trevor Parscal-2
VisualEditor is MIT licensed. It was originally GPLv2 by default as per my
contract with Wikimedia, but early on we got written permission from all
authors to change it. We did this because we wanted to ensure maximum
license compatibility for re-use in non-MediaWiki systems.

- Trevor


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM, C. Scott Ananian
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Derric Atzrott <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I might have to look into licenses again and make sure what I use is GPL
> > compatible.   The GPL is such a pain sometimes....
> >
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main is a useful guide.
>  --scott
>
> --
> (http://cscott.net)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [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: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Ryan Lane-2
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Trevor Parscal <[hidden email]>wrote:

> VisualEditor is MIT licensed. It was originally GPLv2 by default as per my
> contract with Wikimedia, but early on we got written permission from all
> authors to change it. We did this because we wanted to ensure maximum
> license compatibility for re-use in non-MediaWiki systems.
>
>
Aren't our contracts generally written to allow us to use any OSI compliant
license, with a preference to GPL 2?

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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by Derric Atzrott
As long as it is a separate extension there is no problem, but if you
bundle it in such a way that it is an integral part of the core then
you might get into trouble.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Derric Atzrott
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>>> Well if it's a MediaWiki extension, it has to be GPL-compatible, otherwise
>>> using it as part of MediaWiki violates the core's own GPL license.
>>
>>Wrong. WMF can use any software they like on their servers... even
>>propriatary software. They are _using_ it, not _distributing_ it.
>>
>>Compatible licencing is only relevant on software that is distributed,
>>in the WMF's case, MediaWiki and related extensions.
>
> I wasn't even aware though that extensions to be distributed needed to be licensed under something that is GPL compatible.  It's been a while since I read the GPL.
>
> Looking back over it again (well the FAQ actually), that is very non-intuitive... we'd need to fork the Mediawiki process to allow non-GPL extensions to be distributed?
>
> I might have to look into licenses again and make sure what I use is GPL compatible.   The GPL is such a pain sometimes....
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Antoine Musso-3
In reply to this post by Ryan Lane-2
Le 26/08/13 22:03, Ryan Lane a écrit :
> Aren't our contracts generally written to allow us to use any OSI compliant
> license, with a preference to GPL 2?

My company has a joint copyright agreement with Wikimedia. So I guess
the foundation can publish the work under whatever license :)

My code is licensed under GPLv2+ and the rest under CC-BY-SA (unless
mentioned otherwise).

--
Antoine "hashar" Musso


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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Luis Villa
In reply to this post by C. Scott Ananian
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM, C. Scott Ananian
<[hidden email]>wrote:

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


To be clear, that's AGPL-only, not GPL v3.

Luis


--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by C. Scott Ananian
On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension means
> that the extension can never be distributed with core.

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

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Denny Vrandečić
Tim, thanks, I found this a very interesting aspect that I have not
considered before.


2013/8/28 Tim Starling <[hidden email]>

> On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension
> means
> > that the extension can never be distributed with core.
>
> That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL allows verbatim
> copies of source code, with no restrictions on the license of any
> bundled or dynamically linked code. Only "non-source forms" (or
> "binaries" in v2) have more restrictive conditions. Since the
> MediaWiki core and extensions are distributed solely in source form,
> the non-source (binary) conditions do not apply.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Luis Villa
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension
> means
> > that the extension can never be distributed with core.
>
> That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL allows verbatim
> copies of source code, with no restrictions on the license of any
> bundled or dynamically linked code. Only "non-source forms" (or
> "binaries" in v2) have more restrictive conditions. Since the
> MediaWiki core and extensions are distributed solely in source form,
> the non-source (binary) conditions do not apply.
>

Yup. In retrospect, an odd oversight for GPL v3; perhaps more
understandable for v2.

Luis

--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

Ryan Kaldari-2
Just for fun, I added some license-parsing logic to Template:Extension on
mediawiki.org. I think the job queue is still updating the categories, but
so far we have:
Extensions with no license specified: 596
Extensions with an unknown license: 779
GPL licensed extensions: 667
MIT licensed extensions: 44
BSD licensed extensions: 23
AGPL licensed extensions: 10
MPL licensed extensions: 1

I was actually surprised to see how few MIT and BSD extensions we have
considering how much animosity there is towards the GPL, but I suppose most
people just want to match the licensing of MediaWiki.

If you haven't specified the license of your extension, now would be a good
time to do so :)

Ryan Kaldari


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > > Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension
> > means
> > > that the extension can never be distributed with core.
> >
> > That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL allows verbatim
> > copies of source code, with no restrictions on the license of any
> > bundled or dynamically linked code. Only "non-source forms" (or
> > "binaries" in v2) have more restrictive conditions. Since the
> > MediaWiki core and extensions are distributed solely in source form,
> > the non-source (binary) conditions do not apply.
> >
>
> Yup. In retrospect, an odd oversight for GPL v3; perhaps more
> understandable for v2.
>
> Luis
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Deputy General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
>
> NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
> _______________________________________________
> 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: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

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

Luis


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Just for fun, I added some license-parsing logic to Template:Extension on
> mediawiki.org. I think the job queue is still updating the categories, but
> so far we have:
> Extensions with no license specified: 596
> Extensions with an unknown license: 779
> GPL licensed extensions: 667
> MIT licensed extensions: 44
> BSD licensed extensions: 23
> AGPL licensed extensions: 10
> MPL licensed extensions: 1
>
> I was actually surprised to see how few MIT and BSD extensions we have
> considering how much animosity there is towards the GPL, but I suppose most
> people just want to match the licensing of MediaWiki.
>
> If you haven't specified the license of your extension, now would be a good
> time to do so :)
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Tim Starling <[hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On 27/08/13 03:12, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > > > Stated more precisely: a non-GPL-compatible license for an extension
> > > means
> > > > that the extension can never be distributed with core.
> > >
> > > That is incorrect, the GPL does not say that. The GPL allows verbatim
> > > copies of source code, with no restrictions on the license of any
> > > bundled or dynamically linked code. Only "non-source forms" (or
> > > "binaries" in v2) have more restrictive conditions. Since the
> > > MediaWiki core and extensions are distributed solely in source form,
> > > the non-source (binary) conditions do not apply.
> > >
> >
> > Yup. In retrospect, an odd oversight for GPL v3; perhaps more
> > understandable for v2.
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > --
> > Luis Villa
> > Deputy General Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
> >
> > NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> > have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> > mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> > reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> community
> > members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



--
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: WMFs stance on non-GPL code

K. Peachey-2
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

{{lc:{{{license|}}} }}
|gpl|gplv2|gplv2 or later|gpl v2|gpl v2 or later|gplv2+|gplv3|gpl v3 = GPL
licensed extensions
|agpl|agplv2|agplv3 = AGPL licensed extensions
|mit|expat|expat (mit)|x11 = MIT licensed extensions
|bsd|new bsd|revised bsd|modified bsd|freebsd = BSD licensed extensions
|mpl|mplv2|mpl v2 = MPL licensed extensions
|#default = Extensions with unknown license
}}]]}}}}
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
12