Mailing List Archive

Problem with CSS Janus License
Stephen Smoogen has opened a bug about the license in CSS Janus. This
needs wider discussion, though, so I'm copying it here.

From https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/36747:

I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for Fedora EPEL
project. While putting together the package for 1.19 it was found
that the license to maintenance/cssjanus is ASL 2.0 and the license
for mediawiki is GPL+2.0. The GPL 2. and ASL 2. are not "compatible"
to the FSF so I am trying to work out my options and to find out
what the mediawiki's projects rationale for bundling the two items
together.

1) cssjanus has a GPL exception to its ASL license that mediawiki knows of.

2) we need to look at mediawiki being used as GPL 3.0 even though it
is not explicitely licensed that way.

I'll point the bug to the on-list discussion, so please follow up here.

--
Mark A. Hershberger
Bugmeister
Wikimedia Foundation
mah@wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Mark A. Hershberger <mah@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>    I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for Fedora EPEL
>    project. While putting together the package for 1.19 it was found
>    that the license to maintenance/cssjanus is ASL 2.0 and the license
>    for mediawiki is GPL+2.0. The GPL 2. and ASL 2. are not "compatible"
>    to the FSF so I am trying to work out my options and to find out
>    what the mediawiki's projects rationale for bundling the two items
>    together.
>
>    1) cssjanus has a GPL exception to its ASL license that mediawiki knows of.
>

This is an actual problem that we need to fix :\ Either we need some
kind of license exception as suggested, or we'll need to find something
to replace it that's compatible (or do it ourselves...)

>    2) we need to look at mediawiki being used as GPL 3.0 even though it
>    is not explicitely licensed that way.
>

I'm not 100% sure what's being asked here? Is this a request to relicense
MediaWiki under GPLv3 instead of v2? Or is this a question of it being
mis-licensed under v3 when we actually specify v2? Clarification is
needed :)

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >    2) we need to look at mediawiki being used as GPL 3.0 even though it
> >    is not explicitely licensed that way.
> >
>
> I'm not 100% sure what's being asked here? Is this a request to relicense
> MediaWiki under GPLv3 instead of v2? Or is this a question of it being
> mis-licensed under v3 when we actually specify v2? Clarification is
> needed :)
>
I believe the point is that the ASL is compatible with GPLv3, and that
MediaWiki is GPLv2 or any later version.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
I think this is a solvable problem without changing our current
licensing. Let's not have a big legal discussion on-list about this
(or if we must hash this out publicly, let's do it on a list that
deals with legal issues rather than tech issues).

I've assigned the bug to myself, and I'll be consulting with our legal
staff. Before I say much more, I'd like to talk to them.

Rob

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Mark A. Hershberger <mah@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Stephen Smoogen has opened a bug about the license in CSS Janus.  This
> needs wider discussion, though, so I'm copying it here.
>
> From https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/36747:
>
>    I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for Fedora EPEL
>    project. While putting together the package for 1.19 it was found
>    that the license to maintenance/cssjanus is ASL 2.0 and the license
>    for mediawiki is GPL+2.0. The GPL 2. and ASL 2. are not "compatible"
>    to the FSF so I am trying to work out my options and to find out
>    what the mediawiki's projects rationale for bundling the two items
>    together.
>
>    1) cssjanus has a GPL exception to its ASL license that mediawiki knows of.
>
>    2) we need to look at mediawiki being used as GPL 3.0 even though it
>    is not explicitely licensed that way.
>
> I'll point the bug to the on-list discussion, so please follow up here.
>
> --
> Mark A. Hershberger
> Bugmeister
> Wikimedia Foundation
> mah@wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On 11 May 2012 16:41, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not 100% sure what's being asked here? Is this a request to relicense
> MediaWiki under GPLv3 instead of v2? Or is this a question of it being
> mis-licensed under v3 when we actually specify v2? Clarification is
> needed :)


If it's an intact application that's included in the maintenance
directory, does that make it (sufficiently plausibly) part of a mere
aggregation? (that's a question for lawyers)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On 11 May 2012 09:03, Mark A. Hershberger <mah@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Stephen Smoogen has opened a bug about the license in CSS Janus.  This
> needs wider discussion, though, so I'm copying it here.
>
> From https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/36747:
>
>    I am the maintainer of the mediawiki package for Fedora EPEL
>    project. While putting together the package for 1.19 it was found
>    that the license to maintenance/cssjanus is ASL 2.0 and the license
>    for mediawiki is GPL+2.0. The GPL 2. and ASL 2. are not "compatible"
>    to the FSF so I am trying to work out my options and to find out
>    what the mediawiki's projects rationale for bundling the two items
>    together.
>
>    1) cssjanus has a GPL exception to its ASL license that mediawiki knows of.
>
>    2) we need to look at mediawiki being used as GPL 3.0 even though it
>    is not explicitely licensed that way.
>
> I'll point the bug to the on-list discussion, so please follow up here.

Another question that came up in the review was the code for

skins/common/wikibits.js => says:

" Written by Jonathan Snook, http://www.snook.ca/jonathan
Add-ons by Robert Nyman, http://www.robertnyman.com
Author says "The credit comment is all it takes, no license. Go crazy
with it!:-)"
From
http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/11/07/the-ultimate-getelementsbyclassname/
"

While the license sounds like it is "Public Domain" that can cause
problems in various places. Also in trying to find the code that is
referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its
license was. The second site doesn't recommend that code anymore but
recommends a GPL2+ updated version.



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me."  —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> While the license sounds like it is "Public Domain" that can cause
> problems in various places. Also in trying to find the code that is
> referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its
> license was. The second site doesn't recommend that code anymore but
> recommends a GPL2+ updated version.

It looks more like WTFPL with attribution clause.
I don't see why such license would be a problem.


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Also in trying to find the code that is
> referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its
> license was. The second site doesn't recommend that code anymore but
> recommends a GPL2+ updated version.

I see http://snook.ca/archives/javascript/your_favourite_1
and http://snook.ca/archives/quick_links/quick_link_the_1 refering to
Robert Nyman changes at
http://robertnyman.com/2005/11/07/the-ultimate-getelementsbyclassname/

Then we added a number of changes ourselves.



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On 13 May 2012 06:36, Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> While the license sounds like it is "Public Domain" that can cause
>> problems in various places. Also in trying to find the code that is
>> referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its
>> license was. The second site doesn't recommend that code anymore but
>> recommends a GPL2+ updated version.
>
> It looks more like WTFPL with attribution clause.
> I don't see why such license would be a problem.
>

As far as I know it is not a problem if it is clear. It is when the
license isn't clear that it can become a problem.. especially when the
author put one thing down and meant something else. It may only occur
in 100 times, but that become more problems than being clear in the
first place.



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me."  —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Problem with CSS Janus License [ In reply to ]
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Rob Lanphier <robla@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I think this is a solvable problem without changing our current
> licensing.  Let's not have a big legal discussion on-list about this
> (or if we must hash this out publicly, let's do it on a list that
> deals with legal issues rather than tech issues).

Hi folks,

I commented here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/36747

...but haven't followed up on list, so I'll do that now. MediaWiki is
"GPLv2 or later," allowing licensees to comply with either GPL v2 or
v3. So someone who wants to distribute the code can comply by
conforming to the terms of the Apache-compatible GPL v3. This means
we don't have to explicitly move to GPL v3 only. Alternately, anyone
who wants to comply only with GPL v2 can retain the option of excising
the ASL code.

We may still wish to explore the possibility of explicitly moving to
the GPL v3 (with similar "or later" clause), but there's nothing about
including Apache-licensed code that forces that conversation.

Rob

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l