New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relicense AFCH under the MIT license #61

Open
theopolisme opened this Issue Jul 22, 2013 · 20 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@theopolisme
Contributor

theopolisme commented Jul 22, 2013

This is a proposal to relicense AFCH under the MIT license, the text of which can found here. Right now, the script is licensed under CC-BY-SA/GFDL, as it was originally coded on-wiki (per [[Wikipedia:Copyright]] -- all text-based contributions).

The MIT license is a permissive license that is short and to the point. It lets people do anything they want with the code as long as they provide attribution and don’t hold the developers liable.

In order to do this, all contributors to the codebase would need to agree to relicense it, hence why I'm opening this issue.

(See #60 for how this came about.)

(2013-07-31 08:35 MEST - Update of the !vote)
Yes - votes

  • Legoktm - Yes
  • mabdul - Yes
  • Mr.Z-man - Leftover code from Close AfD
  • Nathan2055 - Yes
  • Technical 13 - Yes (via IRC)
  • Theopolisme - Yes (as proposer)
  • APerson241 - Yes

Unknown:

  • Timotheus Canens - still waiting for an answer
@Nathan2055

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Nathan2055

Nathan2055 Jul 22, 2013

Member

My name is Nathan2055, and I approve of this message.

Member

Nathan2055 commented Jul 22, 2013

My name is Nathan2055, and I approve of this message.

@legoktm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@legoktm

legoktm Jul 22, 2013

Member

Sure.

Member

legoktm commented Jul 22, 2013

Sure.

@Nathan2055

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Nathan2055

Nathan2055 Jul 24, 2013

Member

@wikipedia-mabdul - Still awaiting your !vote.

Member

Nathan2055 commented Jul 24, 2013

@wikipedia-mabdul - Still awaiting your !vote.

@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul

wikipedia-mabdul Jul 24, 2013

Member

yes (very busy atm, hopefully at the weekend I find some time)

main "problem" is tim. I believe that of madman's code isn't anything existing... but I have never checked the code to check that.

Member

wikipedia-mabdul commented Jul 24, 2013

yes (very busy atm, hopefully at the weekend I find some time)

main "problem" is tim. I believe that of madman's code isn't anything existing... but I have never checked the code to check that.

@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul

wikipedia-mabdul Jul 30, 2013

Member

@APerson241: you have to !vote here too as we are actively trying to get a new license.

Member

wikipedia-mabdul commented Jul 30, 2013

@APerson241: you have to !vote here too as we are actively trying to get a new license.

@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul

wikipedia-mabdul Jul 30, 2013

Member

just for tracking purpose: question for Timotheus' code relicense is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timotheus_Canens#AFCH_relicensing

Member

wikipedia-mabdul commented Jul 30, 2013

just for tracking purpose: question for Timotheus' code relicense is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timotheus_Canens#AFCH_relicensing

@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul
Member

wikipedia-mabdul commented Jul 30, 2013

And finally onwiki question to User:Mr.Z-man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.Z-man#AFCH_relicense

@enterprisey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@enterprisey

enterprisey Jul 30, 2013

Member

!vote Yes. Sure!

Member

enterprisey commented Jul 30, 2013

!vote Yes. Sure!

@Riamse

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Riamse

Riamse Jul 31, 2013

Contributor

No.

Contributor

Riamse commented Jul 31, 2013

No.

@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul

wikipedia-mabdul Jul 31, 2013

Member

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timotheus_Canens "A quick look tells me that his code is still alive and well (the editPage(), for example). I'm fine with relicensing the code, but is there any particular reason why it's needed? "

so only Riamse is left XD

Member

wikipedia-mabdul commented Jul 31, 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timotheus_Canens "A quick look tells me that his code is still alive and well (the editPage(), for example). I'm fine with relicensing the code, but is there any particular reason why it's needed? "

so only Riamse is left XD

@martijnhoekstra

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@martijnhoekstra

martijnhoekstra Jul 31, 2013

And my axe!

I mean, yeah, I hereby multi-license anything I did under the above MIT license

martijnhoekstra commented Jul 31, 2013

And my axe!

I mean, yeah, I hereby multi-license anything I did under the above MIT license

@Technical-13

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Technical-13

Technical-13 Sep 25, 2013

Contributor

@theopolisme isn't this done as well?

Contributor

Technical-13 commented Sep 25, 2013

@theopolisme isn't this done as well?

@theopolisme

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theopolisme

theopolisme Sep 25, 2013

Contributor

Riamse said no..

Contributor

theopolisme commented Sep 25, 2013

Riamse said no..

@ghost ghost assigned Nathan2055 Sep 25, 2013

@Technical-13

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Technical-13

Technical-13 Sep 25, 2013

Contributor

@Riamse Care to expand on your "no", please?

Contributor

Technical-13 commented Sep 25, 2013

@Riamse Care to expand on your "no", please?

@Riamse

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Riamse

Riamse Sep 25, 2013

Contributor

No.

Contributor

Riamse commented Sep 25, 2013

No.

@Riamse

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Riamse

Riamse Sep 25, 2013

Contributor

Just close the issue, you're never going to change my mind.

Contributor

Riamse commented Sep 25, 2013

Just close the issue, you're never going to change my mind.

@theopolisme

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theopolisme

theopolisme Sep 26, 2013

Contributor

IANAL, but I'm curious if it would suffice for me to simply manually rewrite+push them as my own (and deleting your commits from the repo in the process). There was no new higher level logic in what you implemented, only rote "convert to jQuery" (which, in a sense, a fairly unsophisticated machine could do). It would obviously be a different story if said contributions included, say, writing a new function, or something that included making significant design decisions. Hell, maybe I've twisted copyright into an entirely new beast, but this kind of makes sense to me. Any lawyers here?

Contributor

theopolisme commented Sep 26, 2013

IANAL, but I'm curious if it would suffice for me to simply manually rewrite+push them as my own (and deleting your commits from the repo in the process). There was no new higher level logic in what you implemented, only rote "convert to jQuery" (which, in a sense, a fairly unsophisticated machine could do). It would obviously be a different story if said contributions included, say, writing a new function, or something that included making significant design decisions. Hell, maybe I've twisted copyright into an entirely new beast, but this kind of makes sense to me. Any lawyers here?

@Technical-13

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Technical-13

Technical-13 Sep 26, 2013

Contributor

@theopolisme meet me on IRC to discuss it.

Contributor

Technical-13 commented Sep 26, 2013

@theopolisme meet me on IRC to discuss it.

@wikipedia-mabdul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wikipedia-mabdul

wikipedia-mabdul Sep 28, 2013

Member

although I still think this is a stupid idea (and I have nothing against any license per se), it is more idiotic to revert @Riamse 's changes...

well somehow I have another concern. CC-BY-SA and GFDL are no software license and thus we MIGHT getting a problem. We do use "linking" of other code (AutoEd, Tim's display code (which was also forked!) and formatgeneral) taht isn't defined in any way in those licenses. That is exactly the reasons why these licenses shouldn't be used for software projects.

@Technical-13 if you still want to relicense the code (I won't say no) then ping StevenW that this problem has also be checked by the legal department of the WMF.

Member

wikipedia-mabdul commented Sep 28, 2013

although I still think this is a stupid idea (and I have nothing against any license per se), it is more idiotic to revert @Riamse 's changes...

well somehow I have another concern. CC-BY-SA and GFDL are no software license and thus we MIGHT getting a problem. We do use "linking" of other code (AutoEd, Tim's display code (which was also forked!) and formatgeneral) taht isn't defined in any way in those licenses. That is exactly the reasons why these licenses shouldn't be used for software projects.

@Technical-13 if you still want to relicense the code (I won't say no) then ping StevenW that this problem has also be checked by the legal department of the WMF.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment