Last modified: 2011-07-29 00:27:30 UTC
Created attachment 8833 [details] Indicate that MediaWiki is licensed only under GPL v2. Fixed link to GNU.org. MediaWiki is licensed under GPL v2. GPL v3 is incompatible with GPL v2.[1] An extension writer I work with recently committed some code under GPL v3. I am already telling him to fix this, since we already have the implicit ban on GPL v3 because we say that extensions must be under a compatible license. But I noticed in the course of doing this that the README file says MediaWiki "it is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later". This was added in 2005[2], well before it was known that GPL v3 was incompatible. So, we should fix this. Patch attached - just making this bug so it gets a wider airing before I pull the trigger. [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html [2] See r11770
I don't agree that we should go GPLv2 only, but I also think we should avoid incorporating GPLv3 code into our codebase unless/until such a time that we agree as a project to make the change.
(In reply to comment #1) > I don't agree that we should go GPLv2 only, but I also think we should avoid > incorporating GPLv3 code into our codebase unless/until such a time that we > agree as a project to make the change. We're not, the patch just removes the "or later" from the "GPL v2 or later". GPLv3 is *already* excluded because it has to be a compatible license. This just makes it a bit clearer.
MediaWiki is under "GPL v2 or later", so it's actually quite fine to write a GPLv3 extension I would imagine... it just means that the combination when you load them together is forced to GPLv3 as well.
(In reply to comment #3) > MediaWiki is under "GPL v2 or later", so it's actually quite fine to write a > GPLv3 extension I would imagine... it just means that the combination when you > load them together is forced to GPLv3 as well. Okay, RobLa and I just talked about this in person, and I think I understand it now. So we don't mind being open to GPLv3, in the sense that someone could write an extension that was GPLv3, and then the combination of MediaWiki plus that extension would be GPLv3. However, as a matter of WMF policy, is it correct to assume that everyone who works for us should be writing GPLv2, or just saying "this extension is licensed under the same terms as MediaWiki"?
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > MediaWiki is under "GPL v2 or later", so it's actually quite fine to write a > > GPLv3 extension I would imagine... it just means that the combination when you > > load them together is forced to GPLv3 as well. > > Okay, RobLa and I just talked about this in person, and I think I understand it > now. So we don't mind being open to GPLv3, in the sense that someone could > write an extension that was GPLv3, and then the combination of MediaWiki plus > that extension would be GPLv3. > > However, as a matter of WMF policy, is it correct to assume that everyone who > works for us should be writing GPLv2 That is, GPL v2 or greater. Jeroen wants to abbreviate this as "@license GPL v2+"; I don't know if that actually has any meaning though.
Yeah, pretty much all the code we're writing should be "GPLv2 or later" to match MediaWiki. Occasional separate bits are sometimes MIT or 2-clause BSD or otherwise GPLv2-compatible-ish.
Re: "@license GPL v2+". That makes enough sense to me, but I'm wondering under what context we need to be that frugal (as opposed to the clearer "GPL v2 or later"). It's not a huge deal either way.
