Difference between revisions of "Licensing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Licensing in Software == | == Licensing in Software == | ||
| − | Although there are '''several''' advantages to using Free Software, one of the biggest and most obvious advantages is the fact that the licensing is 'free'. This means that you as an organization can spend a LOT less money and time ensuring licensing compliance. There are still compliance issues, but it shouldn't be too difficult | + | Although there are '''several''' advantages to using Free Software, one of the biggest and most obvious advantages is the fact that the licensing is 'free'. This means that you as an organization can spend a LOT less money and time ensuring licensing compliance. There are still compliance issues, but it shouldn't be too difficult. |
== Licensing of Wiki content == | == Licensing of Wiki content == | ||
| − | The Wikipedia project underwent a | + | The Wikipedia project underwent a licensing update in 2008/2009 from GFDL to dual-licensing scheme including the non-compatible CC-BY-SA. In 2016, I'm noticing that there are some quirks in the software that I'm still investigating, so I've got notes here. Basically, I want to simply figure out whether there are any issues to implementors / site Administrators. '''When setting up a fresh install of MediaWiki; or upgrading a previous installation; is there anything to do with regard to the licensing templates or interface messages so that [[Special:Upload]] "just works"?''' One oddity that I found was that there were a bunch of "self-published" options available in the licensing dropdown, however they rely on a template named 'self' which was not present in this wiki. It is not a trivial exercise to export/import the template from mediawiki.org nor wikipedia.com. Because of the complex nature of these licensing templates, it is not possible to "copy" the template text. |
| − | |||
| − | In 2016, I'm noticing that there are some quirks in the software that I'm still investigating, so I've got notes here. Basically, I want to simply figure out whether there are any issues to implementors / site Administrators. '''When setting up a fresh install of MediaWiki; or upgrading a previous installation; is there anything to do with regard to the licensing templates or interface messages so that [[Special:Upload]] "just works"?''' One oddity that I found was that there were a bunch of "self-published" options available in the licensing dropdown, however they rely on a template named 'self' which was not present in this wiki. It is not a trivial exercise to export/import | ||
Ref: | Ref: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update | ||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Self | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Self | ||
| Line 27: | Line 22: | ||
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Files_and_licenses_concept Concept elaboration | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Files_and_licenses_concept Concept elaboration | ||
Compare: | Compare: | ||
| − | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Licenses | + | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Licenses |
| − | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Licenses | + | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Licenses |
| − | * https://freephile.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Licenses | + | * https://freephile.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Licenses |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Wiki]] | [[Category:Wiki]] | ||
| − | |||
Revision as of 10:32, 15 January 2016
This article is about three aspects of Licensing:
- Licensing in general
- Licensing as it applies to software
- Licensing (attribution, etc.) of content/works as it is implemented in MediaWiki system.
Licensing in General[edit | edit source]
Problematic. Expensive. Inhibits creativity and entrepreneurship.
Licensing in Software[edit | edit source]
Although there are several advantages to using Free Software, one of the biggest and most obvious advantages is the fact that the licensing is 'free'. This means that you as an organization can spend a LOT less money and time ensuring licensing compliance. There are still compliance issues, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
Licensing of Wiki content[edit | edit source]
The Wikipedia project underwent a licensing update in 2008/2009 from GFDL to dual-licensing scheme including the non-compatible CC-BY-SA. In 2016, I'm noticing that there are some quirks in the software that I'm still investigating, so I've got notes here. Basically, I want to simply figure out whether there are any issues to implementors / site Administrators. When setting up a fresh install of MediaWiki; or upgrading a previous installation; is there anything to do with regard to the licensing templates or interface messages so that Special:Upload "just works"? One oddity that I found was that there were a bunch of "self-published" options available in the licensing dropdown, however they rely on a template named 'self' which was not present in this wiki. It is not a trivial exercise to export/import the template from mediawiki.org nor wikipedia.com. Because of the complex nature of these licensing templates, it is not possible to "copy" the template text.
Ref:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Self
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Self/doc
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Backlog#Structured_license_metadata (off the priority list for Core team)
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T100335 A bunch of issues being tracked related to this
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/License_integration_MediaWiki last editted in 2014
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Files_and_licenses_concept Concept elaboration
Compare:
