Relicense AFCH under the MIT license

[theopolisme]

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]

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

[legoktm]

Sure.

[Nathan2055]

@wikipedia-mabdul - Still awaiting your !vote.

[wikipedia-mabdul]

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]

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

[wikipedia-mabdul]

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

[wikipedia-mabdul]

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

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

[enterprisey]

!vote Yes. Sure!

[ghost]

No.

[wikipedia-mabdul]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMr.Z-man%2FcloseAFD.js&diff=566490263&oldid=509488129 so leaving Riamse and Tim.

[wikipedia-mabdul]

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]

And my axe!

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

[Technical-13]

@theopolisme isn't this done as well?

[theopolisme]

Riamse said no..

[Technical-13]

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

[ghost]

No.

[ghost]

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

[theopolisme]

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]

@theopolisme meet me on IRC to discuss it.

[wikipedia-mabdul]

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.