Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep.
WP:SNOW seems to apply at this point in regard to getting this deleted via MfD. Note that if WMF Legal confirms that this content is unacceptable, there is the potential for it to be speedy deleted as an office action or for copyright infringement. RL0919 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
]
MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js
- )
Copyright 2011 Twitter, Inc. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
As pointed out by SD0001 on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mohanad Kh/QuickEdit.js this script also isn't available under a Creative Commons license. The Apache License and Creative Commons don't appear to be compatible in either direction. (see QuickEdit.js discussion) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Frivolous nomination – no evidence has been presented of Apache-licensed content being incompatible with CC-BY-SA/GFDL. I suppose you're going to nominate MediaWiki:Gadget-select2.min.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-select2.min.css as well? Your arguments would apply to literally every license that is not CC-BY-SA, which would mean no libraries at all can be pasted on-wiki. This would mean that no on-wiki gadgets or scripts can use any library not bundled within MediaWiki. Note that importing from toolforge is not an option because toolforge calls are likely to be blocked when CSP comes into effect. – SD0001 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- SD0001, are you a lawyer? There's no evidence that dish soap is incompatible with CC-BY-SA either (forget GFDL, GFDL-only is not allowed and GFDL is not required for third-party content), but unless there's evidence that dish soap or Apache License is compatible, we should assume it's not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not a lawyer. You are the one making the nomination. The onus is on you to justify it. – SD0001 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- SD0001, it is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. These are different licenses. The onus is on those who wish to keep to prove they are compatible. Or change policy to allow Apache License for scripts. I don't care either way, but you can't pretend Apache License is compatible with Creative Commons without proof. And to answer Robert McClenon, I actually am, though there are others who know much more than I do. Copy from the QuickEdit.js nom: I tried finding some info about compatibility between Apache License 2.0 and BY-SA 3.0 but haven't been able to find anything. So I started reading the license and one requirement is "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;". There is no such requirement in BY-SA 3.0, so that's one' reason relicensing Apache License content as BY-SA 3.0 is not possible. The Apache License states "Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions." (bold mine) Here's a requirement from BY-SA 3.0: "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." No such condition in the Apache license from what I see, so it's an additional condition which the Apache License doesn't allow. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous to read the licenses and infer conclusions when you have said already that you are not a lawyer. It is well acknowledged that the GPL license is not inward-compatible with CC-BY-SA. If a similar issue existed with Apache too, that would have been common knowledge. We are not going to rewrite a long-standing and critical tool in use by 8000 users on the basis of an amateur's interpretation of the licensing laws. – SD0001 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- SD0001, ridiculous? What's really ridiculous is assuming they are compatible because their incompatibility isn't common knowledge. No need to rewrite either: convince the author to relicense, move it to Toolforge, change Wikipedia policy or (but I'm telling you, this would be in vain) ask Legal to make a statement that the licenses actually are compatible. Being a long-standing and critical tool should make for some excellent motivation to pursue any or all of those things. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest you read the definitions at the top of the license, specifically the definitions of "Contribution" and "submitted". The quoted text does not apply here. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous to read the licenses and infer conclusions when you have said already that you are not a lawyer. It is well acknowledged that the GPL license is not inward-compatible with CC-BY-SA. If a similar issue existed with Apache too, that would have been common knowledge. We are not going to rewrite a long-standing and critical tool in use by 8000 users on the basis of an amateur's interpretation of the licensing laws. – SD0001 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- SD0001, it is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. These are different licenses. The onus is on those who wish to keep to prove they are compatible. Or change policy to allow Apache License for scripts. I don't care either way, but you can't pretend Apache License is compatible with Creative Commons without proof. And to answer Robert McClenon, I actually am, though there are others who know much more than I do. Copy from the QuickEdit.js nom: I tried finding some info about compatibility between Apache License 2.0 and BY-SA 3.0 but haven't been able to find anything. So I started reading the license and one requirement is "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;". There is no such requirement in BY-SA 3.0, so that's one' reason relicensing Apache License content as BY-SA 3.0 is not possible. The Apache License states "Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions." (bold mine) Here's a requirement from BY-SA 3.0: "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." No such condition in the Apache license from what I see, so it's an additional condition which the Apache License doesn't allow. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not a lawyer. You are the one making the nomination. The onus is on you to justify it. – SD0001 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I reached out to a long-time Wikimedian who's affiliated with Creative Commons and was already looking into some of these issues (IIRC). Legoktm (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- SD0001, are you a lawyer? There's no evidence that dish soap is incompatible with CC-BY-SA either (forget GFDL, GFDL-only is not allowed and GFDL is not required for third-party content), but unless there's evidence that dish soap or Apache License is compatible, we should assume it's not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep unless an editor who is knowledgeable about copylefts offers an opinion that supports the need for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (
but may need a minor modificationit is already modified) - PerPermissive free software licence and as such can be released under different licences. The only thing from reading https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 The only bit I'm not sure about is if the code must be modified to relicense or if you can also relicense without change (but it would more simple to make a minor change than delete). In the Redistribution section of the licence it states "You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)]- KylieTastic, law school 101, always read the full sentence.
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- KylieTastic, law school 101, always read the full sentence.
- Alexis Jazz I did include the Your modifications in my quote and if you apply the read the full sentence to my answer you would see too mentions that we may need to make a minor alteration to comply with relicensing (which after checking turns out it is). I was trying to be succinct on the point that it is widely know as a permissive licence that would indicate this was valid use. If you do apply your 101 and read the complete sentence then you need to expand your bolding to include or for any such Derivative Works as a whole which AFCH could be considered to be. However the full Law 101 would say this should go to WMF Legal as the complete licence needs to be considered and this could affect a huge number of scripts across all Wikipedias. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: extremely out-of-process behaviour by Alexis Jazz, nominating a highly used template crucial for the basic functioning of one of our core content creation processes without prior consultation of WikiProject AfC—or seemingly a lawyer—in a complex case that needs resolution outside of blanket deletion, such as by reassurance of compatibility, code modification or finding somebody able to write a substitute with the same functionality. They instead chose to post a non-neutral canvassing comment at a peanut gallery of no relevance to this topic. Were we to find a copyright issue with the Main Page, we would discuss how to fix it, not nominate it for deletion. Bizarre. Hopefully someone with expertise can come along and show us the next steps. — Bilorv (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Bilorv, why is this out-of-process? The license issue was pointed out to me by SD0001, I have little awareness of AfC or any possibly associated wikiproject. I'm just reporting the license issue. I figured a little more participation would be helpful, so I left a note on a noticeboard which I had zero obligation to do to begin with, and the "keep" votes demonstrate that any perceived bias was completely ineffective. For lack of a generic village pump with a reasonable amount of traffic, AN seemed as good a place as any. But if you have a serious issue with the neutrality, just post a biased notice for this discussion somewhere yourself to even it out.
or seemingly a lawyer
Consultation with a lawyer? I can't believe the commenters here force me to do this, but I've just mailed Legal for you. I honestly couldn't blame them if they replied with "gee, what do you think?" as I'm likely wasting their time. When it comes to copyright, me and Legal are generally on the same page.needs resolution outside of blanket deletion
Don't be fooled by the name of this section. The outcome of a discussion here isn't always deletion. For general content there are other outcomes like userfication or a merge. In this case, if rewriting/relicensing can't be done within a reasonable amount of time, a move to Toolforge seems the most probable for the short term. (I am curious why Twitter is the author of an AfC script though?)Were we to find a copyright issue with the Main Page, we would discuss how to fix it, not nominate it for deletion.
Actually we would, we just wouldn't have a visible notice on the main page for it. As this is a script, there is no visible notice for the script users anyway. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Bilorv, why is this out-of-process? The license issue was pointed out to me by SD0001, I have little awareness of AfC or any possibly associated wikiproject. I'm just reporting the license issue. I figured a little more participation would be helpful, so I left a note on a noticeboard which I had zero obligation to do to begin with, and the "keep" votes demonstrate that any perceived bias was completely ineffective. For lack of a generic village pump with a reasonable amount of traffic, AN seemed as good a place as any. But if you have a serious issue with the neutrality, just post a biased notice for this discussion somewhere yourself to even it out.
- Keep If there is real concern, forward to Wiki Media Foundation legal and let them sort out if we have been out of compliance.Slywriter (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. If Alexis Jazz would like to start a discussion about the use of certain licenses for software components on Wikipedia, which have typically been given the luxury of being licensed as discussed directly in the page of interest rather than taking from the less-specific general license at the bottom of the page, then Alexis Jazz should do that in some reasonably technically-minded forum. Otherwise, this is simply a disruptive nomination. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Izno, this isn't a technical problem, it's a
legalPOLICY problem. If Apache License scripts live on Toolforge I'm fine with that, but this one lives here. If there would be an exception for Javascript on Wikipedia:Copyrights I'd be fine with it too, but there isn't. Besides Wikiplus (which is how I ended up here) which is generally loaded from a third party site, I'm personally unaware of other scripts on Wikipedia with a non-CC license. So why would I start a discussion about it in general? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)- I mean, I'm not going to go back and forth with you. Your nomination was disruptive and you've been around long enough to know that. Izno (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW close this. Clearly we just don't care about proper licensing anymore. With Legoktm striking their keep vote, perhaps there's room for some discussion of the actual matter instead of just shooting the messenger. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)]
this isn't a technical problem, it's a legal problem
— In the comment directly above you say that WMF Legal won't take it down because it is legal to host. So, it's not legal but a policy problem? (And you emailed them despite believing they can take no action because...?) — Bilorv (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)- You totally got me, I used the wrong word! It's a POLICY problem, not a legal problem. And I mailed them so they could confirm that they're not going to state that CC BY-SA would be compatible with Apache License. Because it isn't, but most commenters here want proof, seemingly oblivious to the concept of WP:PROVEIT for that matter. A negative can never be conclusively proven. ("there is no God") — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)]
- You totally got me, I used the wrong word! It's a POLICY problem, not a legal problem. And I mailed them so they could confirm that they're not going to state that CC BY-SA would be compatible with Apache License. Because it isn't, but most commenters here want proof, seemingly oblivious to the concept of
- I mean, I'm not going to go back and forth with you. Your nomination was disruptive and you've been around long enough to know that. Izno (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Izno, this isn't a technical problem, it's a
- Keep This is an absolutely preposterous nomination. Deletion of this (and by implication other similar widely used) script(s) would render the site practically unmanageable. I agree with Slywriter to refer the matter to WMF Legal for firstly a determination whether there is even a problem, and if so for them to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm extremely sorry if I'm bordering on (or have already crossed) the line for WP:SAMPLE) which is erroneously claimed as own work with a CC license would not be taken down by Legal if they think the sample can be defended as Fair use under US law. A script that only has an Apache License can legally be hosted here under that license. It would violate our policy but not the law. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)]
- I'm extremely sorry if I'm bordering on (or have already crossed) the line for
- Procedural keep, seek further legal advice
Alexis Jazz is correct that Apache 2.0 is incompatible with CC-BY-SA/GFDL, but that doesn't matter. By virtue of saving it on a wiki page, you agree to license it under CC-BY-SA/GFDL. So while the source code may say Apache 2.0, it actually is dual -licensed as Apache 2.0 and CC-BY-SA/GFDL.Legoktm (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)I am slightly concerned about Apache 2.0's patent grant not being compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 which does not have one (it was only added in 4.0). But I do not think MfD is a good venue for discussing this, and that we need better advice from WMF legal, OSI, CC, etc. Legoktm (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)- Legoktm, it says "Copyright 2011 Twitter, Inc.", does that mean Twitter, Inc. has an account here? I can save a Harry Potter book to a wiki page but that wouldn't make it BY-SA because I didn't write it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz sorry, I read too quickly and missed that. If that's the case indeed, we would not be able to relicense it. However, I'm trying to look at the actual source, which supposedly is [1], and I'm not immediately finding anything that is seemingly copyrighted by Twitter. Legoktm (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Legoktm, I'm personally completely unfamiliar with the code (I've never even used this gadget), is there any chance you could figure out the origin and reason for the Twitter copyright notice? If we're lucky it's just for a little replaceable function and the notice shouldn't have implied that the script was mostly or entirely made by Twitter. The notice was introduced here in March 2021 by Enterprisey, so actually quite recent. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's coming from the Hogan.js dependency, which is in fact copied into the core.js page by the Grunt build script. MediaWiki used to provide Hogan (via MobileFrontend IIRC) but no longer does since the migration to Mustache for everything. I'm not sure if switching to that is an option, I haven't been involved in AFCH development in years. Legoktm (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Legoktm, thank you! Do you happen to know who is involved in AFCH development? Do you think moving this Hogan.js to Toolforge could be a solution, or at least a stopgap? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the current "maintainer" (quotes, because I've turned shirking my duties in that regard into a science). I've been following this discussion. I appreciate Legoktm's digging; I agree entirely with his explanations. Hogan seems to be available at (big page warning) the Toolforge CDN, and it wouldn't be too difficult to switch it over, just somewhat annoying. I'd rather not take the risk of disrupting AfC unless it would likely be helpful. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Enterprisey, the status quo is unmaintainable. Writing up new policy is likely a lengthy process unless it would be policy to provide an exception in WP:Copyrights specific for just this case which is simpler to write. But such exceptions generally shouldn't be policy (because they're messy), so that may not even survive a vote. When the time comes to close this MfD, the closing admin should be following policy and consider the arguments, not just count votes. And if they do, the only possible outcomes I see are "we postpone the outcome until it's fixed" and "delete per nom". So if you could switch it over, that would be much appreciated. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- sigh, doing Enterprisey (talk!) 04:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done Enterprisey (talk!) 05:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey Please don't. Toolforge is an external service and calls to it would get blocked when CSP enforcement comes into effect. (Even now, you'd get a big red [Report only] error message in the console.) The issue here is larger than just AFCH. – SD0001 (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Expat License (aka MIT). While I haven't been able to find a professional opinion on this, it's likely one-way compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 as the Expat License is very permissive. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Happy to reverse my change if need be; I'd prefer to wait to make further changes until, say, Legal or some authoritative voice weighs in. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey The status quo should be maintained (until some authoritative voice weighs in). Sorry if I'm sounding rude, but you should not make such a drastic change unilaterally to a gadget which you did not originally write, without consulting with ohters. Toolforge, unlike the 'pedia, is not considered a production service. I doubt if Toolforge has edge-location caches all over the world like Wikipiedia has. Toolforge downtimes are more frequent than WP downtimes. Pulling in a library from there will make the script slower and less stable for a large number of users (likely the ones who are not in USA). – SD0001 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I find that convincing, change reverted. The potential legal issues have stood for several years at this point, a few more days won't hurt. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (I already said this on IRC, but repeating for the record) In addition to all the technical reasons SD0001 provided, Toolforge has a different privacy policy than the main wikis. For tools like "cdnjs" which is operated by Toolforge admins (all NDA'd) this isn't a significant issue, but is another reason why Toolforge is considered "external" and will be blocked by CSP. Otherwise afch should be marked as loading external resources "(E)" on Special:Gadgets, which I think is mostly avoidable. Legoktm (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey The status quo should be maintained (until some authoritative voice weighs in). Sorry if I'm sounding rude, but you should not make such a drastic change unilaterally to a gadget which you did not originally write, without consulting with ohters. Toolforge, unlike the 'pedia, is not considered a production service. I doubt if Toolforge has edge-location caches all over the world like Wikipiedia has. Toolforge downtimes are more frequent than WP downtimes. Pulling in a library from there will make the script slower and less stable for a large number of users (likely the ones who are not in USA). – SD0001 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- sigh, doing Enterprisey (talk!) 04:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Enterprisey, the status quo is unmaintainable. Writing up new policy is likely a lengthy process unless it would be policy to provide an exception in WP:Copyrights specific for just this case which is simpler to write. But such exceptions generally shouldn't be policy (because they're messy), so that may not even survive a vote. When the time comes to close this MfD, the closing admin should be following policy and consider the arguments, not just count votes. And if they do, the only possible outcomes I see are "we postpone the outcome until it's fixed" and "delete per nom". So if you could switch it over, that would be much appreciated. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the current "maintainer" (quotes, because I've turned shirking my duties in that regard into a science). I've been following this discussion. I appreciate Legoktm's digging; I agree entirely with his explanations. Hogan seems to be available at (big page warning) the Toolforge CDN, and it wouldn't be too difficult to switch it over, just somewhat annoying. I'd rather not take the risk of disrupting AfC unless it would likely be helpful. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Legoktm, thank you! Do you happen to know who is involved in AFCH development? Do you think moving this Hogan.js to Toolforge could be a solution, or at least a stopgap? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's coming from the Hogan.js dependency, which is in fact copied into the core.js page by the Grunt build script. MediaWiki used to provide Hogan (via MobileFrontend IIRC) but no longer does since the migration to Mustache for everything. I'm not sure if switching to that is an option, I haven't been involved in AFCH development in years. Legoktm (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Legoktm, I'm personally completely unfamiliar with the code (I've never even used this gadget), is there any chance you could figure out the origin and reason for the Twitter copyright notice? If we're lucky it's just for a little replaceable function and the notice shouldn't have implied that the script was mostly or entirely made by Twitter. The notice was introduced here in March 2021 by Enterprisey, so actually quite recent. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz sorry, I read too quickly and missed that. If that's the case indeed, we would not be able to relicense it. However, I'm trying to look at the actual source, which supposedly is [1], and I'm not immediately finding anything that is seemingly copyrighted by Twitter. Legoktm (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Legoktm that link was briefly discussed on the other nomination. It's about outward-compatibility rather than inward-compatibility. It just means that CC-BY-SA code should not be used in a Apache project, which does not imply the vice-versa. (eg. MIT-licensed code is fine to include in a GPL-licensed project, but not the other way around.) – SD0001 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Legoktm, it says "Copyright 2011 Twitter, Inc.", does that mean Twitter, Inc. has an account here? I can save a Harry Potter book to a wiki page but that wouldn't make it BY-SA because I didn't write it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hey look, it's snowing here and outside at the same time. nableezy - 22:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, seek qualified advice. Beware copyright paranoia. Complicated copyright issues can be fixed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Initially I wanted to say that we can't host this since we aren't allowed to sublicense the original work to a different license. But, after consulting many documents, legal advice pages, and Joinup by the European Commission regarding license compatibility, I've come to understand that the Apache license is a permissive license which allows you to relicense your whole project under a new license, as long as you details your specific modifications since permissive licenses do not force derivative works to use the same license. If we were to keep their original code unchanged, then no we couldn't keep it, but if some changes has ben made, the entire code can be relicensed. However, it can not be kept on wiki stating that the code is under an Apache license, it needs to say that it is under a Creative Commons (or Creative Commons + GFDL dual) license, but that the original code were licensed under Apache for attribution purposes. And simply publishing the code here on Wikipedia does not entail that the code is automatically licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 as normal text in articles would, since the code on GitHub has been contributed to by multiple people, and not just the user who created the MediaWiki-gaget page here. That person can't speak for all contributors, unless modification ot the code is made by the user prior to publishing it here, making it a different codebase which can be relicensed. Right? Legoktm: Am I making sense here? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.