Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Doc James/punctuation3.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. —ScottyWong— 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Doc James/punctuation3.js
Contains Wikiplus. No license on that page or https://wikiplus-app.com or https://wikiplus-app.com/Main.js. According to https://github.com/Wikiplus/Wikiplus and zh.moegirl.org.cn it's actually licensed under the Apache License. The Apache License isn't listed as a CC compatible license so I don't think we can host local copies. To be clear I do not endorse Wikiplus and I don't know if it would be safe to load it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There's no problem with hosting Apache-licensed code locally, as far as I know. The link that you point to actually indicates what licenses can be used for redistributing CC-BY-SA licensed content, which is a separate thing altogether. Note that the list includes GPL – even though GPL-licensed code cannot be placed on-wiki (it's clarified in the description –
compatibility with the GPLv3 is one-way only, which means you may license your contributions to adaptations of BY-SA 4.0 materials under GPLv3, but you may not license your contributions to adaptations of GPLv3 projects under BY-SA 4.0.
). – SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)- SD0001, you are right about the link being about the other way around. But as far as I know, all content must be available under a BY-SA 3.0 license here, or licensed in a way that allows relicensing as BY-SA 3.0. For example BY 3.0 could be relicensed. 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;". IANAL, but there is no such requirement in BY-SA 3.0, so it would seem incompatible. 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. If these files were hosted on m:Toolforge or something I'm guessing it would be fine as Toolforge only seems to require that "the software is licensed under an Open Source license", but Wikipedia isn't Toolforge. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Replied at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Mohanad_Kh/QuickEdit.js, no point in duplicating the discussion further. – SD0001 (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- SD0001, you are right about the link being about the other way around. But as far as I know, all content must be available under a BY-SA 3.0 license here, or licensed in a way that allows relicensing as BY-SA 3.0. For example BY 3.0 could be relicensed. 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;". IANAL, but there is no such requirement in BY-SA 3.0, so it would seem incompatible. 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. If these files were hosted on m:Toolforge or something I'm guessing it would be fine as Toolforge only seems to require that "the software is licensed under an Open Source license", but Wikipedia isn't Toolforge. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and seek qualified advice. Beware copyright paranoia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 14 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.