Talk:Chemical Markup support for Wikimedia Commons

Conflict with IEG project?
You say: "Some of my time will go into the Pronunciation Recording Gadget. But this has a wider schedule and I'll have plenty of time this spring/summer." Can you describe in more detail the scenario where you get both proposals accepted? Your school calendar will probably overlap as well. How do you plan to handle priorities? My reason to ask is to make sure you acknowledge that GSoC is considered to be a full-time job.--Qgil (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Be assured, I am aware that GSoC is considered a full-time job. I read the FAQ twice and my school calendar will certainly not overlap. I'll take this semester for coding, learning about it and reading news about MediaWiki, if my proposal is being accepted. This means 35 hrs/week in numbers for GSoC. If not accepted, I'll either do an internship elsewhere or start coding this outside the frame of GSoC. However, I may decide working on weekends and I will certainly not be available all the time in IRC due to too much distraction. Now, if you look at the anticipated work for PRG, it is 5(+2) hrs/week till December 2014, you get a total of 40(+2) hrs/week, which I think is manageable, don't you think? Do you agree about the 35 hrs/week as a viable interpretation of primary focus this summer? -- Rillke (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mentors
Your proposal says: "Possible mentors: Gilles Dubuc, Brian Wolff, Bryan Davis". However, only Bryan Davis is confirmed, and he is already primary mentor in another project. We must clarify this situation.--Qgil (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked Gilles in IRC and he is waiting for the opinion of the other guys. I'll certainly require someone reviewing the JavaScript part.
 * Not sure about bawolff, whom I would really love to see helping out if Bryan is too busy; sent an e-Mail but it's perhaps just too late or they need more time for consideration. Should I bump more people? -- Rillke (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

AGPL a con?
Why is AGPL treated as a con and GPL as a pro? It makes no sense. AGPL is a free license, and it's possibly the best copyleft license out there. NMaia (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not reviewed the page again, but this is not a judgement of AGPL in general, only for the specific context i.e. Wikimedia Commons. One simple "con" of AGPL is that you can't relicense a software to GPL, so we'd have one license more to keep compliance with. (Then this is probably a very small cost, but it does exist.) Nemo 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)