Template talk:GPL

Non-image alternative?
Is there an alternative for this template that can be used for something other than an image? -- ZJH 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, all text must be licensed under the GFDL. You can dual-license with GPL of course, but you have to make very sure other contributors understand that they are putting their contriobution under the GPL too, if they modify your work.
 * On the other had - what limits the current template to images? -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The template adds whatever transcludes it to Category:GPL images. So if I wanted to release an extension or skin, I'd want to use this template (or something similar) to clarify that I'm releasing it under the GPL.. but extensions/skins are not images, obviously. -- ZJH 05:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look at the category... to be able to tag things other than images correctly, it seems we'd need another template, or "modes" for this one. Anyway, i'm not sure how useful a GPL template for non-image things would be. As I said, any text you put on this wiki must be released under the GFDL, this includes CSS and program code. You can dual-license with GPL of course, or we could have a GPL template that would indicate the license of code hosted elsewhere, and only linked here. But I'm afraid people will misunderstand the template to provide an alternative to GFDL licensing.

Also: all (published) extensions have to be GPL anyway, since they are based on MediaWiki. This also applies to all JavaScript code that uses any function provided by MediaWiki proper, and it also applies to all CSS code that is in some way based on the CSS provided by MediaWiki per default. So, pretty much everything MediaWiki-related can be assumed to be GPL anyway. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 12:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not sure if extensions have to be GPL. They are not derivative works, but separate bits of code that can be bolted onto MediaWiki, therefore they can be released under any license you like, so long as you distribute them separately from GFDL code.  Or at least, that's my understanding... (IANAL).  Of course, if you publish the code here then you are releasing it under GFDL implicitly. --HappyDog 13:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)