[02:21:26] re: earlier discussion on free licenses, what is the view on agpl3 affero (for software)? I mean as far as wikimedia is concerned? [02:21:40] versus, say, mit [02:23:12] I don't see it being used commonly [02:23:36] ok [02:23:49] is mit considered acceptable? are viral licenses considered better? [02:23:56] dunno if there's a good answer to this, I know it's partly opinion [02:27:05] Most of the time, any OSI-approved free license is good enough, assuming it's compatible with what you're trying to do (not including GPL'd content in an MIT project, for example) [02:27:31] ok, thanks [02:28:15] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy is the top level policy, which is interpreted into https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Cloud_Services_Terms_of_use [02:28:26] (for Wikimedia Cloud Services projects) [02:30:05] MediaWiki itself is GPLv2, so a lot of MediaWiki extensions are GPLv2, but MIT and Apache are also common [02:31:30] A lot of the scripts and gadgets used on-wiki are under the default CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, even though it's not a great software license [02:33:12] MIT seems easiest... it's my default for little bits of software I write. this code is through internet archive but they seem fine with MIT. just mentioned that a recent internal discussion determined AGPLv3 Affero was preferred [02:59:32] thought I saw somewhere that cc-by-sa wasn't considered a valid software license for WM projects [03:00:02] it's not a software license, and shouldn't be used for software [03:00:29] but most people don't give a different license to their on-wiki JavaScript, so that's how it ends up licensed anyway [03:00:51] yeah that's my understanding too. cc-by-sa wasa created as a gpl-like license appropriate for content (afaik) [03:04:33] gadgets, scripts, and modules aren't something I'd consider to be "content" per se, but their output may be, as far as that goes [03:05:19] I guess, but software licenses don't usually apply to content the software creates [03:05:42] e.g. images you create in photoshop [03:06:41] correct, the tools you use (almost always) don't affect the copyright status [03:06:53] otherwise paintbrush manufacturing would be a very lucrative business [03:09:36] haha [04:08:49] any idea why I am throwing this error: [04:08:53] https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/swICzR9D/ [04:09:13] attempting to open https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31452&redirect=no [04:10:04] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimania:Banner&redirect=no fails as a bad title [04:10:32] Hovering over with popups yields {"batchcomplete":true,"query":{"pages":[{"title":"Talk:Wikimania:Banner","invalidreason":"The requested page title refers to a talk page that can not exist.","invalid":true}]},"limits":{"images":500,"categories":500}} [04:12:02] hm, so it cannot exist but it is registering as existing through search and the OrphanTalk tool [04:13:02] I'm guessing it has something to do with Wikimania: now being a valid interwiki prefix [04:13:24] Ah, whereas it wasn't before.. [04:16:26] Yeah, last changed 2005 according to the db [04:18:51] feel free to file a phab task [04:40:50] Note to self: don't press while typing up a Phab task in the modal overlay [04:43:05] and I did it again [04:43:18] too much typing in vim [04:48:44] I just use nano - lot closer to the text editors I used and was familiar with back in the DOS days [04:49:57] vim is just too, idk, tedious, to use for me [04:50:37] I really like the home-row navigation [04:51:13] not having to move to the arrow keys or the mouse is useful for when my arms are tired [04:52:34] stopped using a mouse years ago and switched to trackballs [04:53:06] doesn't work as well on a laptop [04:53:57] originally because of lack of desk space, but after a few days I found a trackball easier to control than a mouse [04:54:30] the scratchpads o laptops though - just a PITA to deal with [04:54:36] on * [04:54:38] I did like trackpoints when they were semi-common in the mid-2000s [04:55:14] *early 2010s [12:13:13] AntiComposite: AGPL is fine as software license (also for screenshots on Wikimedia Commons of course) [12:17:35] Note, WMF has some (or used to) have some issues with AGPL [12:17:40] not sure if they still do [12:18:34] See some of the comments at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76158 [12:19:49] AntiComposite: --^ [12:21:54] Where the answer seems to be, its ok if you go through some secret approval process with no indication of if everyone gets approved or everyone gets rejected [12:23:05] huh i had no idea [12:25:53] nemo_bis: I never said it wasn't, just uncommon [12:34:36] bawolff: Just last week I talked with Luis about those tasks, while we were in Bruxelles. [12:34:54] I wouldn't give too much weight to those old discussions frankly, they're kind of superseded. [12:35:27] That's good to hear [12:35:47] Kind of wish there would be more of an official statement about it :) [12:35:57] Well it's not going to come from Luis :D [12:36:04] I forgot to ask Tony who was also there [12:36:36] Was this at Fosdem? [12:37:58] bawolff: yes but mostly https://2020.copyleftconf.org/ [12:38:35] Cool [12:38:46] Everyone is holding their breath for Oracle v. Google right now, so I wouldn't expect any progress on such AGPL stuff this year. We'll see. [12:38:57] Copyleft is a term i feel like I haven't heard in a while [12:39:37] Now that's weird for me to hear, interesting. [12:39:53] I usually say we're in the business of copyleft and the public domain. [12:40:08] Maybe i just haven't been reading as much political free software stuff lately [12:40:12] (It's faster than FLOSS, free/open culture/knowledge and friends.) [12:40:30] I still hear the term Free software/knowledge/culture thrown around [12:40:44] And the ensuing confusion about free as in beer [12:40:48] all the time [12:41:03] Surprisingly I used "copyleft" talking with a politician in the European Parliament the other day and it wasn't that hard to explain [12:41:22] Yeah exactly, at least "copyleft" is intuitively something about copyright and not-quite-copyright [12:41:47] So, despite being a technical thing which refers to a subset of what we do, it works quite well at a certain level of comprehension with a certain broader audience [12:42:02] I think maybe part of it is that "copyleft" as a term was always very promoted by the Gnu project and FSF, and I think they are losing prominence somewhat [12:42:49] With Stallman repetively shooting himself in the foot politically [12:44:06] And i don't think I've ever really heard any of the creative-commons people use the term copyleft [12:44:19] I doubt it. The -SA clause is a much more prominent example of copyleft nowadays. [12:44:29] I keep seeing it discussed in places outside our usual circles. [12:45:57] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ is probably the most prominent CC webpage and it has "copyleft" in it [12:46:40] interesting [12:46:56] Well it is a good term. "Free" has always had problems [12:51:28] "Open" is no less problematic! Example discussion: https://www.samuelmoore.org/2019/07/16/why-open-science-is-actually-pretty-good-politics/ [12:53:21] In a room with dozens of software copyright lawyers, many with decades of experience (at CopyleftConf), I mentioned the Open definition and OKFN https://opendefinition.org/ and I was surprised when I felt that only maybe one person on stage and a handful off the stage knew what I was talking about [12:53:51] It's shocking the bubbles we live in sometimes [13:02:19] I've actually never heard of the open definition [13:02:49] I've mostly heard of Open being defined as, "released under an OSI approved license" [13:05:16] At least personally, I think i find the DFSG the definition i give the most weight to [13:05:58] Although i recently found out that most free/open/etc folks are appearently ok with fonts that don't allow being distributed by themselves for commercial purposes [13:06:05] Which seems kind of shocking to me [13:07:09] The fonts world is weird [13:07:28] Wikimedia Foundation design doesn't have a spectacular track in this field either. ;-) [13:07:40] OSI definition is basically a repackaged DFSG. [13:10:44] I think it would be nice if commons allowed font uploads [13:11:09] What for? [13:11:29] Danese was also at FOSDEM btw https://fosdem.org/2020/search/?q=danese [13:11:31] Honestly, so that people would stop loading them from tool-forge font cdn and clog up my CSP logs :P [13:11:38] ahah lol [13:12:01] I just configure Firefox to ignore any non-system font and I live happy [13:12:14] It would also be a sane place for loading webfonts in TemplateStyles extension [13:12:52] Not sure about that. There was a time when some wikis loaded bullets and other PNG from Commons via their javaScript and that wasn't too pretty either. [13:13:29] And i guess commons is not really a sane place to upload original artistic work (alas), but it would be nice if it could somehow promote the creation of new and interesting fonts for their own sake [13:13:42] But font people probably have their own site for that, and commons wouldn't be a great match [13:13:44] I thought there were already plenty of such projects [13:14:12] The existing TemplateStyles config, does allow people to use commons for various images to load via css [13:14:34] But I thought that was to handle legacy behaviour rather than to encourage it [13:14:50] I muttered a bit about not registering it in global image links, but to no avail ;) [13:15:18] So the images will get deleted on Commons and we'll realise only years later that they're used on some wiki, as usual. :) [13:15:25] It doesn't give the impression that doing that is deprecated in any way [13:15:46] (But that can happen with a it repository too. All the more easily in fact.) [13:15:47] Giving someone else for the commons community to fight, leaving the poor devs alone ;) [13:17:46] If we are to encourage "art", it would be apposite to allow kinds of arts which are closer to us, like odp. :) [13:18:38] Interestingly enough, TemplateStyles is the only way to directly embed an SVG in a wikipage, without having it rasterized into a png first [13:18:52] I don't see hordes of font creators banging at Wikimedia Commons' gates to upload their fonts, but there is a demand for odp. [13:19:07] bawolff: And... is that a good thing? [13:19:17] I guess we no longer care about Internet Explorer. [13:19:26] Internet Exploder is dead!!! [13:19:43] three cheers for the grim reaper! [13:20:21] If you really care, you can tell CSS to load PNG as a fallback for IE [13:21:00] If nothing else, be nice if people could upload their ODP files of their wikimania presentations to commons [13:21:06] Just what we needed, a thousand small discussions about whether to support IE, once for every template. :D [13:22:11] I'm not sure why we don't let ODP in. We used to originally [13:22:26] I think we even let in the StarOffice file formats from back before openoffice was a thing [13:22:38] There was a technical issue, but that was resolved in like MW 1.17 [13:23:29] "Security says no" [13:23:49] Yeah, security changed its mind, like years ago [13:24:03] And nobody noticed because we had already been discussing it for a decade :D [13:25:01] * Nemo_bis tries to resist the urge to click https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T4089 [13:26:14] I thihttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2014/07#Support_for_OpenDocument_file_format_upload [13:27:55] That discussion was informed by the supposed security risk [13:28:05] Someone just needs to plop https://webodf.org/ into mediawiki [13:28:21] "If it's not secure we don't want it" doesn't mean there is no consensus for the format per se. [13:28:32] Well a bit about macros. The main threat of polygot java and odf file format was fixed by then [13:28:56] And probably even more irrelavent now, are java applets even still a thing? [13:29:32] Probably in some ancient public sector document yes [13:30:07] I suppose ideally we would want to scan the documents for scripts too [13:30:56] PDF allows all sorts of nasty things too, what do we do to filter these? [13:32:32] We write some small text telling users to suck it [13:33:23] If you hover over the right part of the page, you get the message "PDF is a complex format that may expose some of your private information in some cases. Make sure to configure your PDF viewer in a safe way." [13:39:00] bawolff: yeah exactly, so I don't see why odp (which is much more innocuous) should be any different. [13:39:11] Just tell users to use LibreOffice and be happy. [13:41:01] PDF readers can be full-fledged surveillance machines [13:43:23] I'd be fine with it :P [13:45:08] :-) [14:01:08] For those who missed news about CopyleftConf, https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/feb/10/fosdemwrap2020/ [18:48:19] Hello folks! Wikimedia is participating in Outreachy Round 20 and GSoC 2020! Please help us spread the word and share this invitation with friends, family and colleagues who might be interested: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2020-February/093062.html. Cheers! [23:52:35] hi DSquirrelGM [23:55:49] DSquirrelGM, do you have examples of wikis which update echo notifications list on the fly? could you please link? [23:56:45] not off the top of my head, the ones that used to, don't have it set up any more [23:56:56] (that I had seen) [23:58:11] they were also using soe custom extensions for handling them, also