Talk:GetWiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2006. The result of the discussion was merge the most important information to Wikinfo. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Intro
How were they allowed to do this? Derivative works have to be licensed under the GPL(see section TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION point 2 b. I'm looking into it.Superm401 15:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it is, but try telling that to them. Speaking about licenses, I wish the FSF and CC would reconcile By-Sa, GPL, and GFDL. The modular licenses of CC are cool because one can create a license for any occasion by combing modules (in legal terms, clauses) like tinkertoys. By the way, even if MediaWiki would use By-Sa instead of GPL, its derivatives would require an identical license, so this would be a violation of license no matter what.
--
— Ŭalabio 07:07, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
[edit] Huh
I seems to smell anger and frustration here - take two deep breaths, then let all three out...
[edit] Simply Take it
I think we should simply take it back. Creative Commons is a step forward for creative works, but a step backwards for free software. Noncommercial use only is exclusivly prohibited by the GPL. Therefore, since GetWiki is under CC-BY-NC-SA ILLEGALY, simply take back the code that we want and see if they challenge it. If they want to challenge our retaking the code that is ours according to the terms of the GPL, let them, and see how their challenge stands up in court. (read: it won't)
- I would agree with that, and I'm sure the FSF would be interested in defending such a challenge to the GPL. The funny thing, by the way, is that this Talk page is mirrored without comment on Wikinfo :) --kingboyk 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I just got reply from FSF licencing dep. , its definitely in violation, and FSF would indeed gladly help mediawiki to enforce GPL in this case. however, on mediawikis IRC it was said that getwiki simply isnt worth any effort, that is just some 100line thingy that anyone could reimplement in a sec if someone wanted to. So I guess, getwiki will continue to be ignored. I just hope that someone will make a getwiki-like module for wikimedia then, if its really that trivial, cuz such or similar functionality imo can really help smaller wikis to be more usefull, and can be even more interesting if it allows such small wikis to be a 'hub' using multiple other wikis as its sources, as it is announced for the new getwiki version. --Aryah 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No worries
Actually, they have the right to take it under the original "spirit" of U.S. copyright law, i.e. if you sued them, you'd both lose money to lawyers, but nobody would get anything. You just shouldn't really be able to acomplish anything by sueing someone doing something for free. Clearly the same should apply to their code which you want. Modern copyright law probably says that you need to sue them to keep it from getting out or some such b.s.
- Thing is, the origional "spirit" is not what the law says today. Yay messy laws!--Kinkoblast 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- But, this goes both ways - others can ignore their licence like they ignored the GPL, only if they do sue, they'd have a tough time disproving their licence is not invalid, and GPL being its true state. --Aryah 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What it says at getwiki
- "In fact, there is no prevention of developers, such as those making up MediaWiki Development, from taking GetWiki and incorporating the changes and improvements into their application. There is also nothing preventing developers from creating their own XML import solution. The technical task GetWiki performs in importing articles from other Wikis is actually a "trivial" one, and the code to do so is readily available on the internet from a variety of sources. Therefore, the split licensing of GetWiki may break spirit with the GPL, but it is not meant to prevent otherwise open source applications or derivative works - it is not a patent." http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=GetWiki:1.0
That doesn't make it any clearer. "there is no prevention..." Anyway, the XML import is desirable.GangofOne 00:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- ANyway, continuing: "GetWiki 1.0 is available, and the current download (180k) is the first release. It is a substantial fork of MediaWiki 1.1.0, and is currently running Wikinfo as included in the tar archive(or different, as noted). Changes will be noted here as a simple changelog. By requirement, GetWiki 1.0 is released under GPL, but new code, documentation and images are released under CCL, which is not intended to preclude code-merging back into MediaWiki." So? Is it so? GangofOne 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GPL violation??
GetWiki is certanly in violation of GPL It says: After a series of bugfixes to Mediawiki 1.1.0, it became apparent the Internet-Encyclopedia software had been "forked", and GetWiki 1.0 was born. - so its a fork of the GPL-d Mediawiki.
GPL states: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ..
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
and
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
and GetWiki: Licensing Explained - GetWiki uses a "split" license, where part of the code and the images are not released under the GPL, but under the CCL. The relevant files are under the Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0, while the README is under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0. The remaining modified files are under the GPL.
The intention has been simply to bar the commercial application of GetWiki -well, no, they cannot bar the commertial application of any work forked from a GPL-licenced code!
maybe they are using this part of the GPL:
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally. - but this means they got explicit permission from the Mediawiki developers, and they dont even claim this anywhere
Ive attempted to ask the creators of GetWiki about this, but theyre apperently having some technical difficulties with their message-posting page, so I couldnt. Ill ask the FSF for clarification too.
In any case, if it is a violation, theres nothing preventing Mediawiki from using GetWiki's code, and also nothing preventing commertial use of it; their licences are simply void, in terms of the GPL; therefore, you dont have to sue them, you can just ignore them.
You say they deny it - how do they deny it - theres no defence on their site, or mention of the contraversy; is there any legal argument they use to defent their actions??? --Aryah 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Performance issues
Question: Why are there performance issues with categories? Is this actual or perceived? So far I've been unable to detect any problems or issues with the use of categories in my own wiki. DeMarco 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias feature comparision
I know loads of people here aren't exactly big fans of GetWiki, but that feature comparision table:
- It's very biased to MediaWiki
- Why do we even need to compare them at all - it seems to me it's happening just because it's a fork
Just wondering... Simon 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, probably because GetWiki is the only known fork of the MediaWiki software, so I guess one could say it's a special circumstance. Also due to the fact that GetWiki is a fork of a very, very early version of MediaWiki (I believe 1.1.0, from 2003) while the current version of MediaWiki (1.8.2) is virtually a completely different piece of software, so prospective users might want to be aware of incompatibilities and such. I don't think it's a big deal. metaspheres 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki Smith
Will Smith may have already sold out and released a song to help with even more marketing, called "Gettin' Wiki Wit It". :P Druss666uk 11:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
