Last modified: 2014-06-05 08:52:27 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 65270 - Default license for operations/puppet
Default license for operations/puppet
Status: NEW
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
wmf-deployment
All All
: Low normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
https://git.wikimedia.org/tree/operat...
: ops
Depends on:
Blocks: documentation
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-05-13 17:39 UTC by Matthew Flaschen
Modified: 2014-06-05 08:52 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Matthew Flaschen 2014-05-13 17:39:03 UTC
operations/puppet uses a few different licenses that are explicitly stated in parts (e.g. different modules).  However, that does not seem to be a default license in the root that applies unless otherwise stated.

So if code doesn't specify a license explicitly (which some code in the repo does not), no particular license clearly applies.
Comment 1 Luis Villa (WMF Legal) 2014-05-13 17:56:02 UTC
What are the existing licenses? And do we have them because people are copying/pasting from other people's puppet confs or just because of random individual choice by our developers?
Comment 2 Matthew Flaschen 2014-05-13 19:57:37 UTC
(Probably incomplete) list:

Apache 2.0
GPL (at least 2+ and 3+)
BSD
MIT

I think the main reason for the inconsistency is importing existing open source code.  However, I didn't really look into whether the in-house modules are consistently licensed.

It would be good to ask some of the ops people about this.  I'll link this on the ops list.
Comment 3 Nik Everett 2014-05-13 20:14:24 UTC
The puppet repository contains many small scripts imported directly from upstream repositories.  I imagine not all of them reference where they came from properly.  I also wouldn't be surprised if a few other them have been copied to the repository and modified beyond recognition.  And still I wouldn't be surprised if some came upstreams which never bothered to set a license.
Comment 4 Andre Klapper 2014-05-22 17:35:47 UTC
(In reply to Matthew Flaschen from comment #2)
> It would be good to ask some of the ops people about this.  I'll link this
> on the ops list.

That thread on ops@ ("License for operations/puppet") didn't trigger any responses so far.
Comment 5 Matthew Flaschen 2014-05-22 20:58:34 UTC
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #4)
> That thread on ops@ ("License for operations/puppet") didn't trigger any
> responses so far.

Yes, the ops and the legal teams will probably have to take the lead on followup.  Feel free to ping whoever you think is appropriate.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links