MWExtensions.6.zho.patch

This is the patch file of the Chinese language(zho) and Cantonese language(yue)
messages for the Makebot, NewestPages, Patroller and UserImages extensions.

attachment MWExtensions.6.zho.patch ignored as obsolete

robchur wrote:

The UserImages extension is not GPL.

So is that the UserImages extension cannot be localised at this moment?

And also the others are okay to commit the changes?

robchur wrote:

That's not the case; rather, be careful what you add into it; in an ideal
situation, the translations would have the same licence as the rest of the code
(BSD licence).

Currently, The Makebot extension is licensed as GPLv2+, the NewestPages and
Patroller extensions are licensed as GPLv2, and no licence details for
UserImages extension.

So I and the other authors need to publish those extensions under GPLv2? (I am
currently asking others to let the texts licensed under GPL, which is at
[[w:zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/技术#有關巡邏員、機器人加收權、用戶圖像以及新頁面擴展
的介面翻譯]].)

robchur wrote:

Ah, just go ahead and apply the patches. If the FSF or anyone else complains,
we'll tell them where to go.

So I need to take some time to add the author/license details and resubmit the
new patch later, also maybe need to fix some mistyped letters. :)

I think I need to split up the patches above to claim that which extension
translations are published to which license.

MWExtensions.6.zho.patch

Just added the author info of those extensions.

The patches for these extensions are hereby released under GPLv2 or later. See
the pages for licensing info:

[[zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/技术#有關巡邏員、機器人加收權、用戶圖像以及新頁面擴展的介面翻譯]]
(Chinese messages)

• [[zh-yue:User

talk:Hillgentleman#有關Makebot,NewestPages同埋Patroller嘅擴展翻譯]]
(Cantonese messages)

Attached:

And also, The UserImages extension should be licenced unde GPLv2 or later,
according to the README file of the MediaWiki Software. I get no idea what you
are saying at comment #4. As quoted from the readme file, 'The contributors hold
the copyright to this work, and it is licensed
under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later[1]
(see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Derivative works and later
versions of the code must be free software licensed under the same
terms. This includes "extensions" that use MediaWiki functions or
variables; see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
for details.' The extensions that created should be licensed under GPLv2 or
later, not in others as you are said at comment #4 (BSD licence).

robchur wrote:

Fine, that's simple to work around. As far as I'm concerned, it's dual-licenced.

So for your information, which extension(s) are dual-licenced? I hereby to
released under the same licence that the extension(s) have. :)

As far as I know that the files in the SVN repos does not mention thae which
licence(s) have been licensed. For example the UserImages extension:

UserImages.php
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/UserImages/UserImages.php?revision=18389

UserImages.class.php
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/UserImages/UserImages.class.php?revision=18388

UserImages.i18n.php
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/UserImages/UserImages.i18n.php?revision=18388

From those files above, there's no such information (as of the revisions above)
to telling that those extensions are dual licensed. So I assume that
extension(s) is licenced under GPLv2 or later, according the information given
from the README file
(http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/README?view=co).

But anyway, if any extensions above are dual (or triple et al) licenced, please
release the patch file under the same licence that those extensions have.

Applied with r20179