Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mohanad Kh/QuickEdit.js

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Mohanad Kh/QuickEdit.js

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Contains Wikiplus. No license on that page or https://wikiplus-app.com or https://wikiplus-app.com/Main.js. According to https://github.com/Wikiplus/Wikiplus and zh.moegirl.org.cn it's actually licensed under the Apache License. The Apache License isn't listed as a CC compatible license so I don't think we can host local copies. To be clear I do not endorse Wikiplus and I don't know if it would be safe to load it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no problem with hosting Apache-licensed code locally, as far as I know. The link that you point to actually indicates what licenses can be used for redistributing CC-BY-SA licensed content, which is a separate thing altogether. Note that the list includes GPL – even though GPL-licensed code cannot be placed on-wiki (it's clarified in the description – compatibility with the GPLv3 is one-way only, which means you may license your contributions to adaptations of BY-SA 4.0 materials under GPLv3, but you may not license your contributions to adaptations of GPLv3 projects under BY-SA 4.0.). – SD0001  (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , you are right about the link being about the other way around. But as far as I know, all content must be available under a BY-SA 3.0 license here, or licensed in a way that allows relicensing as BY-SA 3.0. For example BY 3.0 could be relicensed. I tried finding some info about compatibility between Apache License 2.0 and BY-SA 3.0 but haven't been able to find anything. So I started reading the license and one requirement is "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;". IANAL, but there is no such requirement in BY-SA 3.0, so it would seem incompatible. The Apache License states "Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions." (bold mine) Here's a requirement from BY-SA 3.0: "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." No such condition in the Apache license from what I see. If these files were hosted on Toolforge or something I'm guessing it would be fine as Toolforge only seems to require that "the software is licensed under an Open Source license", but Wikipedia isn't Toolforge. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * IANAL, ... Exactly. You're not a lawyer. It's not that straightforward. These pages are dual-licensed. Any code uploaded to the wiki is implicitly released under BY-SA 3.0 – that license doesn't have to be mentioned in the code. In this case, the code is licensed under both Apache (explicitly) and BY-SA 3.0 (implicitly). Parts of the AFCH gadget and widely used scripts like User:RedWarn/.js are also released under Apache. Several gadgets and MW scripts like MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js are released under MIT (to which your arguments would also apply). There's no justification based on licensing to delete the pages, unless Creative-Commons or WMF legal or other competent authority declares the licenses incompatible. – SD0001  (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , how is the code licensed under BY-SA 3.0? I have no problem with dual licensing (I know all about it), but where (diff) has the author released the code under BY-SA 3.0? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a diff. Just above the "Publish changes" button on every page lies the text By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. – SD0001  (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , fine, page revision then. The page by Mohanad Kh doesn't count as he isn't the author afaik. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the original author doing it is necessary. Twitter hasn't released the Hogan library under BY-SA, so you could as well demand the first 576 lines of MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js be deleted. That's a sitewide gadget in use by 8000 people, so a licensing violation in that would be a lot more concerning. Why worry about an obscure user page that no one is using? – SD0001  (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , only the copyright holder can license their work. I'll nominate afchelper as well. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment That being said, the wiki page (not just the github repo) should indicate the license at the top. – SD0001  (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and seek qualified advice. Beware copyright paranoia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.