@Multichill @JeanFred @Platonides Am I just blind here?

If this was never explicitly licensed to start with what are the steps for remedying that? A legalpad where all contributors say "ok" to whatever license is picked?

If a particular tools (subdirectories) is differently licensed (or unlicensed) is that a huge issue?

I am surprised by this. I thought this was GPLv2 (like MediaWiki). Maybe we talked about it on Berlin but forgot to write it down? O_O

Since this lived on the toolserver back then, it probably had a license set there. But it may have been lost on migration :/

No, I don't see a problem with separate tools having different licenses. IMHO simply a statement here would be enough.

Toolserver had the concept of a default license. We probably had it set for this one. I would say dual GPLv2 and MIT (pick what you like).

So how about setting dual GPLv2 and MIT for everything in the repo other then certain named subdirectories.

I'll list my initial suggestion for excluded subcategories in the task description based on the ones I'm unsure where they came from. Feel free to remove any you know are made by the three of you or ping the person who made it to see if we can get their approval. Same goes for anyone else you remember might have been (heavily) involved in this.

Found this one again and discovered why I never moved forwards with it.

The plan was to stick a LICENSE.MIT and LICENSE.GPL file in the root directory specifying the dual license along with a LICENSE file in each of the exempted directories simply stating they are not covered.

What stopped me was the whole issue with license headers in each source file as required by GPL.

Oh, geez, we never followed-up on that >_>. Adding at least MIT sounds good to me.

In T174633#9828797, @JeanFred wrote:

Oh, geez, we never followed-up on that >_>. Adding at least MIT sounds good to me.

Yes, let's do MIT

Look at all my good intentions 7 years ago. had completely forgotten about it.

Per the discussion above (about Toolserver using default licenses) it sounds like an MIT license in the root should work. I won't dual license it though to save us the GPL header headache.

I'll try todo that, and add the exemptions to some of the subfolders per the suggestion in the task description(?), in the coming days.

Change #1064471 had a related patch set uploaded (by Lokal Profil; author: Lokal Profil):

[labs/tools/heritage@master] Add LICENSE to repo

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1064471

Change #1064471 merged by jenkins-bot:

[labs/tools/heritage@master] Add LICENSE to repo

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1064471

Mentioned in SAL (#wikimedia-cloud) [2024-09-01T18:56:27Z] <wmbot~jeanfred@tools-sgebastion-10> Deploy b11a390, d178412, 669b549, e1e2330, d042582 (T174633), e079bf5 (T319787), 856f770, 86c9e0e, 4faee34 (T319787)