Great!

Thanks for continuing to poke on this, folks :)

The documentation can include "get it upstream", but our users are likely
going to look first at our documentation (since they have no idea what
Zotero is).

Yes, many things are arguable. It'd be nice to be able to experiment and
base the discussion on data.

Without endorsing this particular solution, there are of course going to be
sophisticated attackers, but we also get plenty of unsophisticated
attackers. If we can get creative about how to handle those, we should.

@Jdlrobson: I believe what Rupert is asking for is essentially a toolbar with a link "button", akin to what is available (at least on enwiki) on desktop.

Would make sense, I think - check with Caitlin?

I guess, though realistically I am unlikely to track it here :)

OK, good to know - thanks! (And obviously she's the right one to talk to about this stuff :)

@Ironholds any update on this? Curious.

Done.

I have them, and Daisy should have filed them for legal.

What is scfc's full name so I can search my inbox?

Thanks!

It appears to be assigned to you, Quim? (Unless I'm misreading Phab?)

No need that I can see.

Yes and yes.

(But I may be missing something - I'm not sure I completely follow the relevant workflow.)

I don't see the concern here. There is no protectable interest in merely the fact that this article is a translation of the other article, so no one needs to consent to it being added to the database.

Ah, I see what you mean! Yes, I agree that labs should not get iw_local for right now; possibly that's something to revisit in the future but for now, if anything, we'd talked about making it *more* clear that you were leaving the site, not less clear.

@coren should confirm, but my understanding is that Labs is behind a proxy so that this sort of logging is not possible.

No objection here to the general idea, though as noted some care should be
taken around personal data/passwords.

I think I'm missing some context here. Few questions:

The basic theory for CC0 is:

I don’t have a lot of time to respond in detail today, but I will try to do so soon. In the meantime, I’m confused - why is Apache acceptable where CC0 is not, @hashar? The attribution requirement, or…? I feel like I must be missing something.

It was originally marked high because it is actively exploited by paid editors. Assuming that is still going on and the folks who check new pages for advertising have not found a good workaround, I think this should still be high.

For simple puppet confs, I'd recommend CCO (mostly they are so factual it is unlikely there is much that is copyrightable in them anyway).

My apologies, I misunderstood.

I hope you won't be offended if I'm skeptical that you have the skills/ability to write a compiler that is worth keeping proprietary but not get access to a server that can run a bot regularly.

This is an interesting question. It's hard to write a policy without examples - do you think you could come up with some of the existing usages you mean to replace/supplement/what have you? (I've got a bunch in my own head, of course, but (1) I suspect your list is more diverse and (2) I want to make sure we're on the same page before filling things in.)

I'd generally prefer client-side drafts, but as discussed offline with @Jdforrester-WMF there is no blanket prohibition from the legal team on server-side draft storage.

I'd generally prefer client-side drafts, but as discussed offline with @Jdforrester-WMF there is no blanket prohibition from the legal team on server-side draft storage.

I think it's against the spirit of the TOU, if not necessarily the letter - the idea was that if the original maintainer vanishes, others can reasonably pick up and continue their work. That can't happen if there is no widely-available toolchain.

Where does it come from in the template? Just the name, or... ? (I assume
we can't have a space in the template name?)

Q: to what extent will RESTbase be optional for future versions of Mediawiki? i.e., is Mediawiki going to have a hard dependency on it?

Just to check in here - I'm talking with outside counsel about this issue, and I think we have resolution on most of my concerns. That will lead to a checklist we can follow whenever we need to comply with AGPL. Hopefully that will be ready soon.

I like the mockup's text for this specific use case - to the point, accurate, does not try to get fancy.

Pau, what's the maximum character count I can practically use here?

I'm just concerned that I can wordsmith this to properly handle the US concept of fair use, but basically all of the nuance will be lost as soon as it is translated for other templates.

Is this label specific to enwiki's fair use tag? Or will it be translated for other copyright exceptions?

What Quim said :)

Fine to use me as a proxy. I'll take a look after the holiday.

Yeah, sorry, I should have reassigned.

No objection to a patch here; I was trying to save space in an earlier (more space-constrained) revision and didn't add it back in.

Probably not a licensing *blocker*; obviously libre is good but it is still an improvement over previous tools. But privacy may be an issue depending on who this is exposed to and what data they'll see.