Template talk:ExtensionLicense

Incompatible with Template:Extension

Hey, I noticed this template and wanted to use it, but I noticed that it’s incompatible with the categorization logic the extension template uses. The latter just checks for a few keywords to decide on the categorization without providing an actually clean output (e.g. if I choose “GPL” in the infobox, it will correctly categorize it but only show “GPL” in the output). When using this template, it will show a nice link and full name of the license, and also provide a license category for the extension, but then the standard default categorization mechanism of the extension template kicks in and also adds it to Category:Extensions with unknown license.

Were there any plans to integrate this template into the extension template so that only one of it will do the categorization? poke | talk 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just stumbled over the same problem on Extension:EasyTimeline (fixed). I'm not going to check the remaining about 700 extensions in Category:Extensions with unknown license. Maybe Template:Extension should assume that any non-empty value for license= is good enough, I'll add a link on its talk page (or the "flow" abomination). Be..anyone (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My plan was to get rid of the code out of the Template:Extension as it wasn't the best implementation back in the day and focus on have Template:EL so the code was a bit more maintainable. But its a project I never had time to finished, to go though to the categories the Unknown category and cleanup the license usage in the actual article pages. Peachey88 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I just started Module:Extension as a new standard to work on. Ricordisamoa 22:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that a module is a bit over the top. A simple #switch that provides both the license link and the category for the extension should suffice. And that can be done in this template, so Template:Extension just passes the license parameter to this one. poke | talk 23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that {{Extension }} accepts many repeated parameters ('hook1' ... 'hook48') of and has lots of subpages, that would be easy replaceable with the single Module:Extension. Ricordisamoa 13:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A variant of Template:Extension with phab: instead of mediazilla: exists, you'd need that also in a module. Whatever ends up with less than 700 bogus "unknown license" extensions is progress. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I corrected some of them yesterday, decreasing from 1063 to 1033… What about solving this "issue" by renaming the category to [[Category:Extensions with unrecognized license]] (this would be a maintenance category), and by the way creating a special license/parameter value "license = unknown" and associated category [[Category:Extensions with unknown license]] for extensions which really have no license or very strange license (like the classical copyright :). ~ Seb35 [^_^] 13:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In the current state, a lot of errors come from "license = GPL" without a version. How should we understand that: is it whatever version of GPL (GPL-1.0+, as stated by Fedora), or current GPL version and later (GPL-3.0+), or historical GPL version when the extension was written (GPL-2.0+ or GPL-3.0+)? Personally I would answer GPL-1.0+ but IANAL. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 13:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

SPDX names

Software Package Data Exchange provides standard codes for lots of licenses. Why not to use them in the new Module:Extension? Ricordisamoa 11:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

SPDX is already recommended in Manual:Coding_conventions#Licenses, so you can certainly go ahead and implement it. However, the issue is with hundreds of extension pages using unrecognised values: are you able to fix those as well? Nemo 16:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I went bold and implemented my proposal, then requested the bot flag to fix extension pages. Ricordisamoa 16:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They have WTFPL (version 2, adding 1 was rejected as not relevant), not bad. Sadly not directly helpful for commons (no FAL), and they're still trying to figure out Unicode licenses. Nice list, use it. Be..anyone (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)