[14:39:06] Anyone have some kind of confirmation that a page *using* a template doesn't mean that the page's license has to be compatible with the template's license? I'm 99% sure of this, but would be nice if I had some proof to link to. [14:39:47] Since the template's code and the page's code are different pieces of work, and the page merely references the template, I can't imagine anyone arguing that the page is an "Adapted Material" of the template. [14:40:54] This is in the context of the SA clause; we have a wiki that uses CC BY-NC-SA for most things, but someone added some CC BY-SA templates, and now this person is trying to license-troll us, saying we have to remove all their BY-SA contributions since they're incompatible with NC. [15:35:23] Does anyone know why when I run dumpBackup.php it doesn't appear or save anything? [15:39:35] How are you calling it? [15:39:41] Are you redirecting the stdout output? [15:47:27] taylan: That sounds like a question for an IP lawyer. If the question was about software licenses I would expect that the non-free aspect of an -NC license embedding a copyleft library would be a violation of the library's license unless it explicitly allowed embedding in more restrictively licensed projects. But also IANAL [15:49:35] Maybe more clearly stated in FOSS license terms, if you put my GPL-3.0-or-later lib into your SSPL project you are violating my copyright, but you could link my LGPL-3.0-or-later lib without issue. (I *think* & IANAL) [15:52:05] Indeed, if this was about libraries (even dynamic linking) then I'd see it, but AFAIK that's just because the GPL is explicitly written with that in mind. CC licenses seem to have a simple concept of Adapted Material instead, and don't go into much detail on what that encompasses. [16:10:44] taylan: Does the template output text? Or is it just "logic"? A template outputting large chunks of text (from the template itself) would make that text BY-SA inside a page with NC license. However, a template using only logic to output (for example) hex color numbers for styling probably doesn't matter for the final page (but IANAL) [16:17:49] That's a good point. It's probably mostly just logic. If some of the Wikipedia templates contain significant amounts of text, I think it would still be fine, because it's not like this person works for Wikipedia or can sue us on behalf of Wikipedia, and it's not like Wikipedia would actually care, lol. [16:18:30] And if they themselves added a lot of text to some templates, in such a way that said text appears in NC contexts, then I'd even argue that they've thus agreed to those part falling under NC, since they themselves added the stuff. [16:46:48] I think it might be worth checking whether the “CC BY-SA templates” are actually CC BY-SA or not [16:47:36] like, if you put some text on Wikipedia and declare that it’s only licensed under CC BY-NC-ND, that doesn’t mean the text is actually only under that license – according to Wikimedia’s terms of use, when you submit the text, you agree to license it under CC BY-SA [16:47:45] depends on what your site’s terms of use (if any) look like, I guess [16:48:26] (IANAL etc.)