Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 6

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

DatBot 6

Operator: DatGuy (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:50, Friday, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/theopolisme/theobot/tree/master/NonFreeImageResizer aside from minor fixes

Function overview: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): [1]

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests (currently ~990)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Same as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot. Just minor fix for what broke it. Tested at test.wikipedia.org, but still recommend a small trial.

Discussion

@DatGuy: Looking at the edit summary on testwiki [2]: Is the bot still going off of User:Theo's Little Bot/disable/resizer? I think we should move the run pages to the DatBot userspace — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I changed that as one of the fixes, but its User:DatBot/NonFreeImageResizer/Run. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the positive value supposed to be "Ran", or "Run"? Or maybe use "true"? Doesn't really matter, it's just that the past tense "Ran" implies the bot has finished and will not run anymore — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my laziness peaking. Since it isn't running yet, I just made it to a word similar to "run". I'll change it to Run if there's a trial or its approved. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's do it!

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. +-1 or 2. Halfway through, I changed it from the deprecated template (that still works) to the updated one. No errors I can see from going through a couple of them. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{on hold}} Looks good, except the edit summary and the upload comment still link to User:Theo's Little Bot/disable/resizer. However, I'm afraid we have bigger issues... Theopolisme failed to provide a OSI approved FOSS license for their code. Under the new Tool Labs right to fork policy that may mean we aren't be able to run it on Tool Labs :( That policy isn't quite finalized, so allow me to get in touch with some Tool Labs folks and see if we are okay to move forward with this, or what we can do otherwise. Have you tried to email Theopolisme? Even if we don't use Tool Labs, we should reach out to him first. Perhaps he would be willing to add a compatible license to the code. Apologies for not thinking of this before the trial — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, I found the "CC-BY-SA" in the source. I think this is enough to move forward, but we should still first try to contact Theopolisme. Please confirm this was done (via user talk and email). If we get no reply in a reasonable amount of time let's proceed. Talking with a Tool Labs admin, it is recommended you relicense the code under GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, which are essentially the software equivalent of CC-BY-SA. Do you have a GitHub repo for DatBot? Consider adding the license there, of course pointing back to the original repo and mentioning the original author. Otherwise include it in the source itself on Tool Labs. I'm also genuinely interested in what changes you made to the original code? Not important, just curious :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, all of my code is licensed under Apache License 2.0 (except this task. Should I still add GPL? I can contact Theopolisme if requested, but currently I don't find it necessary as they're credited. The main things that I changed are changed the deprecated template to the new one, changed open(file) to open(file, "rb") which was causing the error (wrong permissions), and made this line actually remove the files by expecting errors and working off them. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation of GPL was because it's more or less equivalent to CC-BY-SA, except it's actually intended to license code (where CC-BY-SA is for text, media, etc.). Retaining the existing CC-BY-SA license will suffice, though. I also wanted to respect the possibility Theo would be willing to get his bot back up and running. For the record, I also tried to contact him before writing User:MusikBot/TAFIDaily and User:MusikBot/TAFIWeekly, and never heard anything back. I see you've wrote them on their talk page. Let's give it a few days before proceeding. Please also confirm the edit summary and upload comment now link back to User:DatBot/NonFreeImageResizer/Run — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, regarding the other BRFA, I'll do it tomorrow. Sorry for procrastinating :P. Happy New Year! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Theopolisme confirmed permission to take-over. "Sure, you are welcome to take over the non-free image resizer task as discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DatBot_6." Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. With his permission and your confirmation that the edit summary and upload comment now link to DatBot's run page, we are good to go :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.