Should this be set to public now that it's been fixed?

To further clarify, this is especially a problem for pages protected by Extension:Lockdown. Security issue because the stated purpose of this setting is "[a]mong other things, this may be useful to enforce read-restrictions that may otherwise be bypassed by using the template mechanism."

In T383077#10438489, @egardner wrote:

In T383077#10438414, @bd808 wrote:

In T383077#10435734, @Volker_E wrote:

Another option, as stated in the wikitech-l thread, were to dual-license Codex – as in adding MIT license.
IANAL, but from my understanding we would have to get written author permissions to re-license for using all parts of contributors until this moment. It could be a bit less disruptive to add MIT license and avoid legal or community complexities associated with re-licensing. New users or projects can opt for the permissive MIT license.

A more permissive license cannot just be arbitrarily added. If that were possible then anyone who wanted a more permissively licensed library could just fork the upstream and add the license of their choosing. In order to relicense from GPL all current license holders must agree to the change. Because the Wikimedia projects do not use a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) that assigns all rights to the project this means that all contributors must be contacted for approval. If the project incorporates code from an upstream project by copying the rights holders to the upstream content must also be contacted.

That sounds correct to me. I assume we'd need to contact all the code contributors listed in https://github.com/wikimedia/design-codex/blob/main/AUTHORS.txt and ask them to agree to a change in license.