On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> IMO we should get rid of this old "The wiki documents (all the > documents in the default .xar archive) are distributed under Creative > Commons (CC-BY)” runtime message because: > * when you install XWiki you end up with that in the footer and most > people don't touch (and probably don't really understand) it and we > should not choose for them the default license of theire own pages > * we already license our page sources under LGPL and I don't see the > point in having two licenses Was added by Sergiu in: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License?viewer=changes&rev1=3.2&rev2=4.1 It was following a discussion at http://markmail.org/message/wfewnlkcbaa64whq I think using CC-BY for the content is a good idea since we want our users to be able to change the wiki page content without having to redistribute their changes as LGPL. For example someone wanting to make a flavor and modify some wiki pages. Unless we wish to force them to redistribute their flavor as LGPL… My issue was more about the compatibility of the CC-BY with the LGPL license. Actually if we think about it we distribute several kinds of binaries: * JAR file: No problem there, all code is under LGPL * XAR files: No problem there, all code is under CC-BY. Note that this means script code is also under CC-BY which doesn’t really support source code but I don’t think we care. Actually there could be some problem since in our XAR files we include pom.xml which link to JAR dependencies under LGPL. The script calls LGPL code. Is that a problem? * WAR file: We need to clarify what’s the license for our VM files. Do we want someone to be able to create a custom skin and redistribute it under a license other than LGPL? Should the VM files be under CC-BY too? * ZIP file (jetty/hsqld standalone distribution): Here there could be a problem since we have a mix of LGPL and CC-BY content. Anyone has a clue about whether this is ok or not? WDYT? I’m far from a license expert... Thanks -Vincent > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > >> Hi devs, > >> > >> I see at http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License that we say: > >> “The wiki documents (all the documents in the default .xar archive) are > >> distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY)”. > >> > >> However currently all our wiki pages in GitHub (the XML files) are > >> licensed under LGPL 2.1 > >> > >> Do we need to change the license for all those XML files? > > > > BTW are we sure it would be ok to have files licensed under both LGPL and > > CC-BY in our distribution? > > > > All I could find is to consider those XML files “non-functional data” files > > (see "Non-functional Data” in > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html) > > which says: > > > > “ > > Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more of an > > adornment to the system's software than a part of it. Thus, we don't insist > > on the free license criteria for non-functional data. It can be included in > > a free system distribution as long as its license gives you permission to > > copy and redistribute, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. For > > example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have accompanying > > game information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and so on—released > > under such a verbatim-distribution license. This kind of data can be part > > of a free system distribution, even though its license does not qualify as > > free, because it is non-functional. > > ” > > > > One issue is that those XML files not only contain data but also scripts > > which I don’t think can be considered “non-functional data”... > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
