On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:49:43, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected]) wrote:
If pages have the wrong license then we should fix the XAR plugin and modify all the XMLs. From the beginning my mail has been about: 1) Clarifying whether we want the XML pages (and also the VM) to be under CC-BY or LGPL since right now we have 2 places that say the opposite 2) Clarifying if having both LGPL and CC-BY is ok in sources and distributions Once we have a decision it’s easy to update pages, that is not the issue… But again my point is that this message is useless and probably even wrong since it imply that any new page become licensed under CC-BY. This may be your point but you should start a new thread then since my thread is absolutely not about this which is very minor and easy to fix. Thanks -Vincent On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:45 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:38:20, Caleb James DeLisle > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > >> I agree with Thomas, license on the wiki pages is a sticky situation >> because on the one hand some of them contain significant code which >> we might want to put under a copyleft license (we might not, it only >> works on XWiki afterall) but at the same time we don't want to lead >> users to believe that changes they make to the wiki will somehow be >> forced under the same license because of LGPL. >> >> At the very least we could add a footer which only showed up for one >> of the "internal" pages, exclaiming a license and discouraging users >> from editing it. >> >> Thanks, >> Caleb >> >> >> On 10/11/15 09:23, Thomas Mortagne 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 > > Note that the message displayed on the wiki at runtime just needs to be in > sync with what license we choose for wiki pages/VM files. > > But first, we need to decide if what we have is correct and I don’t think it > is since our pages in the SCM say LGPL and we say CC-BY in > http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License > > See my previous email. > > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
