Hi Caleb, See below
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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: > > According to GNU, CC-BY is LGPL compatible: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby > I would have guessed that it was not but the GPL contains some odd > clauses just for providing additional compatibility. ok that’s cool then. So we just need to confirm that we want our wiki pages (XML files) under CC-BY and modify the licenses accordingly. Same question for VM files. Personally I’m fine with CC-BY for both. WDYT? > > * 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? > > Not a problem, LGPL means linking is ok. > > > * 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? > > If they cannot possibly be used outside of XWiki, do we really care what the > license is ? I agree we shouldn’t care and I’m in favor of CC-BY. Now do we need to find all their authors to ask them if they’re ok to relicense them un CC-BY? :) > > * 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? > > It's fine because LGPL (and even GPL) is ok with files under any other > license to be distributed in the same package. This is actually a requirement > for a license to be classified as "Open Source”. My understanding is that if you distribute something with GPL or LGPL license then it becomes GPL or LGPL (virality). Thanks -Vincent > > Thanks, > Caleb > > > > > > 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
