On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? :)
I don't really agree with the "we don't care", pages contain code and they are distributed on their own. It's not just some data you get in a XWiki distribution but extensions you install on a platform so they are software. It's like saying we don't care about some php software license, it only works with the pho runtime anyway... > >> > * 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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
