On 10/11/15 09:59, [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? :)
* 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).
See section 9 of http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Basically the GPL means that software which is LINKED with GPL software must be
GPL
but software which is merely distributed with it need not be. LGPL is of course
less
restrictive and only says that code in the SAME FILE as LGPL code must be LGPL.
In either case this is safe.
Thanks,
Caleb
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
