On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:07:05, Caleb James DeLisle
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
>
>
> 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.
[snip]
Hmm, that is not my reading, at least for GPL. In section 9 of
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated it says:
"Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this requirement. Software linked
with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any
software with which they are merely distributed.”
The XML pages form a single work with the WAR and as such become GPL if the WAR
is the Class files are un GPL.
Do you have a pointer for "only says that code in the SAME FILE as LGPL code
must be LGPL”. My understand of LGPL was that it was like GPL except that
non-core code (ie extensions) didn’t have to be redistributed under LGPL.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
