On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:13:31, Thomas Mortagne
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne
> > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [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…
> >
> > Ok. What’s your proposal? Have them under LGPL?
> >
> > That would mean:
> >
> > * Users can modify the content as long as they don’t redistribute it
> > * If users make modification to them and redistribute them, then they need
> > to use the LGPL license
> >
> > Would we be ok with that?
>
> It certainly make sense to me, we have lots of code in pages and I
> don't see why code from pages should not be as viral as code in Java
> when you reuse it. You can write any extension or flavor that does not
> reuse code coming from common pages and put whatever license you want
> (which should be the case most of the time, having a Main.WebHome page
> with completely new content does not mean you reuse Main.WebHome
> code).
New pages are not an issue. If you write a custom skin and you copy paste some
VM and makes change to them and then redistribute it then you need to use the
LGPL license.
But I think I agree with you that this is code and there’s no reason it should
be treated differently.
I’m curious to get Sergiu’s feedback on this since he’s the one who proposed
CC-BY in the first place if I remember correctly.
Thanks
-Vincent
[snip]
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
