2015-11-10 10:05 GMT+01:00 [email protected] <[email protected]>: > > > 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? >
I'm OK with that. It seems pretty logical and in line with the GNU spirit. > > Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have > everything in LGPL. > +1 > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > > > > > >> > * 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 > -- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
