On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:31:01, Thomas Mortagne > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:18 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> >> I tough we were talking about pages. > > I’ve mentioned several times that we need to resolve this for wiki pages AND > VM files (they fall in the same category, especially since you can override > VM files in wiki pages). > > I don’t understand the point of your remark: does that mean that you’d like > to have a different handling between pages and VMs?
I did not noticed your reference to VM files and they are clearly indicated as LGPL in http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License so your example just did not seemed relevant to me. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> > 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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
