On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:38:42, Thomas Mortagne
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM, [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.
Again, what is written on http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License
doesn’t match the reality (what’s in the SCM). It’s actually the goal of the
this thread to discuss what’s the reality and what we want.
I view wiki pages and VM files in the same bag as I believe they can be
modified very similarly. If we decide to continue having pages under CC-BY then
I’d find it logical to also have VM files under CC-BY, because they can be
overwritten on the file system but also in wiki pages. If you consider they’re
different, please explain why.
Thanks
-Vincent
> > 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
