On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:41:38, Caleb James DeLisle
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> The license itself is very vague about this, trying to determine whether
> something is a
> "derivitive work" or not.
>
> A comparison might be made to the Java platform, you can see the internals of
> the JVM
> are licensed under the GPLv2 without any acceptions at all:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/87ee5ee27509/src/os/linux/vm/jsig.c
>
> However the java code in the standard library is subject to an exception to
> the rule
> as you can see here:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/file/687fd7c7986d/src/share/classes/java/io/File.java
Where? I tried to compare the 2 licenses but they seems very similar to me. In
File.java it says GPL v2.
Thanks
-Vincent
> We can think of XWiki Platform like the JVM and the XWiki code and pages like
> the Java
> classpath. Clearly the classpath Java code is a "user" of the JVM and is not
> in any
> way a "derivitive work".
>
>
> Thanks,
> Caleb
>
>
> On 10/11/15 10:12, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
