I disagree, this clause is one of the best encouragements to produce open-content material and this should be imperatively kept.
I would suggest to dual license the pieces of code which could be "understood" as content (such as changeable translations). I do not think dual licensing is an issue with existing code or? Paul > Thomas Mortagne <mailto:[email protected]> > 10 novembre 2015 13:44 > Yes I think we should just forget about any other license than LGPL. > Everything XWiki Dev Team produce should be LGPL whatever it is which > is exactly what we do right now in practice from sources and Maven > point of view. We just need to completely remove all reference to > CC-BY (and completely get rid of this absurd runtime message in XE > preferences). > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 10 novembre 2015 12:57 > This seems overly complex to me to say that portions of wiki pages > that are content is CC-BY and the portions that are scripts are under > LGPL. Also I don’t think it helps at all to people who want to make > distributions (since if they copy existing wiki pages it’s almost sure > they’ll copy scripts and thus LGPL code). > > IMO either we say that wiki pages + VMs are fully CC-BY or we say they > are LGPL and live with the consequences (i.e. modifications + > redistribution have to be under LGPL or compatible license). If you > distribution your own content then the license is the one you wish for > your content and untouched existing content is under LGPL. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 12:17:36, Eduard Moraru ([email protected]) wrote: > > +1 for LGPL on code as well. 90+% of the standard XAR contains raw > code, as > Marius and Thomas already mentioned. > > IMO, the CC license string in the header could be modified from "This wiki > is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license" to something like > "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license"... i.e. to > emphasize > that it is a statement for the runtime; for content pages that are created > by the users and that there are other pages that contain code and that are > part of the XWiki product itself (which has its own LGPL license). > > IMO, we can not simply say that wiki pages have license X, because a wiki > page is just a container (just like a file in a filesystem). What you > choose to put in that page (i.e. file) determines what type of license you > apply to it. > > On this note, do you think we would be interested in adding a new > "license" > field to a wiki page's model? This would also allow us to set the license > of our standard XAR code pages in that field, since right now, any license > header we have in our XML pages on git gets lost at runtime, since XML > comments are not imported into the wiki in any way... so our licensing > information is lost at runtime. > > Conclusion: Code is LGPL, content is CC, regardless of where it is > physically located or packaged. > > Thanks, > Eduard > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > Eduard Moraru <mailto:[email protected]> > 10 novembre 2015 12:17 > +1 for LGPL on code as well. 90+% of the standard XAR contains raw > code, as > Marius and Thomas already mentioned. > > IMO, the CC license string in the header could be modified from "This wiki > is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license" to something like > "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license"... i.e. to > emphasize > that it is a statement for the runtime; for content pages that are created > by the users and that there are other pages that contain code and that are > part of the XWiki product itself (which has its own LGPL license). > > IMO, we can not simply say that wiki pages have license X, because a wiki > page is just a container (just like a file in a filesystem). What you > choose to put in that page (i.e. file) determines what type of license you > apply to it. > > On this note, do you think we would be interested in adding a new > "license" > field to a wiki page's model? This would also allow us to set the license > of our standard XAR code pages in that field, since right now, any license > header we have in our XML pages on git gets lost at runtime, since XML > comments are not imported into the wiki in any way... so our licensing > information is lost at runtime. > > Conclusion: Code is LGPL, content is CC, regardless of where it is > physically located or packaged. > > Thanks, > Eduard > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > Marius Dumitru Florea <mailto:[email protected]> > 10 novembre 2015 11:12 > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[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). >> > > +1 for LGPL. Default wiki pages contain JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Velocity, > Groovy code which shouldn't be licensed differently than the Java code we > have in the JARs. Moreover, the license shouldn't depend on the way the > code is packaged: JAR, WebJar, WAR or XAR. > > Thanks, > Marius > > >>> Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have >>> everything in LGPL. >>> >>> 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 >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > Thomas Mortagne <mailto:[email protected]> > 10 novembre 2015 10:13 > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[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). > >> Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have >> everything in LGPL. >> >> 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
