You can always put this kind of message in some public wiki you run but having this mess
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:24 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 14:09:40, Paul Libbrecht > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > >> I disagree, this clause is one of the best encouragements to produce >> open-content material and this should be imperatively kept. > > I don’t understand what you mean Paul. Are you talking about the text > displayed at runtime? How could that be an encouragement? When someone > distributes something he picks the license at that point. Surely he’ll pick > whatever he wants. > > Even worse, this text goes in the opposite direction that the one you mention > because content licensed CC-BY can be modified and relicensed under any > license so the user has no incentive to keep it open at all! > > While, if it’s under LGPL then the user cannot modify it and relicense it > under a less permissive license if he redistributes it… > > What did I miss? :) > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> 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 >> > 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] >> > 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 >> > license" to something like >> > "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 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 > > [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
