You can always put this kind of message in some public wiki you run but having this message by default for anyone that use XWiki does not make any sense. It's not out job to decide what license will be used for user content.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
