I agree with Thomas, license on the wiki pages is a sticky situation
because on the one hand some of them contain significant code which
we might want to put under a copyleft license (we might not, it only
works on XWiki afterall) but at the same time we don't want to lead
users to believe that changes they make to the wiki will somehow be
forced under the same license because of LGPL.
At the very least we could add a footer which only showed up for one
of the "internal" pages, exclaiming a license and discouraging users
from editing it.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 10/11/15 09:23, Thomas Mortagne 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
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] <[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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
