On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, [email protected] <[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: > > * 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? Is this hypothetical ? Because right now as you can see in all the XMLs files the XAR are LGPL. The only thing that is referencing CC-BY is some configuration property that anyone can change and that is not linked to any specific source. > * 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? > * 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? > > 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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
