On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:38:20, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> 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 Note that the message displayed on the wiki at runtime just needs to be in sync with what license we choose for wiki pages/VM files. But first, we need to decide if what we have is correct and I don’t think it is since our pages in the SCM say LGPL and we say CC-BY in http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License See my previous email. 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
