On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:44:58, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, [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. That is not correct. If you check http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License you’ll see: "The wiki documents (all the documents in the default .xar archive) are distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY), which is a better suited license for content.” So no it’s not hypothetical, we need to decide which it is. AFAIK we decide CC-BY way before we started putting the license header in the XML files in the SCM (I was probably the one who started putting the licenses there and I probably made a mistake since I didn’t realize at the time we wanted CC-BY). This is the reason I’m asking. I’m also asking about whether the mix of both LGPL and CC-BY is ok or not in our sources (I think it’s ok in sources) and in our distributions (could be a problem). Thanks -Vincent > > * 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 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
