On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Caleb, > > > > See below > > > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 10/11/15 09:40, [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: > >> > >> According to GNU, CC-BY is LGPL compatible: > >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby > >> I would have guessed that it was not but the GPL contains some odd > >> clauses just for providing additional compatibility. > > > > ok that’s cool then. > > > > So we just need to confirm that we want our wiki pages (XML files) under > > CC-BY and modify the licenses accordingly. > > > > Same question for VM files. > > > > Personally I’m fine with CC-BY for both. > > > > WDYT? > > > >> > * 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? > >> > >> Not a problem, LGPL means linking is ok. > >> > >> > * 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? > >> > >> If they cannot possibly be used outside of XWiki, do we really care what > >> the license is ? > > > > I agree we shouldn’t care and I’m in favor of CC-BY. Now do we need to find > > all their authors to ask them if they’re ok to relicense them un CC-BY? :) > > I don't really agree with the "we don't care", pages contain code and > they are distributed on their own. It's not just some data you get in > a XWiki distribution but extensions you install on a platform so they > are software. It's like saying we don't care about some php software > license, it only works with the pho runtime anyway… Ok. What’s your proposal? Have them under LGPL? That would mean: * Users can modify the content as long as they don’t redistribute it * If users make modification to them and redistribute them, then they need to use the LGPL license Would we be ok with that? Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have everything in LGPL. Thanks -Vincent > > > > >> > * 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? > >> > >> It's fine because LGPL (and even GPL) is ok with files under any other > >> license to be distributed in the same package. This is actually a > >> requirement > >> for a license to be classified as "Open Source”. > > > > My understanding is that if you distribute something with GPL or LGPL > > license then it becomes GPL or LGPL (virality). > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Caleb > >> > >> > >> > > >> > 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
