The license itself is very vague about this, trying to determine whether
something is a
"derivitive work" or not.
A comparison might be made to the Java platform, you can see the internals of
the JVM
are licensed under the GPLv2 without any acceptions at all:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/87ee5ee27509/src/os/linux/vm/jsig.c
However the java code in the standard library is subject to an exception to the
rule
as you can see here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/file/687fd7c7986d/src/share/classes/java/io/File.java
We can think of XWiki Platform like the JVM and the XWiki code and pages like
the Java
classpath. Clearly the classpath Java code is a "user" of the JVM and is not in
any
way a "derivitive work".
Thanks,
Caleb
On 10/11/15 10:12, [email protected] wrote:
On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:07:05, Caleb James DeLisle
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
On 10/11/15 09:59, [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? :)
* 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).
See section 9 of http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Basically the GPL means that software which is LINKED with GPL software must be
GPL
but software which is merely distributed with it need not be. LGPL is of course
less
restrictive and only says that code in the SAME FILE as LGPL code must be LGPL.
In either case this is safe.
[snip]
Hmm, that is not my reading, at least for GPL. In section 9 of
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated it says:
"Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this requirement. Software linked
with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any
software with which they are merely distributed.”
The XML pages form a single work with the WAR and as such become GPL if the WAR
is the Class files are un GPL.
Do you have a pointer for "only says that code in the SAME FILE as LGPL code
must be LGPL”. My understand of LGPL was that it was like GPL except that non-core
code (ie extensions) didn’t have to be redistributed under LGPL.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
