2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
7:45 p.m.
On 02/02/2010 06:28 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Some prefer LGPL. Ludovic?
For the XML files, I agree that we should have a license header inside
them, be it LGPL or CC. But for the wiki, I prefer not to say anything.
Keeping license headers in the source tree will be hard, since it's
going to be hard to remember to put back the header after re-exporting
from the wiki. We could have a SVN hook on the server that checks that
all XML files committed have this header. We could do the same for java
files, too.
On 02/01/2010 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
Yes, me, see my other email. I need to understand why we cannot license our XML files for
apps under the CC license. On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46, Sergiu
Dumitriu<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
I agree with Thomas, we should drop the CC license from the default
distribution, since:
- it doesn't apply to the initial content
- it might not be what the user wants for his content, and it would
sound like we're pushing a license onto him
Anybody against removing the default license? Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is
licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for
the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
So, there are three possible choices:
- change the default copyright notice
- change the license of the applications
- don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new
content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is
not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki
pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of
code, which could go under the LGPL.
IMO we should remove this notice from default XE, as you said it's
mostly code so it would be easier to only have LGPL for everything we
distribute. CC sounds more like the xwiki.org website content license. Thanks
-Vincent
>>>
>>> As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative
>>> Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
I prefer CC BY (say it's XWiki, but allow commercial usage and non-CC
changes). Probably the best would be if we all fill in
http://creativecommons.org/choose/ and poll the results.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/