6 Feb
2010
6 Feb
'10
11:27 a.m.
Le 02/02/10 20:55, Vincent Massol a écrit :
On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi,
It's really a matter of decision and if there is no decision of
interpretation.
In any case the analogy of linux clearly would make that:
XWiki server is a runtime server
XWiki pages are the applications and the content which runs on this runtime
Therefore the application and content has no constraint linked to the
licence of the engine (even if it was GPL).
We have always delivered XWiki with the sentence "the content of this
wiki is creative commons". There this currently applies to the whole XAR
content (content and code)
Now we need to document more explicitely for the XAR files we deliver,
and particularly the code iteself.
It is important that the content is not contaminated by any licence that
would be put for the code in the XAR page.
If we do put a ASL or LGPL licence on the code in the XAR file it's
important that we define what "code" is. For example:
- Code is what is inside {{velocity}} and {{groovy}} or {{html}} tags,
exclusing text strings
Ludovic
On 02/02/2010 08:08 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
AFAIK the LGPL is viral but only to the core not to libraries (whatever this
means).
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu
wrote:
Yes, this is unclear to me too. A hardware example that comes to mind is
that the copyright is not written on all pages of a book, just under the
cover, but still all the pages are protected by copyright. Not sure if
the analogy is OK. Anyway, we SHOULD put the chosen license in all our
files.
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
> Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no
> license in the XML files and there should be one).
>
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in
each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL
project almost make it LGPL too?
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL
(in
the ASF we must put the license headers on all resources), ie a non
viral license.
It's also possible that it's not allowed
to put our XML files under a
CC license next to other files with the LGPL license (virality
issue).
LGPL is not viral, so it should be OK.
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Ludovic Dubost
Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost