2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
8:55 p.m.
On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
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).
-Vincent
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:
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.
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? 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.