On 02/01/2010 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne 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?

On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).

On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu 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.

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).

On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: AFAIK the LGPL is viral but only to the core not to libraries (whatever this means).

-Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled. There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library.

I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent. Caleb Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > 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? >

Hi, here's my take on this topic: - The code we write, be it in the core or in XE, should be licensed under the LGPL license (better suited for code than a CC license, what's the point of having the whole blog application licensed as CC when obviously it's not content?)

- We should leave the choice of the content license to the wiki owner (what's the point of imposing a default one to him / her)

- The "default" case for copyright licenses is already defined by the law of pretty much every country, thus the default we should choose should be not to display anything by default (which is also another reason why we'd want to make the code in the XE XAR licensed under the LGPL)

- Ideally we'd add a "license" field somewhere in the admin interface that, when filled, would be displayed in the footer

WDYT? Guillaume On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote: > On 02/03/2010 01:01 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: >> Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses >> >> In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are >> as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is >> not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled. >> >> There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core >> (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE >> obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references > the other >> it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library. > > I don't agree that this is a valid hard link which would cause the LGPL > core to become viral to the wiki pages. > > These are wiki pages. > This is data. > This data is sometimes executable. > This data sometime results in platform methods being called. > A shell script results in bash methods being called. > Must all shell scripts be GPL because they end up executing bash code? > This data gets converted from wiki source to HTML code through the core. > A C program gets converted from C source to executable code through GCC. > Must all C programs be GPL because they pass through GCC? > > This is obviously library usage, since it's code that calls API methods > through a proxy. > >> I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we > want >> to prevent. >> >> >> Caleb >> >> >> Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >>> 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?

Hi, On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: With pleasure. If you please, I'll take the liberty of going for a reasoning ad absurdum: 1. All the code committers write for XWiki Core is licensed under the LGPL 2. We can reasonably agree that most of the content of the default XE XAR beyond Main.WebHome and the Sandbox space is made of code 3. Thus if a CC license is the best license for code in the XE XAR, why don't we also use it for XWiki Core? This is absolutely not clear. The license is displayed in the footer of all pages. New pages bear it too. Since the current wording is very imprecise, a wiki admin cannot know whether she would be allowed to change the content license for all pages of the wiki at once. AFAIK the license can't be changed on a per page basis. Sure. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright , specifically: "In all countries where the Berne Convention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protect… apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights." I'm aware of this but the current interface isn't exactly of the most practical form ;-) Guillaume -Vincent