4 Jan
2008
4 Jan
'08
1:08 a.m.
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a
module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too?
Thanks for any clarification
Simon
PS: I know this is a standard question, but seriously I did not found an
easy, understandable, concise and without long follow-ups about whether the
interpretation is right or not, answer to this in hours of searching. Is it
me or is (L)GPL one of the most complicated license nowadays?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/License-question-tp14607397p14607397.html
Sent from the XWiki- Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
4 Jan
4 Jan
9:25 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a
module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under
LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open
source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to
share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks for any clarification
Simon
PS: I know this is a standard question, but seriously I did not
found an
easy, understandable, concise and without long follow-ups about
whether the
interpretation is right or not, answer to this in hours of
searching. Is it
me or is (L)GPL one of the most complicated license nowadays?
9:48 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi,
Following this thread and looking for some more insight. Considering
that we are trying to get support to develop XWiki extensions and share
them with the community, under what license must we release these
supposed, so far, extensions?
A simple example: a company/public body contract a work with our group.
We would like to solve the ICT part of the problem with a solution based
on XWiki. But we want to tell the client that any extension constructed
over XWiki must be shared with the community. What license must we
propose to the client to accept?
Thanks!
Ricardo
--
Ricardo Rodríguez
Your XEN ICT Team
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a
module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under
LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open
source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to
share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks
-Vincent
10:21 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Your XEN ICT Team - Ricardo Rodriguez wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
I don't know the answer but my feeling is that extensions can be
released under the license you want. This needs to be checked of
course. Anyone knows?
Thanks
-Vincent
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress
wrote:
Hi,
Following this thread and looking for some more insight. Considering
that we are trying to get support to develop XWiki extensions and
share
them with the community, under what license must we release these
supposed, so far, extensions?
A simple example: a company/public body contract a work with our
group.
We would like to solve the ICT part of the problem with a solution
based
on XWiki. But we want to tell the client that any extension
constructed
over XWiki must be shared with the community. What license must we
propose to the client to accept? Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to
write a
module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under
LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an
open
source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have
to
share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks
-Vincent
11:33 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Your XEN ICT Team -
Ricardo Rodriguez wrote:
The core must be kept under LGPL. Extensions/plugins can have any
licence compatible with LGPL.
Sergiu
Vincent Massol wrote:
I don't know the answer but my feeling is that extensions can be
released under the license you want. This needs to be checked of
course. Anyone knows?
Thanks
-Vincent
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress
wrote:
Hi,
Following this thread and looking for some more insight. Considering
that we are trying to get support to develop XWiki extensions and
share
them with the community, under what license must we release these
supposed, so far, extensions?
A simple example: a company/public body contract a work with our
group.
We would like to solve the ICT part of the problem with a solution
based
on XWiki. But we want to tell the client that any extension
constructed
over XWiki must be shared with the community. What license must we
propose to the client to accept? Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to
write a
module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under
LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an
open
source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have
to
share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks
-Vincent
6:03 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
Sergiu Dumitriu-2 wrote:
The core must be kept under LGPL. Extensions/plugins can have any
licence compatible with LGPL.
Can you maybe provide a good link who tells me which licenses are compatible
with LGPL? Is "no license" (because not published) also allowed?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/License-question-tp14607397p14620758.html
Sent from the XWiki- Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
6:20 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
On Jan 4, 2008, at 6:03 PM, justanotheradress wrote:
Sergiu Dumitriu-2 wrote:
I'd think so. A license doesn't make much sense if you don't
distribute your work... ;)
Thanks
-Vincent
The core must be kept under LGPL. Extensions/plugins can have any
licence compatible with LGPL.
Can you maybe provide a good link who tells me which licenses are
compatible
with LGPL? Is "no license" (because not published) also allowed?
10:20 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Actually I think that if you make any modification to the core you
also need to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
So the "virality" doesn't apply only to extensions. In the case of
xwiki this means: macros, plugins, code snippets in pages,
applications, extensions (a la XEclipse).
-Vincent
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to
write a
module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under
LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open
source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to
share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks for any clarification
Simon
PS: I know this is a standard question, but seriously I did not
found an
easy, understandable, concise and without long follow-ups about
whether the
interpretation is right or not, answer to this in hours of
searching. Is it
me or is (L)GPL one of the most complicated license nowadays?
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs 
7 Jan
7 Jan
5:34 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] License question
Le 4 janv. 08 à 09:25, Vincent Massol a écrit :
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish
them under an
open source license.
Definitely!
If you make any modification to the current code
though you'll have
to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
That's not even a requirement, it is only required that whenever you
distribute it you should license it this way. Your own modifications
(for your own company, for the company that hires you etc) is not
covered I think.
I'm also not an expert... but lawyers are expensive!
The same considerations apply for Apache License I think.
paul
6194
days inactive
6197
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
justanotheradress -
Paul Libbrecht -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol -
Your XEN ICT Team - Ricardo Rodriguez