Hi Contributors,
I'd like to open a discussion about a licence change. I've been thinking
for a while to open up the licence more.
Currently the code is GPL which allows end-users (including commercial
companies using XWiki internally or for their web sites) to use XWiki
without being required to contribute code back, but requires software
distributors to contribute all modifications using the GPL.
Until version 0.9.543 there was only code from myself in it which
allowed me to double licence code, which has been done with one company
in the US who has embedded XWiki in a proprietary product.
Starting with release 0.9.793, XWiki has significant contributions from
other users which if we want to be able to allow this company or others
in the future to use XWiki in compliance with the open-source licence we
need to:
1/ Either get the right from ALL contributors to allow XPertNet to
double-licence the contributions for proprietary usage and charge for it
as well as support.
2/ Open up the licence to a licence which would allow them to do it
without a double licence. This licence could be LGPL or ASL. Customers
could still take a support contract with XPertNet.
I'd like to hear the opinions of everybody and of course especially of
contributors who have commited code to XWiki. Which route should be go
from your point of view and are you willing to relicence your code to
any of the licence proposed (giving the right to double licence,
changing licence to LGPL or changing licence to ASL).
This question is also true for Jens who has contributed the Lucene
plugin and the email notification plugin but to a lesser extent as these
are plugins and could keep a separate licence. It would just restrict
specific usage of these specific plugins.
Whatever we decide, we will need to create some documents that
contributors would sign to specifically accept the conditions under with
the contributions are made to the code base.
Ludovic
--
Ludovic Dubost
XPertNet: http://www.xpertnet.fr/
Blog: http://www.ludovic.org/blog/
XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost AIM: nvludo Yahoo: ludovic
Hello,
Would patches containing only (or mostly) comments and log statements
increasing source code's ease to read / debug be welcome?
Greetings, Lilianne E. Blaze
Hi,
I have just made my first code commits. However, I had no code rules to go
by so I've tried to copy existing code. The problem is that the existing
code is not consistent itself!...
I would like us to define what are our coding rules. Questions such as:
- max number of characters on a ligne. 100? 120? More?
- indentation rules
- spacing rules, like "(SomeClass)myobject" or "(SomeClass) myobject"
- etc
We could of course have a wiki topic for describing the rules but I don't
think that's the right approach. I would prefer doing what I've done on my
other projects: have a checkstyle.xml file describing those rules and apply
them in the build.
ATM as we have lots of inconstancies, the build would not fail on checkstyle
error. However we should work towards eliminating checkstyle violations and
move the checks, one by one, from warning to error (error fails the build).
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_____________________________________________________________________________
D�couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vid�os !
Cr�ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Hi,
I'd like to be sure I'm doing the right thing, hence this email. Are we
following any rule for deciding whether or not a proposal should be applied
or not?
For example, I've just sent an email about modifying the XWiki constructor
interface. Ludovic has answered but not other committers. Should I go ahead
or do I need to wait for others to chime in?
Are we following the ASF rules defined here:
http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management? However this is
not enough.
Here's an additional rule followed on most Apache projects:
"
The development process is intentionally lightweight; like other
Apache projects, the committers decide which changes may be committed
to the repository. Three +1 ('yes' votes) with no -1 ('no' votes or
vetoes) are needed to approve a code change. For efficiency, some code
changes from some contributors (e.g. feature additions, bug fixes) may
be approved in advance, in which case they may be committed first and
changed as needed, with conflicts resolved by majority vote of the
committers.
"
Is this too heavyweight? Is it ok? What do you want?
Should I wait before committing the xwiki constructor change I have
proposed?
The reason I'm asking this is because I am a new member of the community and
I'm sure other newcomers may also have some doubt when they want to change
existing code.
Thanks
-Vincent
_____________________________________________________________________________
D�couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vid�os !
Cr�ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Hi,
I'd like to add a default constructor to XWikiConfig so that config can be
added in java code:
XWikiConfig config = new XWikiConfig();
config.put("xwiki.store.class", "com.xpn.xwiki.store.XWikiHibernateStore");
config.put("xwiki.store.hibernate.path",
getClass().getResource(StoreHibernateTest.HIB_LOCATION).getFile());
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_____________________________________________________________________________
D�couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vid�os !
Cr�ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Hello,
I need to be able to include a Servlet or JSP from inside of
/templates/*.vm files (specifically header and footer).
I tried things like:
$request.getRequestDispatcher("/xxx.jsp").include( $request, $response )
But for some reason (buffering in Velocity I guess) it renders included
page before anything else, no matter where it's actually placed. Is
there some workaround? If not, I think I have an idea how to implement a
kind of "#includeServlet" directive, could it be included in XWiki then?
Greetings, Lilianne E. Blaze
