10 Nov
2015
10 Nov
'15
9:50 a.m.
On 10/11/15 09:40, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne
(thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
According to GNU, CC-BY is LGPL compatible:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby
I would have guessed that it was not but the GPL contains some odd
clauses just for providing additional compatibility.
IMO we should get rid of this old "The wiki
documents (all the
documents in the default .xar archive) are distributed under Creative
Commons (CC-BY)” runtime message because:
* when you install XWiki you end up with that in the footer and most
people don't touch (and probably don't really understand) it and we
should not choose for them the default license of theire own pages
* we already license our page sources under LGPL and I don't see the
point in having two licenses
Was added by Sergiu in:
http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License?viewer=changes&rev1=3.…
It was following a discussion at
http://markmail.org/message/wfewnlkcbaa64whq
I think using CC-BY for the content is a good idea since we want our users to be able to
change the wiki page content without having to redistribute their changes as LGPL. For
example someone wanting to make a flavor and modify some wiki pages. Unless we wish to
force them to redistribute their flavor as LGPL…
My issue was more about the compatibility of the CC-BY with the LGPL license. Actually if
we think about it we distribute several kinds of binaries:
* JAR file: No problem there, all code is under LGPL
* XAR files: No problem there, all code is under CC-BY. Note that this means script code
is also under CC-BY which doesn’t really support source code but I don’t think we care.
Actually there could be some problem since in our XAR files we include pom.xml which link
to JAR dependencies under LGPL. The script calls LGPL code. Is that a problem?
Not a problem, LGPL means linking is ok.
* WAR file: We need to clarify what’s the license for
our VM files. Do we want someone to be able to create a custom skin and redistribute it
under a license other than LGPL? Should the VM files be under CC-BY too?
If they cannot possibly be used outside of XWiki, do we really care what the license is ?
* ZIP file (jetty/hsqld standalone distribution): Here
there could be a problem since we have a mix of LGPL and CC-BY content. Anyone has a clue
about whether this is ok or not?
It's fine because LGPL (and even GPL) is ok with files under any other
license to be distributed in the same package. This is actually a requirement
for a license to be classified as "Open Source".
Thanks,
Caleb
WDYT? I’m far from a license expert...
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>
> On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, vincent(a)massol.net
(vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net)) wrote:
>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I see at http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License that we say: “The wiki
documents (all the documents in the default .xar archive) are distributed under Creative
Commons (CC-BY)”.
>>
>> However currently all our wiki pages in GitHub (the XML files) are licensed under
LGPL 2.1
>>
>> Do we need to change the license for all those XML files?
>
> BTW are we sure it would be ok to have files licensed under both LGPL and CC-BY in
our distribution?
>
> All I could find is to consider those XML files “non-functional data” files (see
"Non-functional Data” in
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html) which says:
>
> “
> Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more of an
adornment to the system's software than a part of it. Thus, we don't insist on the
free license criteria for non-functional data. It can be included in a free system
distribution as long as its license gives you permission to copy and redistribute, both
for commercial and non-commercial purposes. For example, some game engines released under
the GNU GPL have accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and
so on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This kind of data can be part
of a free system distribution, even though its license does not qualify as free, because
it is non-functional.
> ”
>
> One issue is that those XML files not only contain data but also scripts which I
don’t think can be considered “non-functional data”...
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs