10 Nov
2015
10 Nov
'15
1:44 p.m.
Yes I think we should just forget about any other license than LGPL.
Everything XWiki Dev Team produce should be LGPL whatever it is which
is exactly what we do right now in practice from sources and Maven
point of view. We just need to completely remove all reference to
CC-BY (and completely get rid of this absurd runtime message in XE
preferences).
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
This seems overly complex to me to say that portions
of wiki pages that are content is CC-BY and the portions that are scripts are under LGPL.
Also I don’t think it helps at all to people who want to make distributions (since if they
copy existing wiki pages it’s almost sure they’ll copy scripts and thus LGPL code).
IMO either we say that wiki pages + VMs are fully CC-BY or we say they are LGPL and live
with the consequences (i.e. modifications + redistribution have to be under LGPL or
compatible license). If you distribution your own content then the license is the one you
wish for your content and untouched existing content is under LGPL.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 10 Nov 2015 at 12:17:36, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com) wrote:
+1 for LGPL on code as well. 90+% of the standard XAR contains raw code, as
Marius and Thomas already mentioned.
IMO, the CC license string in the header could be modified from "This wiki
is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license" to something like
"This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license"... i.e. to emphasize
that it is a statement for the runtime; for content pages that are created
by the users and that there are other pages that contain code and that are
part of the XWiki product itself (which has its own LGPL license).
IMO, we can not simply say that wiki pages have license X, because a wiki
page is just a container (just like a file in a filesystem). What you
choose to put in that page (i.e. file) determines what type of license you
apply to it.
On this note, do you think we would be interested in adding a new "license"
field to a wiki page's model? This would also allow us to set the license
of our standard XAR code pages in that field, since right now, any license
header we have in our XML pages on git gets lost at runtime, since XML
comments are not imported into the wiki in any way... so our licensing
information is lost at runtime.
Conclusion: Code is LGPL, content is CC, regardless of where it is
physically located or packaged.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne
<
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License?viewer=changes&rev1=3.…
to
kinds
to
it.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net
>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne
> > (thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
> >> > Hi Caleb,
> >> >
> >> > See below
> >> >
> >> > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle
> >> > (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr)) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> 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:
> >> >
> >> >
>
>> >
> >> > 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
>> >> > 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
of
files.
> >> > binaries:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > ok that’s cool then.
> >
> > So we just need to confirm that we want our wiki pages (XML files)
under
> > CC-BY and modify the licenses
accordingly.
> >
> > Same question for VM files.
> >
> > Personally I’m fine with CC-BY for both.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> >> > * 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
>
>> > 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 ?
>> >
>> > I agree we shouldn’t care and I’m in favor of CC-BY. Now do we need >> > find all their authors to ask them
if they’re ok to relicense them
un
CC-BY?
> > :)
>
> I don't really agree with the "we don't care", pages contain code
and
> they are distributed on their own. It's not just some data you get in
> a XWiki distribution but extensions you install on a platform so they
> are software. It's like saying we don't care about some php software
> license, it only works with the pho runtime anyway…
Ok. What’s your proposal? Have them under LGPL?
That would mean:
* Users can modify the content as long as they don’t redistribute it
* If users make modification to them and redistribute them, then they
need
to use the LGPL license
Would we be ok with that?
It certainly make sense to me, we have lots of
code in pages and I
don't see why code from pages should not be as viral as code in Java
when you reuse it. You can write any extension or flavor that does not
reuse code coming from common pages and put whatever license you want
(which should be the case most of the time, having a Main.WebHome page
with completely new content does not mean you reuse Main.WebHome
code).
+1 for LGPL. Default wiki pages contain JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Velocity,
Groovy code which shouldn't be licensed differently than the Java code we
have in the JARs. Moreover, the license shouldn't depend on the way the
code is packaged: JAR, WebJar, WAR or XAR.
Thanks,
Marius
>
> Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to
have
> everything in LGPL.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>>
>> >
>> >> > * ZIP file (jetty/hsqld standalone distribution): Here there
could
be
LGPL
> >> > 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”.
>> >
>> > My understanding is that if you distribute something with GPL or >> > license then it becomes GPL or LGPL
(virality).
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > -Vincent
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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
both
> >> >>>> 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 >
>> >>> 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 Thus, we
also
> >> >>> 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 >
>> >>> scripts which I don’t think can be considered “non-functional
data”...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> WDYT?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks
> >> >>> -Vincent
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Thanks
> >> >>>> -Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs