On 02/02/2010 06:28 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/01/2010 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46, Sergiu Dumitriu<[email protected]> 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.
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
IMO we should remove this notice from default XE, as you said it's mostly code so it would be easier to only have LGPL for everything we distribute. CC sounds more like the xwiki.org website content license.
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?
Yes, me, see my other email. I need to understand why we cannot license our XML files for apps under the CC license.
Some prefer LGPL. Ludovic? For the XML files, I agree that we should have a license header inside them, be it LGPL or CC. But for the wiki, I prefer not to say anything. Keeping license headers in the source tree will be hard, since it's going to be hard to remember to put back the header after re-exporting from the wiki. We could have a SVN hook on the server that checks that all XML files committed have this header. We could do the same for java files, too.
Thanks -Vincent
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
I prefer CC BY (say it's XWiki, but allow commercial usage and non-CC changes). Probably the best would be if we all fill in http://creativecommons.org/choose/ and poll the results. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/