10 Nov
2015
10 Nov
'15
10:13 a.m.
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:
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).
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
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? Hi Caleb,
See below
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle
(cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr)) wrote:
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…
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:
>
>
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:
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 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 ?
I agree we shouldn’t care and I’m in favor of CC-BY. Now do we need to
find all their authors to ask them if they’re ok to relicense them un CC-BY?
:)
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
> >> > 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 LGPL
> > 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
> >> >>>> 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
--
Thomas Mortagne