Re: [xwiki-devs] License for wiki pages?

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:13:31, Thomas Mortagne (thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, 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: > >> >> > > >> >> > 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? > >> > :) > >> > >> 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). New pages are not an issue. If you write a custom skin and you copy paste some VM and makes change to them and then redistribute it then you need to use the LGPL license.