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

I disagree, this clause is one of the best encouragements to produce open-content material and this should be imperatively kept.

I would suggest to dual license the pieces of code which could be "understood" as content (such as changeable translations). I do not think dual licensing is an issue with existing code or? Paul > Thomas Mortagne > 10 novembre 2015 13:44 > 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). > > > > vincent(a)massol.net > 10 novembre 2015 12:57 > 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 > license" to something like > "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 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