On 02/02/2010 08:08 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu 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.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL (in the ASF we must put the license headers on all resources), ie a non viral license.
Yes, this is unclear to me too. A hardware example that comes to mind is that the copyright is not written on all pages of a book, just under the cover, but still all the pages are protected by copyright. Not sure if the analogy is OK. Anyway, we SHOULD put the chosen license in all our files.
It's also possible that it's not allowed to put our XML files under a CC license next to other files with the LGPL license (virality issue).
LGPL is not viral, so it should be OK. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/