10 Nov
2015
10 Nov
'15
9:54 a.m.
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:49:43, Thomas Mortagne (thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com) wrote:
If pages have the wrong license then we should fix the XAR plugin and
modify all the XMLs.
From the beginning my mail has been about:
1) Clarifying whether we want the XML pages (and also the VM) to be under CC-BY or LGPL
since right now we have 2 places that say the opposite
2) Clarifying if having both LGPL and CC-BY is ok in sources and distributions
Once we have a decision it’s easy to update pages, that is not the issue…
But again my point is that this message is
useless and probably even wrong since it imply that any new page
become licensed under CC-BY.
This may be your point but you should start a new thread then since my thread is
absolutely not about this which is very minor and easy to fix.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:45 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:38:20, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr))
wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
I agree with Thomas, license on the wiki pages is
a sticky situation
because on the one hand some of them contain significant code which
we might want to put under a copyleft license (we might not, it only
works on XWiki afterall) but at the same time we don't want to lead
users to believe that changes they make to the wiki will somehow be
forced under the same license because of LGPL.
At the very least we could add a footer which only showed up for one
of the "internal" pages, exclaiming a license and discouraging users
from editing it.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 10/11/15 09:23, Thomas Mortagne 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
Note that the message displayed on the wiki at runtime just needs to be in sync with what
license we choose for wiki pages/VM files.
But first, we need to decide if what we have is correct and I don’t think it is since our
pages in the SCM say LGPL and we say CC-BY in
http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License
See my previous email.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs