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

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> > > > > > > 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)) > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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? > > +1 for LGPL. Default wiki pages contain JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Velocity, Groovy code which shouldn't be licensed differently than the Java code we have in the JARs. Moreover, the license shouldn't depend on the way the code is packaged: JAR, WebJar, WAR or XAR. Thanks, Marius