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

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? :)