This question is also true for Jens who has contributed the Lucene plugin and the email notification plugin but to a lesser extent as these are plugins and could keep a separate licence. It would just restrict specific usage of these specific plugins.
right, but it would be nicer to have the whole code share the same license. In my understanding they have to stay GPL'd as long as XWiki is GPL'd, since I'm extending XWiki base classes in the plugins.
I don't have this understanding.. For me you are not shipping any code of XWiki in your plugin.. Extending a class is not "linking".. Now I agree that it's better to share the same licence.. So would you be willing to relicence in LGPL or ASL if we change the XWiki code licence.
In the end I tend to lean towards the LGPL with a clear message saying that embedding is clearly not a problem. That you can write your own proprietary plugins or extensions.. The only restriction is that if you take code from the LGPL packages then you have to contribute your modifications as LGPL too..
We could also double licence GPL/LGPL. I'd be happy to know what the community feels about potential proprietary competitors getting the benefits of some code of XWiki without giving back..
[Cameron Braid] I totally agree here. This sounds like a good option. I would be happy with a LGPL license that states that I can embed xwiki in a commercial/closed source app. I also think it is a good idea to require contribution of modifications to the code inside the libraries. Anyway, I'm just making these comments since I am considering embedding xwiki in an app (or more).
Ludovic
-- Ludovic Dubost XPertNet: http://www.xpertnet.fr/ Blog: http://www.ludovic.org/blog/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost AIM: nvludo Yahoo: ludovic