10 Nov
2015
10 Nov
'15
9:48 a.m.
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:44:58, Thomas Mortagne
(thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
That is not correct. If you check http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License you’ll
see: "The wiki documents (all the documents in the default .xar archive) are
distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY), which is a better suited license for
content.”
So no it’s not hypothetical, we need to decide which it is. AFAIK we decide CC-BY way
before we started putting the license header in the XML files in the SCM (I was probably
the one who started putting the licenses there and I probably made a mistake since I
didn’t realize at the time we wanted CC-BY).
This is the reason I’m asking. I’m also asking about whether the mix of both LGPL and
CC-BY is ok or not in our sources (I think it’s ok in sources) and in our distributions
(could be a problem).
Thanks
-Vincent
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:
* 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?
Is this hypothetical ? Because right now as you can see in all the
XMLs files the XAR are LGPL. The only thing that is referencing CC-BY
is some configuration property that anyone can change and that is not
linked to any specific source. * 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?
* ZIP file (jetty/hsqld standalone distribution): Here there could be a problem since we
have a mix of LGPL and CC-BY content. Anyone has a clue about whether this is ok or not?
WDYT? I’m far from a license expert...
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>
> 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