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

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)) 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? > > :) > > 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?