10 Nov
2015
10 Nov
'15
10:41 a.m.
The license itself is very vague about this, trying to determine whether something is a
"derivitive work" or not.
A comparison might be made to the Java platform, you can see the internals of the JVM
are licensed under the GPLv2 without any acceptions at all:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/87ee5ee27509/src/os/linux…
However the java code in the standard library is subject to an exception to the rule
as you can see here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/file/687fd7c7986d/src/share/classe…
We can think of XWiki Platform like the JVM and the XWiki code and pages like the Java
classpath. Clearly the classpath Java code is a "user" of the JVM and is not in
any
way a "derivitive work".
Thanks,
Caleb
On 10/11/15 10:12, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:07:05, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr))
wrote:
On 10/11/15 09:59, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
[snip]
Hmm, that is not my reading, at least for GPL. In section 9 of
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated it says:
"Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this requirement. Software linked with
GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with
which they are merely distributed.”
The XML pages form a single work with the WAR and as such become GPL if the WAR is the
Class files are un GPL.
Do you have a pointer for "only says that code in the SAME FILE as LGPL code must be
LGPL”. My understand of LGPL was that it was like GPL except that non-core code (ie
extensions) didn’t have to be redistributed under LGPL.
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi Caleb,
See below
On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr))
wrote:
See section 9 of http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Basically the GPL means that software which is LINKED with GPL software must be GPL
but software which is merely distributed with it need not be. LGPL is of course less
restrictive and only says that code in the SAME FILE as LGPL code must be LGPL.
In either case this is safe.
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? :)
> * 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?
It's fine because LGPL (and even GPL) is ok with files under any other
license to be distributed in the same package. This is actually a requirement
for a license to be classified as "Open Source”.
My understanding is that if you distribute something with GPL or LGPL license then it
becomes GPL or LGPL (virality).