[xwiki-devs] Official application license ambiguity
Hi devs, I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL. As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC... -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
IMO we should remove this notice from default XE, as you said it's mostly code so it would be easier to only have LGPL for everything we distribute. CC sounds more like the xwiki.org website content license.
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC... -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 02/01/2010 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46, Sergiu Dumitriu<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
IMO we should remove this notice from default XE, as you said it's mostly code so it would be easier to only have LGPL for everything we distribute. CC sounds more like the xwiki.org website content license.
I agree with Thomas, we should drop the CC license from the default distribution, since: - it doesn't apply to the initial content - it might not be what the user wants for his content, and it would sound like we're pushing a license onto him Anybody against removing the default license?
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/01/2010 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46, Sergiu Dumitriu<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
IMO we should remove this notice from default XE, as you said it's mostly code so it would be easier to only have LGPL for everything we distribute. CC sounds more like the xwiki.org website content license.
I agree with Thomas, we should drop the CC license from the default distribution, since:
- it doesn't apply to the initial content - it might not be what the user wants for his content, and it would sound like we're pushing a license onto him
Anybody against removing the default license?
Yes, me, see my other email. I need to understand why we cannot license our XML files for apps under the CC license. Thanks -Vincent
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
On 02/02/2010 06:28 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/01/2010 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46, Sergiu Dumitriu<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
IMO we should remove this notice from default XE, as you said it's mostly code so it would be easier to only have LGPL for everything we distribute. CC sounds more like the xwiki.org website content license.
I agree with Thomas, we should drop the CC license from the default distribution, since:
- it doesn't apply to the initial content - it might not be what the user wants for his content, and it would sound like we're pushing a license onto him
Anybody against removing the default license?
Yes, me, see my other email. I need to understand why we cannot license our XML files for apps under the CC license.
Some prefer LGPL. Ludovic? For the XML files, I agree that we should have a license header inside them, be it LGPL or CC. But for the wiki, I prefer not to say anything. Keeping license headers in the source tree will be hard, since it's going to be hard to remember to put back the header after re-exporting from the wiki. We could have a SVN hook on the server that checks that all XML files committed have this header. We could do the same for java files, too.
Thanks -Vincent
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
I prefer CC BY (say it's XWiki, but allow commercial usage and non-CC changes). Probably the best would be if we all fill in http://creativecommons.org/choose/ and poll the results. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
There is a difference between the "content" and the "code" "Content" should be considered licenced as Creative Commons.. "Code" should be licenced as LGPL Ludovic Le 01/02/10 10:46, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications - don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
So, there are three possible choices: - change the default copyright notice - change the license of the applications
+1 to add a CC license to XML pages.
- don't change anything, implying that the CC applies only to new content inserted by the user
Personally I prefer to keep all the wiki content as CC, since LGPL is not exactly suited for content. However, since most of the default wiki pages are actually code pages, we could say that they consist mostly of code, which could go under the LGPL.
As a side note, we should be more specific about which kind of Creative Commons is that, BY, SA, NC...
Which one would you recommend? Thanks -Vincent
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too? -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL (in the ASF we must put the license headers on all resources), ie a non viral license. It's also possible that it's not allowed to put our XML files under a CC license next to other files with the LGPL license (virality issue). -Vincent
On 02/02/2010 08:08 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL (in the ASF we must put the license headers on all resources), ie a non viral license.
Yes, this is unclear to me too. A hardware example that comes to mind is that the copyright is not written on all pages of a book, just under the cover, but still all the pages are protected by copyright. Not sure if the analogy is OK. Anyway, we SHOULD put the chosen license in all our files.
It's also possible that it's not allowed to put our XML files under a CC license next to other files with the LGPL license (virality issue).
LGPL is not viral, so it should be OK. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 08:08 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL (in the ASF we must put the license headers on all resources), ie a non viral license.
Yes, this is unclear to me too. A hardware example that comes to mind is that the copyright is not written on all pages of a book, just under the cover, but still all the pages are protected by copyright. Not sure if the analogy is OK. Anyway, we SHOULD put the chosen license in all our files.
It's also possible that it's not allowed to put our XML files under a CC license next to other files with the LGPL license (virality issue).
LGPL is not viral, so it should be OK.
AFAIK the LGPL is viral but only to the core not to libraries (whatever this means). -Vincent
Le 02/02/10 20:55, Vincent Massol a écrit :
On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 08:08 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL (in the ASF we must put the license headers on all resources), ie a non viral license.
Yes, this is unclear to me too. A hardware example that comes to mind is that the copyright is not written on all pages of a book, just under the cover, but still all the pages are protected by copyright. Not sure if the analogy is OK. Anyway, we SHOULD put the chosen license in all our files.
It's also possible that it's not allowed to put our XML files under a CC license next to other files with the LGPL license (virality issue).
LGPL is not viral, so it should be OK.
AFAIK the LGPL is viral but only to the core not to libraries (whatever this means).
Hi, It's really a matter of decision and if there is no decision of interpretation. In any case the analogy of linux clearly would make that: XWiki server is a runtime server XWiki pages are the applications and the content which runs on this runtime Therefore the application and content has no constraint linked to the licence of the engine (even if it was GPL). We have always delivered XWiki with the sentence "the content of this wiki is creative commons". There this currently applies to the whole XAR content (content and code) Now we need to document more explicitely for the XAR files we deliver, and particularly the code iteself. It is important that the content is not contaminated by any licence that would be put for the code in the XAR page. If we do put a ASL or LGPL licence on the code in the XAR file it's important that we define what "code" is. For example: - Code is what is inside {{velocity}} and {{groovy}} or {{html}} tags, exclusing text strings Ludovic
-Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled. There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library. I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent. Caleb Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
On 02/03/2010 01:01 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled.
There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library.
I don't agree that this is a valid hard link which would cause the LGPL core to become viral to the wiki pages. These are wiki pages. This is data. This data is sometimes executable. This data sometime results in platform methods being called. A shell script results in bash methods being called. Must all shell scripts be GPL because they end up executing bash code? This data gets converted from wiki source to HTML code through the core. A C program gets converted from C source to executable code through GCC. Must all C programs be GPL because they pass through GCC? This is obviously library usage, since it's code that calls API methods through a proxy.
I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent.
Caleb
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Hi, here's my take on this topic: - The code we write, be it in the core or in XE, should be licensed under the LGPL license (better suited for code than a CC license, what's the point of having the whole blog application licensed as CC when obviously it's not content?) - We should leave the choice of the content license to the wiki owner (what's the point of imposing a default one to him / her) - The "default" case for copyright licenses is already defined by the law of pretty much every country, thus the default we should choose should be not to display anything by default (which is also another reason why we'd want to make the code in the XE XAR licensed under the LGPL) - Ideally we'd add a "license" field somewhere in the admin interface that, when filled, would be displayed in the footer WDYT? Guillaume On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/03/2010 01:01 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled.
There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library.
I don't agree that this is a valid hard link which would cause the LGPL core to become viral to the wiki pages.
These are wiki pages. This is data. This data is sometimes executable. This data sometime results in platform methods being called. A shell script results in bash methods being called. Must all shell scripts be GPL because they end up executing bash code? This data gets converted from wiki source to HTML code through the core. A C program gets converted from C source to executable code through GCC. Must all C programs be GPL because they pass through GCC?
This is obviously library usage, since it's code that calls API methods through a proxy.
I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent.
Caleb
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
here's my take on this topic:
- The code we write, be it in the core or in XE, should be licensed under the LGPL license (better suited for code than a CC license, what's the point of having the whole blog application licensed as CC when obviously it's not content?)
Can you elaborate on "better suited for code" for the XAR pages?
- We should leave the choice of the content license to the wiki owner (what's the point of imposing a default one to him / her)
We don't impose anything. This is editable from the Admin page. What we provide is a default license for the *pages we provide*
- The "default" case for copyright licenses is already defined by the law of pretty much every country, thus the default we should choose should be not to display anything by default (which is also another reason why we'd want to make the code in the XE XAR licensed under the LGPL)
I don't understand this part. Can you prove what you say?
- Ideally we'd add a "license" field somewhere in the admin interface that, when filled, would be displayed in the footer
It's already there ;) (could be improved though) -Vincent
WDYT?
Guillaume
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/03/2010 01:01 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled.
There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library.
I don't agree that this is a valid hard link which would cause the LGPL core to become viral to the wiki pages.
These are wiki pages. This is data. This data is sometimes executable. This data sometime results in platform methods being called. A shell script results in bash methods being called. Must all shell scripts be GPL because they end up executing bash code? This data gets converted from wiki source to HTML code through the core. A C program gets converted from C source to executable code through GCC. Must all C programs be GPL because they pass through GCC?
This is obviously library usage, since it's code that calls API methods through a proxy.
I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent.
Caleb
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
Hi, On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
here's my take on this topic:
- The code we write, be it in the core or in XE, should be licensed under the LGPL license (better suited for code than a CC license, what's the point of having the whole blog application licensed as CC when obviously it's not content?)
Can you elaborate on "better suited for code" for the XAR pages?
With pleasure. If you please, I'll take the liberty of going for a reasoning ad absurdum: 1. All the code committers write for XWiki Core is licensed under the LGPL 2. We can reasonably agree that most of the content of the default XE XAR beyond Main.WebHome and the Sandbox space is made of code 3. Thus if a CC license is the best license for code in the XE XAR, why don't we also use it for XWiki Core?
- We should leave the choice of the content license to the wiki owner
(what's the point of imposing a default one to him / her)
We don't impose anything. This is editable from the Admin page. What we provide is a default license for the *pages we provide*
This is absolutely not clear. The license is displayed in the footer of all pages. New pages bear it too. Since the current wording is very imprecise, a wiki admin cannot know whether she would be allowed to change the content license for all pages of the wiki at once. AFAIK the license can't be changed on a per page basis.
- The "default" case for copyright licenses is already defined by the law
of pretty much every country, thus the default we should choose should be not to display anything by default (which is also another reason why we'd want to make the code in the XE XAR licensed under the LGPL)
I don't understand this part. Can you prove what you say?
Sure. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright , specifically: "In all countries where the Berne Convention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works>standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."
- Ideally we'd add a "license" field somewhere in the admin interface
that, when filled, would be displayed in the footer
It's already there ;) (could be improved though)
I'm aware of this but the current interface isn't exactly of the most practical form ;-) Guillaume -Vincent
WDYT?
Guillaume
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/03/2010 01:01 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled.
There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library.
I don't agree that this is a valid hard link which would cause the LGPL core to become viral to the wiki pages.
These are wiki pages. This is data. This data is sometimes executable. This data sometime results in platform methods being called. A shell script results in bash methods being called. Must all shell scripts be GPL because they end up executing bash code? This data gets converted from wiki source to HTML code through the core. A C program gets converted from C source to executable code through GCC. Must all C programs be GPL because they pass through GCC?
This is obviously library usage, since it's code that calls API methods through a proxy.
I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent.
Caleb
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> Hi devs, > > I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is > licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for > the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one).
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
I just noticed that in 2.2RC1 "under a CC license" is now a link to the CC-BY license. I had a look over it and found: "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier" This appears to indicate (and appearance is everything) that people can't remove the "under a CC license" note when distributing applications based on XE. This could also be read as: "you must include the CC note on any XE based website you build". I understand the idea of switching to LGPL was to allow for the writing of proprietary XWiki applications but I think the CC-BY notice sends mixed messages. Suppose we were to removed the copyright note from the footer and added an MIT style license header to the top of the code of each application (in a comment at the beginning of the script macro). The MIT license contains the indemnification clause but allows sublicensing so people could build on XE and license the result as they wish. Also the MIT license is considered GPL compatible while the CC-BY license is not. My feeling is that XE is so dependent on the core that no matter how it's used, XWiki wins. Just a thought... Caleb The licenses for comparison: Expat ("MIT") http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt CC-BY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode As a side note, CC gives me the creeps the way they hide their licenses behind "human readable common deeds". Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
here's my take on this topic:
- The code we write, be it in the core or in XE, should be licensed under the LGPL license (better suited for code than a CC license, what's the point of having the whole blog application licensed as CC when obviously it's not content?) Can you elaborate on "better suited for code" for the XAR pages?
With pleasure. If you please, I'll take the liberty of going for a reasoning ad absurdum:
1. All the code committers write for XWiki Core is licensed under the LGPL 2. We can reasonably agree that most of the content of the default XE XAR beyond Main.WebHome and the Sandbox space is made of code 3. Thus if a CC license is the best license for code in the XE XAR, why don't we also use it for XWiki Core?
- We should leave the choice of the content license to the wiki owner
(what's the point of imposing a default one to him / her) We don't impose anything. This is editable from the Admin page. What we provide is a default license for the *pages we provide*
This is absolutely not clear. The license is displayed in the footer of all pages. New pages bear it too. Since the current wording is very imprecise, a wiki admin cannot know whether she would be allowed to change the content license for all pages of the wiki at once. AFAIK the license can't be changed on a per page basis.
- The "default" case for copyright licenses is already defined by the law
of pretty much every country, thus the default we should choose should be not to display anything by default (which is also another reason why we'd want to make the code in the XE XAR licensed under the LGPL) I don't understand this part. Can you prove what you say?
Sure. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright , specifically:
"In all countries where the Berne Convention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works>standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."
- Ideally we'd add a "license" field somewhere in the admin interface
that, when filled, would be displayed in the footer It's already there ;) (could be improved though)
I'm aware of this but the current interface isn't exactly of the most practical form ;-)
Guillaume
-Vincent
WDYT?
Guillaume
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/03/2010 01:01 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Gnu lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as GPL incompatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
In my opinion, licensing something under multiple licenses which are as incompatible is not the best decision, the obvious problem is it is not allowable to distribute the WAR with the XAR preinstalled.
There may be a problem with the viral nature of LGPL given that the core (templates) make reference to XE (download the default pages here) and XE obviously makes a lot of calls to core functions. Since each references the other it might be hard to claim that XE is using the core is as a library. I don't agree that this is a valid hard link which would cause the LGPL core to become viral to the wiki pages.
These are wiki pages. This is data. This data is sometimes executable. This data sometime results in platform methods being called. A shell script results in bash methods being called. Must all shell scripts be GPL because they end up executing bash code? This data gets converted from wiki source to HTML code through the core. A C program gets converted from C source to executable code through GCC. Must all C programs be GPL because they pass through GCC?
This is obviously library usage, since it's code that calls API methods through a proxy.
I think that we need to define what activity we want to allow and what we want to prevent.
Caleb
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is >> licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for >> the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki. > Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML files and there should be one). Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project almost make it LGPL too?
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
participants (6)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Ludovic Dubost -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol