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 On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:38:20, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr)) wrote: Note that the message displayed on the wiki at runtime just needs to be in sync with what license we choose for wiki pages/VM files. But first, we need to decide if what we have is correct and I don’t think it is since our pages in the SCM say LGPL and we say CC-BY in http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License See my previous email. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

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

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

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: 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.

-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 10/11/15 09:40, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: 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.

Not a problem, LGPL means linking is ok. If they cannot possibly be used outside of XWiki, do we really care what the license is ?

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”.

Thanks, Caleb > > WDYT? I’m far from a license expert... > > Thanks > -Vincent > > >> 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

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: 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…

> >> > * 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). > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> >> Thanks, >> Caleb >> >> >> > >> > WDYT? I’m far from a license expert... >> > >> > Thanks >> > -Vincent >> > >> > >> >> 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

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: It certainly make sense to me, we have lots of code in pages and I don't see why code from pages should not be as viral as code in Java when you reuse it. You can write any extension or flavor that does not reuse code coming from common pages and put whatever license you want (which should be the case most of the time, having a Main.WebHome page with completely new content does not mean you reuse Main.WebHome code).

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:18 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: I tough we were talking about pages.

> But I think I agree with you that this is code and there’s no reason it should be treated differently. > > I’m curious to get Sergiu’s feedback on this since he’s the one who proposed CC-BY in the first place if I remember correctly. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > [snip]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: I did not noticed your reference to VM files and they are clearly indicated as LGPL in http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License so your example just did not seemed relevant to me.

> Thanks > -Vincent > >> > But I think I agree with you that this is code and there’s no reason it should be treated differently. >> > >> > I’m curious to get Sergiu’s feedback on this since he’s the one who proposed CC-BY in the first place if I remember correctly. >> > >> > Thanks >> > -Vincent >> > >> > [snip] >

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

It certainly make sense to me, we have lots of code in pages and I don't see why code from pages should not be as viral as code in Java when you reuse it. You can write any extension or flavor that does not reuse code coming from common pages and put whatever license you want (which should be the case most of the time, having a Main.WebHome page with completely new content does not mean you reuse Main.WebHome code).

be has a clue other we archive) are are http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html) Thus, we data. It can be gives you non-commercial GPL have graphics, and so kind of data license does not data”... -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne < thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, vincent(a)massol.net &lt;vincent(a)massol.net > > > > > > > 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)) > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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 http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License?viewer=changes&rev1=3.… to to to kinds files. to un +1 for LGPL. Default wiki pages contain JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Velocity, Groovy code which shouldn't be licensed differently than the Java code we have in the JARs. Moreover, the license shouldn't depend on the way the code is packaged: JAR, WebJar, WAR or XAR. Thanks, Marius have could LGPL that .xar both it. also _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Thomas Mortagne <mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> 10 novembre 2015 13:44 Yes I think we should just forget about any other license than LGPL. Everything XWiki Dev Team produce should be LGPL whatever it is which is exactly what we do right now in practice from sources and Maven point of view. We just need to completely remove all reference to CC-BY (and completely get rid of this absurd runtime message in XE preferences). vincent(a)massol.net <mailto:vincent@massol.net> 10 novembre 2015 12:57 This seems overly complex to me to say that portions of wiki pages that are content is CC-BY and the portions that are scripts are under LGPL. Also I don’t think it helps at all to people who want to make distributions (since if they copy existing wiki pages it’s almost sure they’ll copy scripts and thus LGPL code). IMO either we say that wiki pages + VMs are fully CC-BY or we say they are LGPL and live with the consequences (i.e. modifications + redistribution have to be under LGPL or compatible license). If you distribution your own content then the license is the one you wish for your content and untouched existing content is under LGPL. Thanks -Vincent On 10 Nov 2015 at 12:17:36, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com) wrote: +1 for LGPL on code as well. 90+% of the standard XAR contains raw code, as Marius and Thomas already mentioned. IMO, the CC license string in the header could be modified from "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license" to something like "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license"... i.e. to emphasize that it is a statement for the runtime; for content pages that are created by the users and that there are other pages that contain code and that are part of the XWiki product itself (which has its own LGPL license). IMO, we can not simply say that wiki pages have license X, because a wiki page is just a container (just like a file in a filesystem). What you choose to put in that page (i.e. file) determines what type of license you apply to it. On this note, do you think we would be interested in adding a new "license" field to a wiki page's model? This would also allow us to set the license of our standard XAR code pages in that field, since right now, any license header we have in our XML pages on git gets lost at runtime, since XML comments are not imported into the wiki in any way... so our licensing information is lost at runtime. Conclusion: Code is LGPL, content is CC, regardless of where it is physically located or packaged. Thanks, Eduard On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Eduard Moraru <mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com> 10 novembre 2015 12:17 +1 for LGPL on code as well. 90+% of the standard XAR contains raw code, as Marius and Thomas already mentioned. IMO, the CC license string in the header could be modified from "This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license" to something like "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license"... i.e. to emphasize that it is a statement for the runtime; for content pages that are created by the users and that there are other pages that contain code and that are part of the XWiki product itself (which has its own LGPL license). IMO, we can not simply say that wiki pages have license X, because a wiki page is just a container (just like a file in a filesystem). What you choose to put in that page (i.e. file) determines what type of license you apply to it. On this note, do you think we would be interested in adding a new "license" field to a wiki page's model? This would also allow us to set the license of our standard XAR code pages in that field, since right now, any license header we have in our XML pages on git gets lost at runtime, since XML comments are not imported into the wiki in any way... so our licensing information is lost at runtime. Conclusion: Code is LGPL, content is CC, regardless of where it is physically located or packaged. Thanks, Eduard On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Marius Dumitru Florea <mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> 10 novembre 2015 11:12 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne &lt;thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, vincent(a)massol.net &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >> 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)) >>>>>>> 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? +1 for LGPL. Default wiki pages contain JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Velocity, Groovy code which shouldn't be licensed differently than the Java code we have in the JARs. Moreover, the license shouldn't depend on the way the code is packaged: JAR, WebJar, WAR or XAR. Thanks, Marius _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Thomas Mortagne <mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> 10 novembre 2015 10:13 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, vincent(a)massol.net &lt;vincent(a)massol.net It certainly make sense to me, we have lots of code in pages and I don't see why code from pages should not be as viral as code in Java when you reuse it. You can write any extension or flavor that does not reuse code coming from common pages and put whatever license you want (which should be the case most of the time, having a Main.WebHome page with completely new content does not mean you reuse Main.WebHome code).

Hi Paul, On 10 Nov 2015 at 14:09:40, Paul Libbrecht (paul@hoplahup.net(mailto:paul@hoplahup.net)) wrote: I don’t understand what you mean Paul. Are you talking about the text displayed at runtime? How could that be an encouragement? When someone distributes something he picks the license at that point. Surely he’ll pick whatever he wants. Even worse, this text goes in the opposite direction that the one you mention because content licensed CC-BY can be modified and relicensed under any license so the user has no incentive to keep it open at all! While, if it’s under LGPL then the user cannot modify it and relicense it under a less permissive license if he redistributes it… What did I miss? :) Thanks -Vincent [snip] _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

You can always put this kind of message in some public wiki you run but having this message by default for anyone that use XWiki does not make any sense. It's not out job to decide what license will be used for user content.

Hi Caleb, See below On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr)) wrote: 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? 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? :) My understanding is that if you distribute something with GPL or LGPL license then it becomes GPL or LGPL (virality).

Thanks -Vincent

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:07:05, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd@cjdns.fr(mailto:cjd@cjdns.fr)) 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