I agree with Thomas, license on the wiki pages is a sticky situation because on the one hand some of them contain significant code which we might want to put under a copyleft license (we might not, it only works on XWiki afterall) but at the same time we don't want to lead users to believe that changes they make to the wiki will somehow be forced under the same license because of LGPL. At the very least we could add a footer which only showed up for one of the "internal" pages, exclaiming a license and discouraging users from editing it. Thanks, Caleb On 10/11/15 09:23, Thomas Mortagne 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

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

If pages have the wrong license then we should fix the XAR plugin and modify all the XMLs. But again my point is that this message is useless and probably even wrong since it imply that any new page become licensed under CC-BY. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:45 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:38:20, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

I agree with Thomas, license on the wiki pages is a sticky situation because on the one hand some of them contain significant code which we might want to put under a copyleft license (we might not, it only works on XWiki afterall) but at the same time we don't want to lead users to believe that changes they make to the wiki will somehow be forced under the same license because of LGPL.

At the very least we could add a footer which only showed up for one of the "internal" pages, exclaiming a license and discouraging users from editing it.

Thanks, Caleb

On 10/11/15 09:23, Thomas Mortagne 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

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

...

...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

---

devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev... 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? * 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

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 10 Nov 2015 at 09:44:58, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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.

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

...

* 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

...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Caleb, See below On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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). Thanks -Vincent

Thanks, Caleb

...

WDYT? I’m far from a license expert...

Thanks -Vincent

...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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? Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have everything in LGPL. Thanks -Vincent

...

...

...

* 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, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 10 Nov 2015 at 10:13:31, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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?

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).

New pages are not an issue. If you write a custom skin and you copy paste some VM and makes change to them and then redistribute it then you need to use the LGPL license. 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 10 Nov 2015 at 10:31:01, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:18 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:13:31, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

> > > On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev... > > > > 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?

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).

New pages are not an issue. If you write a custom skin and you copy paste some VM and makes change to them and then redistribute it then you need to use the LGPL license.

I tough we were talking about pages.

I’ve mentioned several times that we need to resolve this for wiki pages AND VM files (they fall in the same category, especially since you can override VM files in wiki pages). I don’t understand the point of your remark: does that mean that you’d like to have a different handling between pages and VMs? 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]

  On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:38:42, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:31:01, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:18 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:13:31, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Caleb, > > > > See below > > > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote: > >> > > >> > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne > >> > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev... > >> > > >> > 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?

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).

New pages are not an issue. If you write a custom skin and you copy paste some VM and makes change to them and then redistribute it then you need to use the LGPL license.

I tough we were talking about pages.

I’ve mentioned several times that we need to resolve this for wiki pages AND VM files (they fall in the same category, especially since you can override VM files in wiki pages).

I don’t understand the point of your remark: does that mean that you’d like to have a different handling between pages and VMs?

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.

Again, what is written on http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License doesn’t match the reality (what’s in the SCM). It’s actually the goal of the this thread to discuss what’s the reality and what we want. I view wiki pages and VM files in the same bag as I believe they can be modified very similarly. If we decide to continue having pages under CC-BY then I’d find it logical to also have VM files under CC-BY, because they can be overwritten on the file system but also in wiki pages. If you consider they’re different, please explain why. Thanks -Vincent

...

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]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]

wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected]))

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=3.2&rev...

...

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?

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).

+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

...

Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have everything in LGPL.

Thanks -Vincent

...

...

...

...

* 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, [email protected] wrote: >> >> On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] >> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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

-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

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 ([email protected]) 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 < [email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]

...

wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]

wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected]))

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=3.2&rev...

...

...

...

...

...

> > 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?

...

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).

+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

...

...

Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to

have

...

...

everything in LGPL.

Thanks -Vincent

...

...

...

> * 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, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] >>> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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

-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

I disagree, this clause is one of the best encouragements to produce open-content material and this should be imperatively kept. I would suggest to dual license the pieces of code which could be "understood" as content (such as changeable translations). I do not think dual licensing is an issue with existing code or? Paul

Thomas Mortagne <mailto:[email protected]> 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).

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Eduard Moraru <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Marius Dumitru Florea <mailto:[email protected]> 10 novembre 2015 11:12 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]

...

wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote: > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev... > 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?

...

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).

+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

...

...

Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have everything in LGPL.

Thanks -Vincent

...

...

...

> * 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, [email protected] wrote: >>> On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] >>> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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 -- Thomas Mortagne

---

devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Thomas Mortagne <mailto:[email protected]> 10 novembre 2015 10:13 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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?

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).

...

Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to have everything in LGPL.

Thanks -Vincent

...

...

...

...

* 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, [email protected] wrote: >> On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] >> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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

You can always put this kind of message in some public wiki you run but having this mess On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:24 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Paul,

On 10 Nov 2015 at 14:09:40, Paul Libbrecht ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

I disagree, this clause is one of the best encouragements to produce open-content material and this should be imperatively kept.

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

...

I would suggest to dual license the pieces of code which could be "understood" as content (such as changeable translations). I do not think dual licensing is an issue with existing code or?

Paul

...

Thomas Mortagne 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).

[email protected] 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 ([email protected]) 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 license" to something like "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 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

[snip]

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne

Thomas Mortagne wrote:

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. This message is not imposed on anyone to keep. That you want to make it easier switch-offable, I sure respect though.

I know that almost all wiki-administrators delay the question of choosing a license till very very long after the wiki has been started. Choosing a default license in the case of content repositories is an excellent way to make them think of it. I know a zillion of fellow mathematicians which love putting things on the web, basically implying that it is widely available, but never do a decision on the license, just because they do not have the rights competence to decide on that (or the time to acquire it). A few years ago, I even had a very prolific author to whom we asked the license of his set of GeoGebra constructions and he answered "I don't know, doesn't the GPL of GeoGebra mean my files are under GPL?". Such a misunderstanding is well avoided by this footer. It sets the stage. Paul

On 10/11/15 09:59, [email protected] wrote:

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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).

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. Thanks, Caleb

Thanks -Vincent

...

Thanks, Caleb

...

WDYT? I’m far from a license expert...

Thanks -Vincent

...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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

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/classes... 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, [email protected] wrote:

On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:07:05, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:59, [email protected] wrote:

...

Hi Caleb,

See below

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:

...

On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote:

...

On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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=3.2&rev...

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).

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.

[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