[xwiki-devs] License question
Hi all I'm totally confused. :-( If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too? Thanks for any clarification Simon PS: I know this is a standard question, but seriously I did not found an easy, understandable, concise and without long follow-ups about whether the interpretation is right or not, answer to this in hours of searching. Is it me or is (L)GPL one of the most complicated license nowadays? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-question-tp14607397p14607397.html Sent from the XWiki- Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open source license. If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to share it with the community under the LGPL license. At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert). Thanks -Vincent
Thanks for any clarification Simon
PS: I know this is a standard question, but seriously I did not found an easy, understandable, concise and without long follow-ups about whether the interpretation is right or not, answer to this in hours of searching. Is it me or is (L)GPL one of the most complicated license nowadays?
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks -Vincent
Hi, Following this thread and looking for some more insight. Considering that we are trying to get support to develop XWiki extensions and share them with the community, under what license must we release these supposed, so far, extensions? A simple example: a company/public body contract a work with our group. We would like to solve the ICT part of the problem with a solution based on XWiki. But we want to tell the client that any extension constructed over XWiki must be shared with the community. What license must we propose to the client to accept? Thanks! Ricardo -- Ricardo Rodríguez Your XEN ICT Team
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Your XEN ICT Team - Ricardo Rodriguez wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks -Vincent
Hi,
Following this thread and looking for some more insight. Considering that we are trying to get support to develop XWiki extensions and share them with the community, under what license must we release these supposed, so far, extensions?
A simple example: a company/public body contract a work with our group. We would like to solve the ICT part of the problem with a solution based on XWiki. But we want to tell the client that any extension constructed over XWiki must be shared with the community. What license must we propose to the client to accept?
I don't know the answer but my feeling is that extensions can be released under the license you want. This needs to be checked of course. Anyone knows? Thanks -Vincent
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Your XEN ICT Team - Ricardo Rodriguez wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks -Vincent
Hi,
Following this thread and looking for some more insight. Considering that we are trying to get support to develop XWiki extensions and share them with the community, under what license must we release these supposed, so far, extensions?
A simple example: a company/public body contract a work with our group. We would like to solve the ICT part of the problem with a solution based on XWiki. But we want to tell the client that any extension constructed over XWiki must be shared with the community. What license must we propose to the client to accept?
I don't know the answer but my feeling is that extensions can be released under the license you want. This needs to be checked of course. Anyone knows?
Thanks -Vincent
The core must be kept under LGPL. Extensions/plugins can have any licence compatible with LGPL. Sergiu
Sergiu Dumitriu-2 wrote:
The core must be kept under LGPL. Extensions/plugins can have any licence compatible with LGPL.
Can you maybe provide a good link who tells me which licenses are compatible with LGPL? Is "no license" (because not published) also allowed? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-question-tp14607397p14620758.html Sent from the XWiki- Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Jan 4, 2008, at 6:03 PM, justanotheradress wrote:
Sergiu Dumitriu-2 wrote:
The core must be kept under LGPL. Extensions/plugins can have any licence compatible with LGPL.
Can you maybe provide a good link who tells me which licenses are compatible with LGPL? Is "no license" (because not published) also allowed?
I'd think so. A license doesn't make much sense if you don't distribute your work... ;) Thanks -Vincent
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, justanotheradress wrote:
Hi all
I'm totally confused. :-(
If I use XWIKI, which is published under LGPL, am I allowed to write a module/plugin and not publish it or do I have to publish it under LGPL too?
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open source license.
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
Actually I think that if you make any modification to the core you also need to share it with the community under the LGPL license. So the "virality" doesn't apply only to extensions. In the case of xwiki this means: macros, plugins, code snippets in pages, applications, extensions (a la XEclipse). -Vincent
At least this is my understanding (I'm not a license expert).
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks for any clarification Simon
PS: I know this is a standard question, but seriously I did not found an easy, understandable, concise and without long follow-ups about whether the interpretation is right or not, answer to this in hours of searching. Is it me or is (L)GPL one of the most complicated license nowadays?
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Le 4 janv. 08 à 09:25, Vincent Massol a écrit :
AFAIK, yes you can write extensions and not publish them under an open source license.
Definitely!
If you make any modification to the current code though you'll have to share it with the community under the LGPL license.
That's not even a requirement, it is only required that whenever you distribute it you should license it this way. Your own modifications (for your own company, for the company that hires you etc) is not covered I think. I'm also not an expert... but lawyers are expensive! The same considerations apply for Apache License I think. paul
participants (5)
-
justanotheradress -
Paul Libbrecht -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol -
Your XEN ICT Team - Ricardo Rodriguez