8 May
2011
8 May
'11
11:11 a.m.
Hello again,
I am unsure about the license xwiki uses. When I have a look at my
xwiki installation it reads: ?This wiki is licensed under a Creative
Commons license?. However, when I take a look at the FAQs
?http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License? it says that ?XWiki
is distributed under the LGPL license version 2.1?
Is there a difference between those two? If so, which one is applicable?
I am asking because we have a customer who sells intranet SaaS
solutions for small and middle sized companies. The question is: would
it be OK if he integrates XWiki into his solutions. He does not want
to use functions provided by xwiki in his code/programm and he
wouldn?t charge extra for it. However he would alter the authorisation
process and change the style.
Thanks very much for your help,
Stephanie
8 May
8 May
11:49 a.m.
Stephanie,
the default content license, as written in the footer, is the Creative Commons license.
This is easily adjustable and is by no means mandatory.
The XWiki code (which includes some of the original page contents) is under LGPL.
They do not need to be equal or bound as far as I know.
They are two fully different licenses.
paul
Le 8 mai 2011 à 11:11, lists(a)yhmail.de a écrit :
Hello again,
I am unsure about the license xwiki uses. When I have a look at my
xwiki installation it reads: ?This wiki is licensed under a Creative
Commons license?. However, when I take a look at the FAQs
?http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License? it says that ?XWiki
is distributed under the LGPL license version 2.1?
Is there a difference between those two? If so, which one is applicable?
I am asking because we have a customer who sells intranet SaaS
solutions for small and middle sized companies. The question is: would
it be OK if he integrates XWiki into his solutions. He does not want
to use functions provided by xwiki in his code/programm and he
wouldn?t charge extra for it. However he would alter the authorisation
process and change the style.
Thanks very much for your help,
Stephanie
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
8:08 p.m.
On 05/08/2011 11:11 AM, lists(a)yhmail.de wrote:
Hello again,
I am unsure about the license xwiki uses. When I have a look at my
xwiki installation it reads: ?This wiki is licensed under a Creative
Commons license?. However, when I take a look at the FAQs
?http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License? it says that ?XWiki
is distributed under the LGPL license version 2.1?
Is there a difference between those two? If so, which one is applicable?
The platform (the java classes, the velocity templates, the javascript
and CSS files, and everything that comes in the .war archive) is under
the LGPL license. This means that every change you make to the platform
code must also be distributed under LGPL. Normally, you don't need to
change the platform code, which means that your part of the license
agreement is fulfilled if you inform somehow the user of the license,
and provide a link to the default sources. External programs that talk
to the wiki through other means don't have to be LGPL, they can have
whatever license you wish.
The wiki documents (what you get in the default .xar archive) is
distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY), which is a better suited
license for content. If you keep the default content, you must at least
credit XWiki. You are free to change the content as you wish, and any
new content you provide can have any other license you choose. Since the
license is only CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA, you can also change the license
of the default wiki content if you chance the content in any way.
I am asking because we have a customer who sells
intranet SaaS
solutions for small and middle sized companies. The question is: would
it be OK if he integrates XWiki into his solutions. He does not want
to use functions provided by xwiki in his code/programm and he
wouldn?t charge extra for it. However he would alter the authorisation
process and change the style.
Thanks very much for your help,
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
9:11 p.m.
On May 8, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 05/08/2011 11:11 AM, lists(a)yhmail.de wrote:
Might be good to put on
http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License
Thanks
-Vincent
Hello again,
I am unsure about the license xwiki uses. When I have a look at my
xwiki installation it reads: ?This wiki is licensed under a Creative
Commons license?. However, when I take a look at the FAQs
?http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License? it says that ?XWiki
is distributed under the LGPL license version 2.1?
Is there a difference between those two? If so, which one is applicable?
The platform (the java classes, the velocity templates, the javascript
and CSS files, and everything that comes in the .war archive) is under
the LGPL license. This means that every change you make to the platform
code must also be distributed under LGPL. Normally, you don't need to
change the platform code, which means that your part of the license
agreement is fulfilled if you inform somehow the user of the license,
and provide a link to the default sources. External programs that talk
to the wiki through other means don't have to be LGPL, they can have
whatever license you wish.
The wiki documents (what you get in the default .xar archive) is
distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY), which is a better suited
license for content. If you keep the default content, you must at least
credit XWiki. You are free to change the content as you wish, and any
new content you provide can have any other license you choose. Since the
license is only CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA, you can also change the license
of the default wiki content if you chance the content in any way.
> I am asking because we have a customer who sells intranet SaaS
> solutions for small and middle sized companies. The question is: would
> it be OK if he integrates XWiki into his solutions. He does not want
> to use functions provided by xwiki in his code/programm and he
> wouldn?t charge extra for it. However he would alter the authorisation
> process and change the style.
>
> Thanks very much for your help,
9 May
9 May
9:25 a.m.
On 05/08/2011 09:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On May 8, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Done.
On 05/08/2011 11:11 AM, lists(a)yhmail.de wrote:
Might be good to put on
http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License Hello again,
I am unsure about the license xwiki uses. When I have a look at my
xwiki installation it reads: ?This wiki is licensed under a Creative
Commons license?. However, when I take a look at the FAQs
?http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License? it says that ?XWiki
is distributed under the LGPL license version 2.1?
Is there a difference between those two? If so, which one is applicable?
The platform (the java classes, the velocity templates, the javascript
and CSS files, and everything that comes in the .war archive) is under
the LGPL license. This means that every change you make to the platform
code must also be distributed under LGPL. Normally, you don't need to
change the platform code, which means that your part of the license
agreement is fulfilled if you inform somehow the user of the license,
and provide a link to the default sources. External programs that talk
to the wiki through other means don't have to be LGPL, they can have
whatever license you wish.
The wiki documents (what you get in the default .xar archive) is
distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY), which is a better suited
license for content. If you keep the default content, you must at least
credit XWiki. You are free to change the content as you wish, and any
new content you provide can have any other license you choose. Since the
license is only CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA, you can also change the license
of the default wiki content if you chance the content in any way. Thanks
-Vincent
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
> I am asking because we have a customer who sells intranet SaaS
> solutions for small and middle sized companies. The question is: would
> it be OK if he integrates XWiki into his solutions. He does not want
> to use functions provided by xwiki in his code/programm and he
> wouldn?t charge extra for it. However he would alter the authorisation
> process and change the style.
>
> Thanks very much for your help,
4879
days inactive
4880
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
lists＠yhmail.de -
Paul Libbrecht -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol