[xwiki-users] xwiki license question
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
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, [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
On 05/08/2011 11:11 AM, [email protected] 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/
On May 8, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 05/08/2011 11:11 AM, [email protected] 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.
Might be good to put on http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License Thanks -Vincent
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,
On 05/08/2011 09:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On May 8, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 05/08/2011 11:11 AM, [email protected] 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.
Might be good to put on http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License
Done.
Thanks -Vincent
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/
participants (4)
-
lists＠yhmail.de -
Paul Libbrecht -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol