incubator-jspwiki-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Janne Jalkanen <>
Subject Re: Contributed Plugins License
Date Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:43:34 GMT

This is an interesting question.  I don't think we can in any way force people to adopt some
particular license (though since you cannot relicense, I'm not sure how the different viral
licenses would work - a GPL plugin for an Apache-based program could certainly not enforce
us to obey the GPL).

It might be a good idea to add instructions how to license your code under the ASL to the
ContributedPlugins, but we should be careful not to imply that it's the only option. But I
think it might be a good idea to encourage people to declare at least some sort of a license.

Could please write up something, J├╝rgen?


On 18 Dec 2009, at 17:17, Juergen Weber wrote:

> While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included
> ( this is different for
> Contributed Plugins.
> Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none
> contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an
> unsatisfactory state of affairs.
> I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at
> A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would de
> facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and
> include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily
> take a plugin into core.
> Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g.
> commercial, Apache, ...
> Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force
> contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a new
> one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment
> form you have to license attachments to Apache.
> What do you think?
> Thanks,
> Juergen
> -- 
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at

View raw message