Quoting Ray Cromwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > WebMacro isn't proprietary. It's free software, available with full source
> > code, under the GNU GPL. In awhile I will be releasing it under an
> > additional license on top of the GPL, to make it more accessible to
> > commercial users.
>
> (Webster)
> Proprietary: one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something;
GPL isn't exactly exclusive.
> You also get the source for Tomcat/Josper, and under a much freer
> license. There's a debate on Slashdot right now about GPL and
> dynamic linking. As it stands, if someone wants to sell a servlet
> that extends WebMacro and uses templates, their legal standing with
> respect to the license is unclear. RMS says that dynamic linking
> is covered, which means anything that extends WMServlet must also
> be licensed under the GPL.
That's true. And a complete non-issue unless you plan to re-package
and distribute your WM derived servlet. If you plan to use it inside
your corporation or on your website, this is a non-issue.
However, for those intending to do just that, there is this:
http://vsdl.org/SPL.html
WM is about to be under this license as well as under the GPL.
> All WebMacro does is replace the need
> to learn Tags with the need to learn what your senior developer has
> placed in the context object, and which properties are available.
Under any project, with any technology, you will have to learn what
architecture has been implemented by the senior developer.
> I never asserted that WebMacro *syntax* is hard, what I asserted is
> that, like any tool, there is more to using it effectively than reading
> the instruction booklet.
You compared WM's syntax to learning lisp.
> You keep asserting that WebMacro's simplicity or syntax alone is
> enough to justify it's use over JSP. But you're wrong, because the
> difference between Webmacro syntax and JSP taglib XML syntax is purely
> a matter of aesthetics. You don't like <jsp:.../> or <taglib:.../>,
> fine, but that's your preference.
Actually, I maintain that WM backs a design vision which is at best
implemented in an ugly way in JSP, and therefore not well supported.
I talk about the simplicity of WM in response to people who think
that WM script syntax, like JSP's, requires a lot of learning. It
doesn't, mostly owing to the fact that it does less than JSP's (since
the complexity moves to Java code).
> Python uses prefer indentation to indicate blocks rather than {},
> Eiffel/Pascal/ADA programmers prefer verbose syntax to C's terse
> overloaded syntax. But make no mistake, these are purely aethestic
> judgements and no one can prove supremacy of one over the
> other. That's why language wars are never won.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like a good end to the thread.
Justin
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe: mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "signoff JSP-INTEREST".
FAQs on JSP can be found at:
http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/faq.html
http://www.esperanto.org.nz/jsp/jspfaq.html
