On 6/26/07, Jonas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 26 jun, 01:38, David Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonas wrote: > > > > > I comment you the infrastructure that I would use in case we could > > > collaborate: > > > * License: GNU GPL-2 > > > > Could you consider the LGPL or the MIT license? I believe a good blog > > application for Pylons would probably spread in a way that follows the > > logic described in the essay about why you might want to use the LGPL. > I'm sorry but the license will be GNU GPL. You can read about this > decision in this thread: > http://groups.google.com/group/blogtor/browse_thread/thread/f7910c0f83d099d6
The link is dead. Is the info available somewhere else? I found the new mailing list (http://groups.google.com/group/aroundword-discuss/) and site (http://www.aroundword.org/) but nothing about the license. I realize this won't change your mind, but going with the GPL is unfortunate. It'll just mean somebody will have to write a non-GPL version of the same thing later, which is reinventing the wheel and wasting resoures. The GPL is so long and complicated it ends up creating a hassle even for those who are trying to do the right thing. For instance, the US government can't release anything under copyright or with a copyright license; it has to release under public domain. This contradicts the GPL which says that anything incorporating a GPL component must be released under the GPL. The FSF has two FAQ questions that half cover this but not really: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGov But a Pylons program that uses a GPL library is not really "making improvements to a GPL program", it's just using it. You're getting the friggin' source anyway so what's the problem?!! But this ambiguity is enough to scare some government lawyers and developers away and say "just avoid GPL software in anything you release". This causes a hassle if there is no adequate non-GPL library, so the net result is less quality source code available to the public rather than more. The idea of hiring a contractor to write software just to assume copyright and reassign it to the government is absurd: it's a kludge with a capital K. Looking back, I'm glad Python and 99% of its libraries are not GPL. Otherwise I may be using PHP or Java (shudder). The MIT license is short and straightforward: it's easy to tell whether your intended use is compliant. The GPL is five pages and requires a lawyer to scrutinize the words and guess whether a certain use is covered. And if somebody embeds Python or my library in a proprietary program, so what? It doesn't prevent me from using it. It hasn't prevented many excellent open-source Python libraries or applications from being written. The GPL talks about proprietary users freeloading off open-source non-GPL software. What about GPL users freeloading off open-source non-GPL software, making a library that can't be used everywhere the original (Pylons) is? Why is that OK? Especially when the library purports to fill one of the main holes in the Pylons applications suite? -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
