Paul Rubin wrote: > Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>I chose CherryPy in part because its license allows this. I >>would have considered Karrigell if it had a different license. > > > Have you had to modify CherryPy in some substantive way that you > needed to keep proprietary,
I did make some changes to CherryPy. I wouldn't mind sharing those changes back with the CherryPy community. But the product was the server itself, not the web site. As I understand the GPL the server software would be a "work based on the [GPL-licensed] Program" and thus subject to the GPL itself. > as opposed to simply developing content > that CherryPy serves but is completely independent of CherryPy's > license? I'm not sure what you mean by "simply developing content". I was developing a web application, not a web site serving static HTML. The bulk of the development work was writing Python code that worked with CherryPy. > > I notice that a heck of a lot of commercial users are using completely > proprietary packages like ASP, whose licenses are far more restrictive > than the GPL. They don't seem to think it's a problem. So for most > such users, Karrigell shouldn't be a problem either. Building a website using Karrigell is not a problem because the work is not distributed. Distributing a webserver based on Karrigell as a product would require the server to be GPL licensed. > Remember that > the GPL only applies to the code of Karrigell itself, not to stuff > that you write using it. IANAL but that is not my understanding of the GPL. GPL version 2 section 2.b) reads, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." My server would certainly be a work that in part contains Karrigell. Kent -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
