subject:"\[web2py\] Re\: \[w2py\-dev\] Re\: Movuca \- Social CMS beta 0.1"

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:06:26 -0200
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

Hello,

 I want every one to be able to use it, customize it and deploys, sell
 support, sell as a service. But I want to keep it Open Source (I
 mean, I dont want someone to take the code and release a tool called
 blablabla which is not open source)

I've been away from web2py for some time still using Concrete5 CMS (PHP)
and today checked what's new in Django arena - there are few apps which
combine or have nice solutions for general CMS + blog + ecommerce like
Mezzanine, Django-CMS, FeinCMS...

Otoh, I'm aware that it is just question of time when we'd have to move
from PHP to (probably) Python, and considering we prefer web2py project
over Django, we wonder whether Movuca is becoming THE Web2py CMS
platform and whether it provides blog  ecommerce solution along with
general CMS part?


I know that Massimo was talking about web2py CMS priority after 2.0
release, but it was long ago and there is still no 2.0...


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone 
follows My path in all respects, O son of Prthā.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-04-11 Thread Bruno Rocha

Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network features (as
likes, shares, users and connections...)

By now Movu.ca is in Alpha release, there are a lot of work to be done and
some areas to improve, but now it is a nice base to start any development
which needs social+CMS features.

Examples:

You can build e-commerce apps:
http://movu.ca/demo/article/show/16/web2py-shirt

You can build cook recipe website:
http://movu.ca/demo/article/show/14/avocado-tomato-chirashi-sushi

And you can have a general purpose network as www.web2pyslices.com

The only great feature by now is the ability to extend the content types by
the way movu.ca datamodels are developed:
http://movu.ca/demo/article/show/1/how-to-create-content-types-in-movuca-cms

But it needs more! a playable admin interface, an install process, more
themes!

Only needs more contributors!


On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:

 On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:06:26 -0200
 Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hello,

  I want every one to be able to use it, customize it and deploys, sell
  support, sell as a service. But I want to keep it Open Source (I
  mean, I dont want someone to take the code and release a tool called
  blablabla which is not open source)

 I've been away from web2py for some time still using Concrete5 CMS (PHP)
 and today checked what's new in Django arena - there are few apps which
 combine or have nice solutions for general CMS + blog + ecommerce like
 Mezzanine, Django-CMS, FeinCMS...

 Otoh, I'm aware that it is just question of time when we'd have to move
 from PHP to (probably) Python, and considering we prefer web2py project
 over Django, we wonder whether Movuca is becoming THE Web2py CMS
 platform and whether it provides blog  ecommerce solution along with
 general CMS part?


 I know that Massimo was talking about web2py CMS priority after 2.0
 release, but it was long ago and there is still no 2.0...


 Sincerely,
 Gour


 --
 As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone
 follows My path in all respects, O son of Prthā.

 http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810




-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:17 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network
 features (as likes, shares, users and connections...)

We just need general-purpose CMS without neeed for socila network stuff.

 By now Movu.ca is in Alpha release, there are a lot of work to be
 done and some areas to improve, but now it is a nice base to start
 any development which needs social+CMS features.

Nice.

 You can build e-commerce apps:
 http://movu.ca/demo/article/show/16/web2py-shirt

There is some cart app available to be used?

We do not have big shop 'cause we 'sell' only services (counselling,
homeopathy treatments etc.)

 And you can have a general purpose network as www.web2pyslices.com

Ohh, didn't know it is powered now by Movu.ca.

What about general blog engine with 'standard' features?

 The only great feature by now is the ability to extend the content
 types by the way movu.ca datamodels are developed:
 http://movu.ca/demo/article/show/1/how-to-create-content-types-in-movuca-cms

That's great feature and usign COncrete5, we expect to have many
'blocks' available. :-)

 But it needs more! a playable admin interface, an install process,
 more themes!

/me nods

 Only needs more contributors!

At the moment, I'm in the league of those which can try to use ready
components and put them together with minimal coding/tweaking.

Hopefully, more people will recognize that web2py needs stable
CMS+blog+ecommerce+social_network+.. platform.


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
One who is not disturbed in mind even amidst the threefold 
miseries or elated when there is happiness, and who is free 
from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady mind.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:17 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network
 features (as likes, shares, users and connections...)

Tried to install according to:
https://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca#readme but got error ticket: 

type 'exceptions.AttributeError' 'NoneType' object has no attribute
'uri'

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /home/gour/repos/external/web2py/gluon/restricted.py, line
205, in restricted exec ccode in environment
  File
/home/gour/repos/external/web2py/applications/demo/controllers/home.py,
line 33, in module File
/home/gour/repos/external/web2py/gluon/globals.py, line 175, in
lambda self._caller = lambda f: f() File
/home/gour/repos/external/web2py/applications/demo/controllers/home.py,
line 17, in index home = Home(['featured', 'featured_members', 'ads'])
File applications/demo/modules/handlers/base.py, line 30, in __init__
self.start() File applications/demo/modules/handlers/home.py, line
11, in start self.db = DataBase([User, ContentType, Category, Article,
Ads]) File applications/demo/modules/movuca.py, line 31, in __init__
DAL.__init__(self, self.config.db.uri, AttributeError: 'NoneType'
object has no attribute 'uri'


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never 
live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-04-11 Thread Bruno Rocha

have you done it first?

- http://localhost:8000/appname/setup/install

??

It is needed to populate the config db



On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:

 On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:17 -0300
 Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

  Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network
  features (as likes, shares, users and connections...)

 Tried to install according to:
 https://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca#readme but got error ticket:

 type 'exceptions.AttributeError' 'NoneType' object has no attribute
 'uri'

 Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /home/gour/repos/external/web2py/gluon/restricted.py, line
 205, in restricted exec ccode in environment
  File
 /home/gour/repos/external/web2py/applications/demo/controllers/home.py,
 line 33, in module File
 /home/gour/repos/external/web2py/gluon/globals.py, line 175, in
 lambda self._caller = lambda f: f() File
 /home/gour/repos/external/web2py/applications/demo/controllers/home.py,
 line 17, in index home = Home(['featured', 'featured_members', 'ads'])
 File applications/demo/modules/handlers/base.py, line 30, in __init__
 self.start() File applications/demo/modules/handlers/home.py, line
 11, in start self.db = DataBase([User, ContentType, Category, Article,
 Ads]) File applications/demo/modules/movuca.py, line 31, in __init__
 DAL.__init__(self, self.config.db.uri, AttributeError: 'NoneType'
 object has no attribute 'uri'


 Sincerely,
 Gour

 --
 O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never
 live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

 http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810




-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:15:32 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

 have you done it first?

Opps, forgot it. :-(

Thank you...it works now. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
Never was there a time when I did not exist, 
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future 
shall any of us cease to be.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-04-11 Thread pbreit

Yeah, something simple like Tumblr would be nice.


On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:22:33 AM UTC-7, Gour wrote: 

 We just need general-purpose CMS without neeed for socila network stuff.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-04-11 Thread Bruno Rocha

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yeah, something simple like Tumblr would be nice.


tumblr has a lot of social networking features



-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-14 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the 
CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is 
just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against. Because how 
useful would that changes be to others? I believe it would make more sense 
if others could see how the application code uses the new API or test the 
app themselves before deciding to include the changes.

It is not possible to release a code that depends on GPL components under 
LGPL. You have to use GPL as an umbrella license. It's simpler to use GPL 
from the start in such a case. Unless you do that, you want be able to use 
code under many licenses compatible with GPL but not with LGPL, so there is 
more flexibility in what code you can include. And as long as you include 
such code, there is no longer option for LGPL release of the combined work 
and the original flexibility of LGPL does no longer apply. Anyway, it is 
not flexibilty we should care about, but the preservation of the software 
freedom.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-14 Thread Anthony



 You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the 
 CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is 
 just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against.


I don't see how that is abusive if the license allows it.
 

 It is not possible to release a code that depends on GPL components under 
 LGPL. You have to use GPL as an umbrella license. It's simpler to use GPL 
 from the start in such a case.


I don't see how it is simpler to use GPL from the start. If you start with 
GPL, then include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined 
worked is released as GPL. On the other hand, if you start with LGPL, then 
include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined work is 
released as GPL. Same thing. Just as simple. Am I missing something?
 

 Unless you do that, you want be able to use code under many licenses 
 compatible with GPL but not with LGPL, so there is more flexibility in what 
 code you can include.


Once you're resigned to releasing the combined work as GPL, starting with a 
GPL rather than LGPL library affords no additional flexibility regarding 
what can be included. However, if you don't want to release the combined 
work as GPL, starting with an LGPL library offers more flexibility, as it 
at least makes that possible (assuming you include only LGPL-compatible 
libraries in the project).

Anthony

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-14 Thread Bruce Wade

Wow this topic is still going on. It seems clear if you want to use non-GPL
licensed code then you require LGPL. If you want all your code to be public
domain then use GPL. It seems pointless to keep telling someone to use GPL
after reading the requirements with the other code they want to include.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the
 CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is
 just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against.


 I don't see how that is abusive if the license allows it.


 It is not possible to release a code that depends on GPL components under
 LGPL. You have to use GPL as an umbrella license. It's simpler to use GPL
 from the start in such a case.


 I don't see how it is simpler to use GPL from the start. If you start with
 GPL, then include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined
 worked is released as GPL. On the other hand, if you start with LGPL, then
 include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined work is
 released as GPL. Same thing. Just as simple. Am I missing something?


 Unless you do that, you want be able to use code under many licenses
 compatible with GPL but not with LGPL, so there is more flexibility in what
 code you can include.


 Once you're resigned to releasing the combined work as GPL, starting with
 a GPL rather than LGPL library affords no additional flexibility regarding
 what can be included. However, if you don't want to release the combined
 work as GPL, starting with an LGPL library offers more flexibility, as it
 at least makes that possible (assuming you include only LGPL-compatible
 libraries in the project).

 Anthony




-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-14 Thread Bruno Rocha

thank you all, this post is a livensing tutorial.

I changed Movuca to LGPL, I will talk to Michele about facebook contribs.

I am finishing the instalation interface and admin panel. Planning to pack
and release b0.1 until next weekend.

Thank you all for the help.

http://zerp.ly/rochacbruno
Em 14/02/2012 13:17, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com escreveu:

 Wow this topic is still going on. It seems clear if you want to use
 non-GPL licensed code then you require LGPL. If you want all your code to
 be public domain then use GPL. It seems pointless to keep telling someone
 to use GPL after reading the requirements with the other code they want to
 include.

 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the
 CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is
 just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against.


 I don't see how that is abusive if the license allows it.


 It is not possible to release a code that depends on GPL components
 under LGPL. You have to use GPL as an umbrella license. It's simpler to use
 GPL from the start in such a case.


 I don't see how it is simpler to use GPL from the start. If you start
 with GPL, then include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting
 combined worked is released as GPL. On the other hand, if you start with
 LGPL, then include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined
 work is released as GPL. Same thing. Just as simple. Am I missing something?


 Unless you do that, you want be able to use code under many licenses
 compatible with GPL but not with LGPL, so there is more flexibility in what
 code you can include.


 Once you're resigned to releasing the combined work as GPL, starting with
 a GPL rather than LGPL library affords no additional flexibility regarding
 what can be included. However, if you don't want to release the combined
 work as GPL, starting with an LGPL library offers more flexibility, as it
 at least makes that possible (assuming you include only LGPL-compatible
 libraries in the project).

 Anthony




 --
 --
 Regards,
 Bruce Wade
 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
 http://www.wadecybertech.com
 http://www.warplydesigned.com
 http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-14 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

Sorry, I was not precise. I was describing a case in which there is a 
dependency on a code under a license which is GPL compatible and not 
compatible with LGPL. So I meant simpler in that context. I agree that 
for projects with no such dependency there would be no difference in 
difficulty.

I'm looking at the flexibility from a developer point of view. My point is 
that GPL is compatible with more licenses than LGPL. So under GPL more code 
can be used. There is always an option to change LGPL to GPL to use that 
extra code. But as long as you stay with LGPL, some code remains 
unaccessible to you. So with respect to what code can be included, and if I 
understood you correctly this is what we were talking about, the GPL is 
more flexible. Looking from the user point of view, however, it would be 
different. The LGPL might be seen as giving more choices to the user as it 
is not copy-left.

And when I mentioned abusive tactics, I meant abusive in the sense of the 
free software philosophy. The goal of free software movement is to replace 
all proprietary code with free code. If I let people take advantage of my 
code without sharing back, I would work against that goal, just making the 
proprietary world stronger. So even if the tactic is not breaking the terms 
of a license, I still see it as abusive to the free software.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-13 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

LGPL is designed for libraries. Static or dynamic linking to LGPL code is 
allowed without enforcing copy-left. That means that the derivative work 
can even be a proprietary software. However, if you change the library code 
itself, you modification has to be released under LGPL. Since version 3 
LGPL is compatible with GPL, which means that the modifications could be 
released under GPLv3 too.

In case of CMS, all these doesn't matter in practice. CMS is not a 
self-contained isolated library and except of very simple projects, a web 
application build on top of it will require changes in the CMS code. So 
commonly, there would be the same copy-left enforcement in place as in case 
of the GPL. There is also no difference between GPL and LGPL with respect 
to the server deployment. Both licenses do not see that as distribution, so 
the deployed code, whatever type of changes it contains, can remain secret. 
That's why my recommendation was GPLv3, as in this case there is no way to 
get anything extra from LGPL anyway.

I guess the key difference is in the licenses compatibility. Under LGPLv3 
you can include all non copy-left free software (BSD, MIT, MPL 2.0, Apache 
2.0) but not the code under the GPL (you would have to release the 
combination under GPLv3, for details see the compatibility matrix [1]). 
With GPLv3 it's simpler as more licenses are compatible (see the full list 
[2]), including GPLv2 as long as the phrase either version 2 of the 
License, or (at your option) any later version is present in the copyright 
notice.

For more arguments in the GPL vs LGPL case see [3].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

With web2py being licensed under LGPL it is possible to build applications 
which are proprietary software. To some degree it is even possible to build 
another web framework that uses unchanged web2py code as back-end. In 
practice, however, the latter is too complicated on a technical level. The 
most common case, direct modification to the framework, have to be covered 
by LGPL or GPL, so you cannot make a proprietary fork.

However, it is possible to create a a proprietary fork in the software as 
service model. So you can imagine web applications running on a fine tuned 
version of web2py while this tuning remains secret. Same thing may happen 
to Movuca if it is not licensed under AGPL. Somebody can take the code, 
make improvements and run it on a server without offering either binaries 
or code to her clients. Just the service. Free software movement sees that 
as unethical. You benefit from the community code, but your code is not 
shared back with community. With a rise of the cloud platforms this becomes 
more and more relevant problem and pose a risk to the free software. It is 
yet another way of circumventing the GPL and changing the free code into a 
proprietary one (there were others in the past that have been stopped by 
GPLv3 e.g. tivoization).

As Mariano already pointed out, in case of web applications, the LGPL does 
have much sense as it is equivalent in this context to the GPL. And is 
always best to minimize confusion and use one of well known licenses rather 
than creating your own. So as long as you do not see proprietary forks 
behind server deployments as a problem, the best choice for Movuca is GPLv3.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Bruno Rocha

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Wikus van de Merwe 
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:

 GPLv3


Whats the key differences between GPLv3 and LGPLv3 ?

-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Bruce Wade

Here is why openoffice moved from GPL to LGPL:
http://blogs.oracle.com/webmink/entry/openoffice_org_goes_to_lgplv3

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Wikus van de Merwe 
 dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:

 GPLv3


 Whats the key differences between GPLv3 and LGPLv3 ?


 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]




-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Anthony

On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:09:56 PM UTC-5, rochacbruno wrote:



 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Wikus van de Merwe 
 dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:

 GPLv3


 Whats the key differences between GPLv3 and LGPLv3 ?


I think basically LGPL allows linking of proprietary software and GPL 
does not. Under LGPL, if someone wrote application or plugin code that 
merely called the Movuca API but didn't directly modify the Movuca code 
itself, that application or plugin code could remain proprietary. Under 
GPL, that same code could not remain proprietary and would have to be 
distributed with a GPL-compatible license. web2py adopted the LGPL to allow 
users to develop proprietary web2py applications (i.e., the idea being the 
applications call or link to the framework but do not represent a 
modification of the framework itself) while preventing commercial forks of 
the actual framework (previously web2py had used a GPLv2 license with a 
commercial exception for applications to achieve the same goal, but many 
people found that confusing and risky from a legal perspective).

Anthony

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Bruno Rocha

well, I did it, LGPLv3
https://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca/blob/master/LICENSE

I needed to choose today because I will start a big project for one client
using Movuca as base, and I read too much (do not understand everything)
but I think LPGP will fits it.

Only question I have is:

I am using MIchelle's code to facebook and google Oauth. [
http://code.google.com/r/michelecomitini-facebookaccess/]
I am using Kenji pagination plugin [
http://dev.s-cubism.com/plugin_paginator ]
I am using Ckeditor and Plugin Ckeditor by Ross Peoples  [
https://bitbucket.org/PhreeStyle/web2py_ckeditor/wiki/Home]

Maybe I am going to use another libraries, how can I know if it is
compatible or not?


-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Ross Peoples

CKEditor is licensed under LGPL, so you're good there. As for 
plugin_ckeditor. I wrote it, but I haven't given it a license yet (on my 
todo list). However, I will probably go with LGPL as well. It only makes 
sense as web2py and CKEditor are both LGPL. So you are all set with the 
CKEditor stuff.

Everything that I release and publish to the public, such as 
plugin_ckeditor, I do so with the intent to allow people to use it for 
their own purposes, whatever they may be, so long as they contribute 
changes make to my work back to the public. This is pretty much what the 
LGPL is for (from my understanding).

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-10 Thread Bruno Rocha

Thank you Anthony, I am going to talk about it with Michele.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Only question I have is:

 I am using MIchelle's code to facebook and google Oauth. [
 http://code.google.com/r/**michelecomitini-**facebookaccess/http://code.google.com/r/michelecomitini-facebookaccess/
 ]


 Oauth is GPLv2, which is not compatible with LGPL. Maybe you can get
 Michelle to switch to LGPL or make an exception for this one case.


 I am using Kenji pagination plugin [ http://dev.s-cubism.com/**
 plugin_paginator http://dev.s-cubism.com/plugin_paginator ]


 These plugins are all MIT, so no problem including them in a LGPL project.


 I am using Ckeditor and Plugin Ckeditor by Ross Peoples  [
 https://bitbucket.org/**PhreeStyle/web2py_ckeditor/**wiki/Homehttps://bitbucket.org/PhreeStyle/web2py_ckeditor/wiki/Home
 ]


 I don't see any license with this one. Would probably be a good idea if
 Ross adopted some license (maybe MIT or BSD). Without an explicit license,
 I'm not sure about the legal status of its usage (at least in the US, it is
 copyrighted by default, so I'm not sure you can use it unless specific
 rights are explicitly granted or it has been put in the public domain).

 Anthony

 --
 mail from:GoogleGroups web2py-developers mailing list
 make speech: web2py-develop...@googlegroups.com
 unsubscribe: web2py-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 details : http://groups.google.com/group/web2py-developers
 the project: http://code.google.com/p/web2py/
 official : http://www.web2py.com/




-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

What I see you are trying to say is that by keeping the code secret one 
gains a temporary advantage over the competition. That might be true. But 
this is the way of thinking coming from the proprietary software 
philosophy. How much will I loose by making the software free? If this is 
your line of thinking, then maybe writing free software is not what you 
want to do.

Because at the core of the free software movement is a believe, that 
sharing the code would make the world better. Free software is not here to 
make us rich. Is not here to make our software easy to (ab)use by business. 
It is here to preserve out freedoms. It represent an ethical view that 
sharing knowledge is more important than making money. If you don't agree 
with that, then the free software is probably not for you.

Everyone writing free software should understand that the old business 
models of proprietary software based on secrecy doesn't apply here. The 
value is in the collaborative effort to improve the shared code. It 
shouldn't bother you when somebody else builds on your code and gets ahead 
of you in terms of features, because this is what you wanted when you 
decided to write the free software! Instead of complaining that this puts 
you out of the business you should rather seek for opportunities to 
collaborate and write more code together which would be good for the 
business too. And if you want to compete, compete in solving new problems 
(not the ones that have been already solved, there is no need to duplicate 
the works of others) and charge your customers for doing that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I admit it is not as easy to build a business 
around the free software as it is in case of proprietary software. But it 
is not impossible or even especially hard. And is much more fun. This is 
why we shouldn't give up trying new ways just because they are different to 
what we know from the proprietary world. On the rise of cloud platforms I 
see future for the AGPL too.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Bruce Wade

I can see your point even though I don't 100% agree with it. I write most
of my code opensource, however I also have been writing software for a
living for around 14 years so sometimes we don't have the choice between
open and closed source.

We also can't expect only people interested in free software development to
use our software. Considering as you just said the software is there for
others to use and if they add more features faster then you and don't give
you the features you also can't get upset. Also sharing code and sharing
knowledge are not always one and the same.

The freedom in software also comes the freedom of choice, to either give
back or not, that is why a lot of people prefer the BSD thinking over the
GPL thinking.

BSD = Doesn't care if someone makes money off their code or not, they just
want people using their code. They also have the choice to release their
code or not.
GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code and forces people to
recommit their code. This is good because everyone gets the code, bad
because you don't have a choice.

I am more of a BSD thinker.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Wikus van de Merwe 
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:

 What I see you are trying to say is that by keeping the code secret one
 gains a temporary advantage over the competition. That might be true. But
 this is the way of thinking coming from the proprietary software
 philosophy. How much will I loose by making the software free? If this is
 your line of thinking, then maybe writing free software is not what you
 want to do.

 Because at the core of the free software movement is a believe, that
 sharing the code would make the world better. Free software is not here to
 make us rich. Is not here to make our software easy to (ab)use by business.
 It is here to preserve out freedoms. It represent an ethical view that
 sharing knowledge is more important than making money. If you don't agree
 with that, then the free software is probably not for you.

 Everyone writing free software should understand that the old business
 models of proprietary software based on secrecy doesn't apply here. The
 value is in the collaborative effort to improve the shared code. It
 shouldn't bother you when somebody else builds on your code and gets ahead
 of you in terms of features, because this is what you wanted when you
 decided to write the free software! Instead of complaining that this puts
 you out of the business you should rather seek for opportunities to
 collaborate and write more code together which would be good for the
 business too. And if you want to compete, compete in solving new problems
 (not the ones that have been already solved, there is no need to duplicate
 the works of others) and charge your customers for doing that.

 Now, don't get me wrong. I admit it is not as easy to build a business
 around the free software as it is in case of proprietary software. But it
 is not impossible or even especially hard. And is much more fun. This is
 why we shouldn't give up trying new ways just because they are different to
 what we know from the proprietary world. On the rise of cloud platforms I
 see future for the AGPL too.




-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

*Movuca goals:*

*Everybody should be able to use it for free*
- Use it for creating sites, blogs and social networks (free or commercial)

*Everybody can sell it as a service*
- Use it to offer Movuca based websites as a service
- Use it for developing websites for customers

*Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in to
another apps*
- If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I dont
care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can have
your own business logic)

*NOBODY can create or offer a commercial or closed source Movuca based
platform, I mean, you can't take the source code to create and distribute
a XPTO Social CMS engine*
- If you want to create it, *you will need to share your source code and
modifications*!

*My personal goals:*

- Offer an open source CMS platform for web2py community.
- Create a community around this solution
- Have many contributors and a lot of people helping to code, document and
improve the project
- I will use it to create sites for my clients and offer this as a service
(anybody will be able to do the same)

I really dont care if big companies do not want to use it because of the
license, this project targets *free-lancers, small companies, open groups
and non-profits*. Big companies, experienced developers and people who want
to raise billions of dollars with software can create their own solutions
(even looking at Movuca code to copy some ideas). My target is not the big
ones, I want to have it as open source, but at the same time protected to
be always open source as a platform (as a product or service I don't care
about the use)

If my goal was to make money with this, I would not released it as open
source, but I really want contributors, feedbacks and I also wanted to
create a good web2py application to be reference for developers and to be
included in the hall of good web2py appliances.

Many people wants create a CMS, I invite everyone to bring their ideas to
Movuca and we can create a killer general purpose CMS.

Which license fits better for this?


-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Mariano Reingart

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code and forces people to
 recommit their code. This is good because everyone gets the code, bad
 because you don't have a choice.


This is not completely true.

GPL has nothing to do with making money.
GPL do not forces anyone to recommit their code. It only says that if
you make a GPL derivative, you have to offer a way to get the source
code with the modification (only to your customers that received the
software directly from you).
You don't even need to publish it, just give it to your customers (of
course, your customers can give the code to others).

So, if you just use GPL for a web application, and you don't
distribute that application, you don't have to give the code to
anyone, you can keep it closed with all your trade secrets.
This will be the use case for most users of Movuca, so they wouldn't
have to worry on republishing code.

GPL only protect against anyone wishing to take open source code for
free, closing it and sell binary only copies.
That really hurts free software in this case.

Mariano Reingart
http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
http://reingart.blogspot.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

Yes exactly what I want.
I should go with GPL3 or LGPL3 ?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Mariano Reingart reing...@gmail.com wrote:


 This is not completely true.

 GPL has nothing to do with making money.
 GPL do not forces anyone to recommit their code. It only says that if
 you make a GPL derivative, you have to offer a way to get the source
 code with the modification (only to your customers that received the
 software directly from you).
 You don't even need to publish it, just give it to your customers (of
 course, your customers can give the code to others).

 So, if you just use GPL for a web application, and you don't
 distribute that application, you don't have to give the code to
 anyone, you can keep it closed with all your trade secrets.
 This will be the use case for most users of Movuca, so they wouldn't
 have to worry on republishing code.

 GPL only protect against anyone wishing to take open source code for
 free, closing it and sell binary only copies.
 That really hurts free software in this case.




-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Anthony



 *Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in 
 to another apps*
 - If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I dont 
 care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can have 
 your own business logic)

 *NOBODY can create or offer a commercial or closed source Movuca based 
 platform, I mean, you can't take the source code to create and distribute 
 a XPTO Social CMS engine*
 - If you want to create it, *you will need to share your source code and 
 modifications*!


Out of curiosity, why are you OK with the first use case (i.e., keep 
modifications private when deploying on a server for commercial purposes) 
but not the second (i.e., keep modifications private when distributing via 
other means for commercial purposes)? In both cases, someone is making 
money and keeping any modifications they have made private (i.e., not 
contributing back). I'm not arguing that one or the other should be allowed 
or prohibited, just curious about the distinction between these cases.

Anthony

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients,
also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create
site tool.

But I cant use Joomla to create a : *Bruno's joomla commercial platform* to
compete with Joomla.

I think if you are going to keep the code in your server the code is yours,
but if you want to redistribute the platform, you have to contribute back
to community. The problem is not money, the problem is using open source
code to create commercial platforms and not contributing back to the
community.

Can I take web2py source and create Bruno's commercial framework ??
extend it and sell to my clients, keeping my improvements closed?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 *Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in
 to another apps*
 - If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I
 dont care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can
 have your own business logic)

 *NOBODY can create or offer a commercial or closed source Movuca based
 platform, I mean, you can't take the source code to create and distribute
 a XPTO Social CMS engine*
 - If you want to create it, *you will need to share your source code and
 modifications*!


 Out of curiosity, why are you OK with the first use case (i.e., keep
 modifications private when deploying on a server for commercial purposes)
 but not the second (i.e., keep modifications private when distributing via
 other means for commercial purposes)? In both cases, someone is making
 money and keeping any modifications they have made private (i.e., not
 contributing back). I'm not arguing that one or the other should be allowed
 or prohibited, just curious about the distinction between these cases.

 Anthony


  --
 mail from:GoogleGroups web2py-developers mailing list
 make speech: web2py-develop...@googlegroups.com
 unsubscribe: web2py-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 details : http://groups.google.com/group/web2py-developers
 the project: http://code.google.com/p/web2py/
 official : http://www.web2py.com/




-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Bruce Wade

From your description you are wanting to go with LGPL3.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients,
 also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create
 site tool.

 But I cant use Joomla to create a : *Bruno's joomla commercial platform*to 
 compete with Joomla.

 I think if you are going to keep the code in your server the code is
 yours, but if you want to redistribute the platform, you have to contribute
 back to community. The problem is not money, the problem is using open
 source code to create commercial platforms and not contributing back to the
 community.

 Can I take web2py source and create Bruno's commercial framework ??
 extend it and sell to my clients, keeping my improvements closed?

 On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 *Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in
 to another apps*
 - If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I
 dont care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can
 have your own business logic)

 *NOBODY can create or offer a commercial or closed source Movuca based
 platform, I mean, you can't take the source code to create and distribute
 a XPTO Social CMS engine*
 - If you want to create it, *you will need to share your source code
 and modifications*!


 Out of curiosity, why are you OK with the first use case (i.e., keep
 modifications private when deploying on a server for commercial purposes)
 but not the second (i.e., keep modifications private when distributing via
 other means for commercial purposes)? In both cases, someone is making
 money and keeping any modifications they have made private (i.e., not
 contributing back). I'm not arguing that one or the other should be allowed
 or prohibited, just curious about the distinction between these cases.

 Anthony


  --
 mail from:GoogleGroups web2py-developers mailing list
 make speech: web2py-develop...@googlegroups.com
 unsubscribe: web2py-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 details : http://groups.google.com/group/web2py-developers
 the project: http://code.google.com/p/web2py/
 official : http://www.web2py.com/




 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]




-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread R. Strusberg

Bruno,

You already wrote it: It is the Movuca License. :-)

Ricardo

2012/2/9 Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com


 *Movuca goals:*

 *Everybody should be able to use it for free*
 - Use it for creating sites, blogs and social networks (free or commercial)

 *Everybody can sell it as a service*
 - Use it to offer Movuca based websites as a service
 - Use it for developing websites for customers

 *Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in
 to another apps*
 - If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I dont
 care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can have
 your own business logic)

 *NOBODY can create or offer a commercial or closed source Movuca based
 platform, I mean, you can't take the source code to create and distribute
 a XPTO Social CMS engine*
 - If you want to create it, *you will need to share your source code and
 modifications*!

 *My personal goals:*

 - Offer an open source CMS platform for web2py community.
 - Create a community around this solution
 - Have many contributors and a lot of people helping to code, document and
 improve the project
 - I will use it to create sites for my clients and offer this as a service
 (anybody will be able to do the same)

 I really dont care if big companies do not want to use it because of the
 license, this project targets *free-lancers, small companies, open groups
 and non-profits*. Big companies, experienced developers and people who
 want to raise billions of dollars with software can create their own
 solutions (even looking at Movuca code to copy some ideas). My target is
 not the big ones, I want to have it as open source, but at the same time
 protected to be always open source as a platform (as a product or service I
 don't care about the use)

 If my goal was to make money with this, I would not released it as open
 source, but I really want contributors, feedbacks and I also wanted to
 create a good web2py application to be reference for developers and to be
 included in the hall of good web2py appliances.

 Many people wants create a CMS, I invite everyone to bring their ideas to
 Movuca and we can create a killer general purpose CMS.

 Which license fits better for this?


 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:52 PM, R. Strusberg strusb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bruno,

 You already wrote it: It is the Movuca License. :-)


Legally, can I use this as a license? it has any matter? or I need to
choose an existing license

(I dont know how this things works, do I need to register it?)


-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Mariano Reingart

For this case, LGPL3 or GPL3 are almost indistinguishable in this
context (web app)
AFAIK, LGPL3 is better if you want that subparts of Movuca being
used/distributed in other contexts (i.e., with other closed source
CMS, or with other open source software MIT/BSD licensed)

With web2py it is more complicated to say if you can take it's source
and create Bruno's commercial framework.
I guess neither with GPL nor with LGPL3 you could do that.
What you can do is use web2py gluon libraries to build third-party
closed-source apps, or use web2py to server closed source web-apps,
but not a web2py propietary derivative.

Best regards,

Mariano Reingart
http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
http://reingart.blogspot.com



On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 From your description you are wanting to go with LGPL3.


 On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients,
 also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create
 site tool.

 But I cant use Joomla to create a : Bruno's joomla commercial platform to
 compete with Joomla.

 I think if you are going to keep the code in your server the code is
 yours, but if you want to redistribute the platform, you have to contribute
 back to community. The problem is not money, the problem is using open
 source code to create commercial platforms and not contributing back to the
 community.

 Can I take web2py source and create Bruno's commercial framework ??
 extend it and sell to my clients, keeping my improvements closed?

 On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in
 to another apps
 - If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I
 dont care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can
 have your own business logic)

 NOBODY can create or offer a commercial or closed source Movuca based
 platform, I mean, you can't take the source code to create and distribute
 a XPTO Social CMS engine
 - If you want to create it, you will need to share your source code and
 modifications!


 Out of curiosity, why are you OK with the first use case (i.e., keep
 modifications private when deploying on a server for commercial purposes)
 but not the second (i.e., keep modifications private when distributing via
 other means for commercial purposes)? In both cases, someone is making money
 and keeping any modifications they have made private (i.e., not contributing
 back). I'm not arguing that one or the other should be allowed or
 prohibited, just curious about the distinction between these cases.

 Anthony


 --
 mail from:GoogleGroups web2py-developers mailing list
 make speech: web2py-develop...@googlegroups.com
 unsubscribe: web2py-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 details : http://groups.google.com/group/web2py-developers
 the project: http://code.google.com/p/web2py/
 official : http://www.web2py.com/




 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]




 --
 --
 Regards,
 Bruce Wade
 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
 http://www.wadecybertech.com
 http://www.warplydesigned.com
 http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Anthony



 Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients, 
 also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create 
 site tool.

 But I cant use Joomla to create a : *Bruno's joomla commercial platform*to 
 compete with Joomla.

 I think if you are going to keep the code in your server the code is 
 yours, but if you want to redistribute the platform, you have to contribute 
 back to community. The problem is not money, the problem is using open 
 source code to create commercial platforms and not contributing back to the 
 community.

 Can I take web2py source and create Bruno's commercial framework ?? 
 extend it and sell to my clients, keeping my improvements closed?


No, you can't do that with web2py because of the LGPL license, but you 
could do that with Django, Flask, Pyramid, and Rails. I guess that still 
doesn't answer the why question. If it's OK to use open source code to 
create a commercial website (perhaps even a SaaS model that is essentially 
a platform) without contributing code back to the community, then why is 
it not OK to use open source code to create a commercial platform? Why 
should one warrant code contribution back to the community but not the 
other? Neither the AGPL folks nor the BSD/MIT folks seem to think there 
should be a distinction (AGPL allows neither use case, and BSD/MIT allow 
both). Only GPL really makes the distinction, and the FSF folks seem to 
think that was simply an unfortunate oversight rather than a principled 
position (hence the AGPL).

For what it's worth, most of the Django and Rails based CMSes are BSD/MIT 
licensed (as are Django and Rails themselves). I'm not sure what their 
experience has been getting contributions, or if they have in any way been 
hampered by commercial forks (or if there are even any commercial forks).

Anthony

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Mariano Reingart

I bet you'll get better luck in courts if you use a well-known licence.
GPL has been written by lawyers and it has some enforcement
jurisprudence right now.

Mariano Reingart
http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
http://reingart.blogspot.com



On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:52 PM, R. Strusberg strusb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bruno,

 You already wrote it: It is the Movuca License. :-)


 Legally, can I use this as a license? it has any matter? or I need to choose
 an existing license

 (I dont know how this things works, do I need to register it?)



 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Cliff

I think it's good for people to advocate for their license
preferences.

I also think the discussion should be based on facts, so I would like
to offer some observations about statements that make me
uncomfortable.

The freedom in software also comes the freedom of choice, to either give
back or not, that is why a lot of people prefer the BSD thinking over the
GPL thinking.

I don't know what is meant by a lot of people. But there are some
statistics that seem to indicate a lot more people prefer the GPL. As
of June 2009, the GPL licenses accounted for ~ 65% usage. BSD
accounted for 6.3. Now I realize that's more than 30 months ago, or
two centuries in internet years. Still, I doubt there has been a big
swing in the intervening time.

You can read more about it here:
http://www.blackducksoftware.com/news/releases/2009-06-30

If there is later data that shows otherwise I would be happy to see
it.

GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code...

No. If this were anywhere close to true there would be mobs of angry
kernel developers protesting the activities of companies like Red Hat
and IBM, both companies making tons of money off GPL code. Got any?

Also, if there is any credible evidence that any author of the GPL has
made a statement like that I would be happy to see it.

On Feb 9, 2:34 pm, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see your point even though I don't 100% agree with it. I write most
of my code opensource, however I also have been writing software for a
living for around 14 years so sometimes we don't have the choice between
open and closed source.

We also can't expect only people interested in free software development to
use our software. Considering as you just said the software is there for
others to use and if they add more features faster then you and don't give
you the features you also can't get upset. Also sharing code and sharing
knowledge are not always one and the same.

The freedom in software also comes the freedom of choice, to either give
back or not, that is why a lot of people prefer the BSD thinking over the
GPL thinking.

BSD = Doesn't care if someone makes money off their code or not, they just
want people using their code. They also have the choice to release their
code or not.
GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code and forces people to
recommit their code. This is good because everyone gets the code, bad
because you don't have a choice.

I am more of a BSD thinker.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Wikus van de Merwe

dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
What I see you are trying to say is that by keeping the code secret one
gains a temporary advantage over the competition. That might be true. But
this is the way of thinking coming from the proprietary software
philosophy. How much will I loose by making the software free? If this is
your line of thinking, then maybe writing free software is not what you
want to do.

Because at the core of the free software movement is a believe, that
sharing the code would make the world better. Free software is not here to
make us rich. Is not here to make our software easy to (ab)use by business.
It is here to preserve out freedoms. It represent an ethical view that
sharing knowledge is more important than making money. If you don't agree
with that, then the free software is probably not for you.

Everyone writing free software should understand that the old business
models of proprietary software based on secrecy doesn't apply here. The
value is in the collaborative effort to improve the shared code. It
shouldn't bother you when somebody else builds on your code and gets ahead
of you in terms of features, because this is what you wanted when you
decided to write the free software! Instead of complaining that this puts
you out of the business you should rather seek for opportunities to
collaborate and write more code together which would be good for the
business too. And if you want to compete, compete in solving new problems
(not the ones that have been already solved, there is no need to duplicate
the works of others) and charge your customers for doing that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I admit it is not as easy to build a business
around the free software as it is in case of proprietary software. But it
is not impossible or even especially hard. And is much more fun. This is
why we shouldn't give up trying new ways just because they are different to
what we know from the proprietary world. On the rise of cloud platforms I
see future for the AGPL too.

--
--
Regards,
Bruce
Wadehttp://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwadehttp://www.wadecybertech.comhttp://www.warplydesigned.comhttp://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Bruce Wade

Making money off the code, meaning you can't go sell the code. With BSD
code you can.

I said a lot of people, I didn't say MORE people. With BSD there is also a
lot of people using it that don't announce they are using the BSD based
software.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Cliff cjk...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think it's good for people to advocate for their license
 preferences.

 I also think the discussion should be based on facts, so I would like
 to offer some observations about statements that make me
 uncomfortable.

  The freedom in software also comes the freedom of choice, to either give
  back or not, that is why a lot of people prefer the BSD thinking over the
  GPL thinking.

 I don't know what is meant by a lot of people.  But there are some
 statistics that seem to indicate a lot more people prefer the GPL.  As
 of June 2009, the GPL licenses accounted for ~ 65% usage.  BSD
 accounted for 6.3.  Now I realize that's more than 30 months ago, or
 two centuries in internet years.  Still, I doubt there has been a big
 swing in the intervening time.

 You can read more about it here:
 http://www.blackducksoftware.com/news/releases/2009-06-30

 If there is later data that shows otherwise I would be happy to see
 it.

  GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code...

 No.  If this were anywhere close to true there would be mobs of angry
 kernel developers protesting the activities of companies like Red Hat
 and IBM, both companies making tons of money off GPL code.  Got any?

 Also, if there is any credible evidence that any author of the GPL has
 made a statement like that I would be happy to see it.



 On Feb 9, 2:34 pm, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:
  I can see your point even though I don't 100% agree with it. I write most
  of my code opensource, however I also have been writing software for a
  living for around 14 years so sometimes we don't have the choice between
  open and closed source.
 
  We also can't expect only people interested in free software development
 to
  use our software. Considering as you just said the software is there for
  others to use and if they add more features faster then you and don't
 give
  you the features you also can't get upset. Also sharing code and sharing
  knowledge are not always one and the same.
 
  The freedom in software also comes the freedom of choice, to either give
  back or not, that is why a lot of people prefer the BSD thinking over the
  GPL thinking.
 
  BSD = Doesn't care if someone makes money off their code or not, they
 just
  want people using their code. They also have the choice to release their
  code or not.
  GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code and forces people
 to
  recommit their code. This is good because everyone gets the code, bad
  because you don't have a choice.
 
  I am more of a BSD thinker.
 
  On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Wikus van de Merwe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
   What I see you are trying to say is that by keeping the code secret one
   gains a temporary advantage over the competition. That might be true.
 But
   this is the way of thinking coming from the proprietary software
   philosophy. How much will I loose by making the software free? If this
 is
   your line of thinking, then maybe writing free software is not what you
   want to do.
 
   Because at the core of the free software movement is a believe, that
   sharing the code would make the world better. Free software is not
 here to
   make us rich. Is not here to make our software easy to (ab)use by
 business.
   It is here to preserve out freedoms. It represent an ethical view that
   sharing knowledge is more important than making money. If you don't
 agree
   with that, then the free software is probably not for you.
 
   Everyone writing free software should understand that the old business
   models of proprietary software based on secrecy doesn't apply here. The
   value is in the collaborative effort to improve the shared code. It
   shouldn't bother you when somebody else builds on your code and gets
 ahead
   of you in terms of features, because this is what you wanted when you
   decided to write the free software! Instead of complaining that this
 puts
   you out of the business you should rather seek for opportunities to
   collaborate and write more code together which would be good for the
   business too. And if you want to compete, compete in solving new
 problems
   (not the ones that have been already solved, there is no need to
 duplicate
   the works of others) and charge your customers for doing that.
 
   Now, don't get me wrong. I admit it is not as easy to build a business
   around the free software as it is in case of proprietary software. But
 it
   is not impossible or even especially hard. And is much more fun. This
 is
   why we shouldn't give up trying new ways just because they are
 different to
   what we know from the proprietary world. On the rise

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-09 Thread Anthony



 I don't know what is meant by a lot of people.  But there are some 
 statistics that seem to indicate a lot more people prefer the GPL.  As 
 of June 2009, the GPL licenses accounted for ~ 65% usage.  BSD 
 accounted for 6.3.  Now I realize that's more than 30 months ago, or 
 two centuries in internet years.  Still, I doubt there has been a big 
 swing in the intervening time. 

 You can read more about it here:  
 http://www.blackducksoftware.com/news/releases/2009-06-30 


According to the latest data (
http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/index.php), there has in 
fact been a trend toward the more permissive licences (i.e., BSD, MIT, 
Apache, etc.), which now account for at least 26% of projects, with GPL 
dropping to only 57%. I think it also varies by type of software -- for 
example, at least in the Python and Ruby web development world, I think 
most frameworks and related tools tend to have permissive licenses like BSD 
and MIT. GPL might be more common for end-user software.

Anthony

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-08 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

I'm not sure if looking at the problem of license from the business point 
of view is reasonable. If Bruno's goal was to make the business people 
happy, he would put his software into the public domain. But I'm guessing 
he is more interested in getting some help from others and maybe building a 
small community around the project. In my opinion this works best when code 
is collectively own and protected from abuse (e.g. proprietary forks).

The assumed connection between the number of users and a scale of 
contributions does not sound right to me. Depending on the chosen license 
there would be different number and type of contributions. Non-copyleft 
license doesn't encourage contribution, it encourages the use. The code can 
be taken by everyone who will leave an attribution note for exchange, but 
usually not more than that. Unless the rate of development of the project 
is very high, the business would always prefer to fork a project and 
maintain proprietary changes on their own, over a struggle with upstream 
integration. Copyleft license encourages the contribution, as it protects 
the code from being abused, so no risk of being taken advantage of and more 
likely that some developers will join you. On the users side, however, it 
scares of the integrators, people who have a number of different pieces 
of code that they don't want to or can't release as a free software.

The question that remains is if the copyleft licenses can be used by 
business at all? Let's limit the discussion to the most common case of 
customizers, people who adapt software to the needs of their clients 
(e.g. making extensions or plugins) or use it to build custom products 
(e.g. websites). Now, we need to remember that when the work is being 
released, the license is between the business and its client. Not between 
the business and the entire world. So the freedoms of the software are 
granted to the client only and it is up to him to decide if he wants to 
distribute the software any further. If he does, only then he will be 
bounded by the copyleft clause to do it on the same terms. It doesn't 
matter if it is AGPL, GPL, LGPL or BSD, the effect here is the same. The 
only difference is the case of deploying the software on a server, which 
according to AGPL is a form of distribution and would require making the 
source code available upon request. However, in practice it is not always a 
concern, e.g. when the target deployment happens in the intranet.

Saying that legal department avoids GPL or AGPL and not saying *why* is not 
very convincing. Argument from authority is not enough. I could agree, that 
AGPL might be not very convincing as it seems to give away for what the 
customer has paid to everyone. However, you have to remember that potential 
competition is still bounded by the same license. They could copy your 
customer's website and to distinguish themselves add some extra features, 
but at the end they will have to release those changes on AGPL too. Now, 
nothing stops your customer from using what they did on his website. I dare 
to say, this would create a fast progressing market with lots of 
competition. Fair competition, without any artificial market barriers. So 
does it make sense to demonise it as bad for bussiness?

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-08 Thread Bruce Wade

Yes it does make it very bad for business but good for
customers/competition :D. For example the site I created made $5 million in
2 months, why in the world would I want that source code to get into the
wrong hands?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Wikus van de Merwe 
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I'm not sure if looking at the problem of license from the business point
 of view is reasonable. If Bruno's goal was to make the business people
 happy, he would put his software into the public domain. But I'm guessing
 he is more interested in getting some help from others and maybe building a
 small community around the project. In my opinion this works best when code
 is collectively own and protected from abuse (e.g. proprietary forks).

 The assumed connection between the number of users and a scale of
 contributions does not sound right to me. Depending on the chosen license
 there would be different number and type of contributions. Non-copyleft
 license doesn't encourage contribution, it encourages the use. The code can
 be taken by everyone who will leave an attribution note for exchange, but
 usually not more than that. Unless the rate of development of the project
 is very high, the business would always prefer to fork a project and
 maintain proprietary changes on their own, over a struggle with upstream
 integration. Copyleft license encourages the contribution, as it protects
 the code from being abused, so no risk of being taken advantage of and more
 likely that some developers will join you. On the users side, however, it
 scares of the integrators, people who have a number of different pieces
 of code that they don't want to or can't release as a free software.

 The question that remains is if the copyleft licenses can be used by
 business at all? Let's limit the discussion to the most common case of
 customizers, people who adapt software to the needs of their clients
 (e.g. making extensions or plugins) or use it to build custom products
 (e.g. websites). Now, we need to remember that when the work is being
 released, the license is between the business and its client. Not between
 the business and the entire world. So the freedoms of the software are
 granted to the client only and it is up to him to decide if he wants to
 distribute the software any further. If he does, only then he will be
 bounded by the copyleft clause to do it on the same terms. It doesn't
 matter if it is AGPL, GPL, LGPL or BSD, the effect here is the same. The
 only difference is the case of deploying the software on a server, which
 according to AGPL is a form of distribution and would require making the
 source code available upon request. However, in practice it is not always a
 concern, e.g. when the target deployment happens in the intranet.

 Saying that legal department avoids GPL or AGPL and not saying *why* is
 not very convincing. Argument from authority is not enough. I could agree,
 that AGPL might be not very convincing as it seems to give away for what
 the customer has paid to everyone. However, you have to remember that
 potential competition is still bounded by the same license. They could copy
 your customer's website and to distinguish themselves add some extra
 features, but at the end they will have to release those changes on AGPL
 too. Now, nothing stops your customer from using what they did on his
 website. I dare to say, this would create a fast progressing market with
 lots of competition. Fair competition, without any artificial market
 barriers. So does it make sense to demonise it as bad for bussiness?




-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-08 Thread Anthony



 The assumed connection between the number of users and a scale of 
 contributions does not sound right to me.


I was just suggesting that it's an empirical question which approach will 
yield more (and better) contributions, and that it likely depends on the 
particular situation. AGPL will likely scare off any commercial use, so may 
limit the potential for a large base of contributors (and the smaller base 
of non-commercial users may not be particularly sophisticated or interested 
in making the kinds of customizations that would make for useful 
contributions, or they may not be motivated to get involved because the 
project is not popular and therefore lacks prestige for their resumes). 
GPL would certainly be better, and I think most of the major CMSes 
(WordPress, Drupal, Joomla) use that license. However, plenty of CMSes also 
use LGPL, and a good number use BSD/MIT as well (e.g., Concrete5, 
django-cms, Radiant CMS and most of the other Rails CMSes). Very few use 
AGPL. Many popular open sources projects have attracted active communities 
of contributors with MIT/BSD licenses.

The only difference is the case of deploying the software on a server, 
 which according to AGPL is a form of distribution and would require making 
 the source code available upon request. However, in practice it is not 
 always a concern, e.g. when the target deployment happens in the intranet.


Though, in that case, you are giving the software to your employees for 
free -- which they could then take to a competitor (or their own startup).
 

 Saying that legal department avoids GPL or AGPL and not saying *why* is 
 not very convincing. Argument from authority is not enough.


I think the point was simply that whether or not legal department fear of 
GPL/AGPL is justified, it is the current reality and will therefore hamper 
adoption of the product by businesses.
 

 I could agree, that AGPL might be not very convincing as it seems to give 
 away for what the customer has paid to everyone. However, you have to 
 remember that potential competition is still bounded by the same license.


Yes, but they get to achieve feature parity with the original developer 
without making any investment, which gives them an advantage.
 
Anthony

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 - License changed to AGPL3 (Gnu Afferro GPL)


 If I understand AGPL3 correctly, if someone deploys Movuca on a server,
 they will be required to allow all users of their website to download the
 entire source code of the site, including any customizations they make to
 the Movuca code in order to accommodate their app. I assume that will
 greatly limit its adoption.


 Yes, I wanted a way to keep it OPen Source and allow commercial use at the
same time.

I want every one to be able to use it, customize it and deploys, sell
support, sell as a service. But I want to keep it Open Source (I mean, I
dont want someone to take the code and release a tool called blablabla
which is not open source)

But, I think we can have closed plugins, acting in the same way as web2py
plugins. Someone can develop a plugin and release the plugin with any
license (not?)

So if someone change the core, it will be needed to released the changes as
open source.

-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Bruce Wade

I agree with Anthony, I think this type of license will limit the adoption
greatly. Honestly I probably wont even look at the code now, not because I
wasn't interested. Instead because 99% of my clients require to keep the
code that makes their system unique and profitable.

--
Regards,
Bruce

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:

 - License changed to AGPL3 (Gnu Afferro GPL)


 If I understand AGPL3 correctly, if someone deploys Movuca on a server,
 they will be required to allow all users of their website to download the
 entire source code of the site, including any customizations they make to
 the Movuca code in order to accommodate their app. I assume that will
 greatly limit its adoption.


  Yes, I wanted a way to keep it OPen Source and allow commercial use at
 the same time.

 I want every one to be able to use it, customize it and deploys, sell
 support, sell as a service. But I want to keep it Open Source (I mean, I
 dont want someone to take the code and release a tool called blablabla
 which is not open source)

 But, I think we can have closed plugins, acting in the same way as web2py
 plugins. Someone can develop a plugin and release the plugin with any
 license (not?)

 So if someone change the core, it will be needed to released the changes
 as open source.

 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]




-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with Anthony, I think this type of license will limit the adoption
 greatly. Honestly I probably wont even look at the code now, not because I
 wasn't interested. Instead because 99% of my clients require to keep the
 code that makes their system unique and profitable.


I am open to change it, but I dont know nothing about licenses.

Which license should I use if I want to allow free and commercial use and
at the same time avoid someone form using the code base to release a
commercial version os the same kinf of app?

I mean, everyone should be able to use it to create a Social Network,
intranet or website, everyone should be able to sell apps made with it and
give commercial support.

But no one can release a CMS or Social network platform free or
commercial without making the source code available.

Is there a license?

-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Mariano Reingart

The magic keyword is distribute, both the GPL and LGPL would
prevent proprietary closed forks (binary only releases).

But, if you want that every site that uses your app would have to publish
the source code, AGPL.

Best regards

Mariano Reingart
http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
http://reingart.blogspot.com


On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with Anthony, I think this type of license will limit the
 adoption greatly. Honestly I probably wont even look at the code now, not
 because I wasn't interested. Instead because 99% of my clients require to
 keep the code that makes their system unique and profitable.


 I am open to change it, but I dont know nothing about licenses.

 Which license should I use if I want to allow free and commercial use and
 at the same time avoid someone form using the code base to release a
 commercial version os the same kinf of app?

 I mean, everyone should be able to use it to create a Social Network,
 intranet or website, everyone should be able to sell apps made with it and
 give commercial support.

 But no one can release a CMS or Social network platform free or
 commercial without making the source code available.

 Is there a license?


 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Bruce Wade

LGPL would probably be the best choice, meaning they can use the code for
commercial however need to submit/supply source code changes that they make
to the CMS directly, but allows them to keep their own unique code built on
top of the CMS closed if they want.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mariano Reingart reing...@gmail.com wrote:

 The magic keyword is distribute, both the GPL and LGPL would
 prevent proprietary closed forks (binary only releases).

 But, if you want that every site that uses your app would have to publish
 the source code, AGPL.

 Best regards

 Mariano Reingart
 http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
 http://reingart.blogspot.com



 On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with Anthony, I think this type of license will limit the
 adoption greatly. Honestly I probably wont even look at the code now, not
 because I wasn't interested. Instead because 99% of my clients require to
 keep the code that makes their system unique and profitable.


 I am open to change it, but I dont know nothing about licenses.

 Which license should I use if I want to allow free and commercial use and
 at the same time avoid someone form using the code base to release a
 commercial version os the same kinf of app?

 I mean, everyone should be able to use it to create a Social Network,
 intranet or website, everyone should be able to sell apps made with it and
 give commercial support.

 But no one can release a CMS or Social network platform free or
 commercial without making the source code available.

 Is there a license?


 --

 Bruno Rocha
 [http://rochacbruno.com.br]





-- 
-- 
Regards,
Bruce Wade
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade
http://www.wadecybertech.com
http://www.warplydesigned.com
http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

OK, I am going to change it to LGPL3 (the same of web2py)

-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Anthony



 - License changed to AGPL3 (Gnu Afferro GPL)


 If I understand AGPL3 correctly, if someone deploys Movuca on a server, 
 they will be required to allow all users of their website to download the 
 entire source code of the site, including any customizations they make to 
 the Movuca code in order to accommodate their app. I assume that will 
 greatly limit its adoption.


  Yes, I wanted a way to keep it OPen Source and allow commercial use at 
 the same time.

 I want every one to be able to use it, customize it and deploys, sell 
 support, sell as a service.


But as soon as you deploy it, you have to let all of your users download 
the full site code. If someone hires you to build a site for them using 
Movuca, you have to tell them that the site they are paying you to build 
will ultimately be released to the public (in fact, they themselves will be 
responsible for making the source available for download). I'm not sure 
many people will want to try to make a commercial enterprise out of that 
model.
 

 But I want to keep it Open Source (I mean, I dont want someone to take the 
 code and release a tool called blablabla which is not open source)


If that's the goal, then maybe consider GPL, which allows deployment on a 
server without source code distribution, but does not allow other forms of 
distribution without source code. Even better, maybe LGPL (like web2py), 
which lets you use it in conjunction with closed source code (though since 
Movuca is really an app, it may be difficult to truly separate it from 
closed source code that is part of the same app).
 

 But, I think we can have closed plugins, acting in the same way as web2py 
 plugins. Someone can develop a plugin and release the plugin with any 
 license (not?)


I'm not sure about that:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins

Of course, you should choose whatever license you like -- it's your work. 
I'm just pointing out that something like AGPL (and even GPL) will probably 
limit its appeal for users with any kind of commercial intentions.

Anthony

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Wikus van de Merwe

Bruno's work is given for free, and if you don't share your changes back, 
keep it secret behind the server, it doesn't help the Movuca project. So 
for Bruno the GPL or even AGPL is a good option, as it keeps the code free 
(as in freedom).

CMS is very different to a framework like web2py, which is only a base for 
application development and could be seen as similar to a system library. 
CMS is an application itself. It's not a component used to build bigger 
projects. The FSF discourage use of LGPL in such cases, because they goal 
is to spread and increase adoption of the free software. So they favor a 
scenario in which your software is released under the GPL, as all work 
derived from it would have to become free software too (which is not the 
case for LGPL).

Also, I don't see any contradiction between GPL or AGPL and commercial 
intentions. Your client is paying for a customised solution and is getting 
one no matter if the license is LGPL, GPL or AGPL. The only difference here 
is for Bruno and the community of people working with him on the CMS. They 
might ask for the source code and benefit from changes made by others. The 
same way as those others benefited in the first place from Bruno's CMS as 
they didn't have to write it from scratch. It's a win win situation. Where 
do you guys see problems with adoption and commercial use?

GPL will prevent anyone from making a proprietary system that includes your 
code (LGPL allows that). However, it would be still possible to do it 
without code distribution, for example in a software as service model. Only 
AGPL will prevent that, as it requires to make the source available 
whenever the code is deployed on a server.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

That is exactly what I had in mind, now I dont know if I stay with AGPL or
change to LGPL..

I chosen AGPL because I saw another related projetct using it (
http://noosfero.org/Site/About)

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Wikus van de Merwe 
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Bruno's work is given for free, and if you don't share your changes back,
 keep it secret behind the server, it doesn't help the Movuca project. So
 for Bruno the GPL or even AGPL is a good option, as it keeps the code free
 (as in freedom).

 CMS is very different to a framework like web2py, which is only a base for
 application development and could be seen as similar to a system library.
 CMS is an application itself. It's not a component used to build bigger
 projects. The FSF discourage use of LGPL in such cases, because they goal
 is to spread and increase adoption of the free software. So they favor a
 scenario in which your software is released under the GPL, as all work
 derived from it would have to become free software too (which is not the
 case for LGPL).

 Also, I don't see any contradiction between GPL or AGPL and commercial
 intentions. Your client is paying for a customised solution and is getting
 one no matter if the license is LGPL, GPL or AGPL. The only difference here
 is for Bruno and the community of people working with him on the CMS. They
 might ask for the source code and benefit from changes made by others. The
 same way as those others benefited in the first place from Bruno's CMS as
 they didn't have to write it from scratch. It's a win win situation. Where
 do you guys see problems with adoption and commercial use?

 GPL will prevent anyone from making a proprietary system that includes
 your code (LGPL allows that). However, it would be still possible to do it
 without code distribution, for example in a software as service model. Only
 AGPL will prevent that, as it requires to make the source available
 whenever the code is deployed on a server.




-- 

Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Anthony



 Bruno's work is given for free, and if you don't share your changes back, 
 keep it secret behind the server, it doesn't help the Movuca project. So 
 for Bruno the GPL or even AGPL is a good option, as it keeps the code free 
 (as in freedom).


Under a more permissive license, a smaller percentage of users will 
contribute changes back to the project, but you will likely get a lot more 
users overall, so you may still get a lot of contributions. With a strong 
copyleft license, like AGPL, everyone contributes changes back, but the 
user base will likely be much smaller. If the goal is getting more 
contributions back to the project, it's not clear which approach will 
prevail.
 

 CMS is very different to a framework like web2py, which is only a base for 
 application development and could be seen as similar to a system library. 
 CMS is an application itself.


In most cases, users would not be deploying Movuca completely unmodified, 
and even if they did, the whole point of the AGPL/GPL license would be 
moot, as there would be no modifications to release. The license issues 
arise exactly in the context of modifying the system.

Also, I don't see any contradiction between GPL or AGPL and commercial 
 intentions. Your client is paying for a customised solution and is getting 
 one no matter if the license is LGPL, GPL or AGPL.


Under the AGPL, your client is indeed getting a custom solution -- but then 
your client is required to give away that custom solution to their 
competitors for free. Not many commercial enterprises will want to pay for 
the development of a custom solution that they must then give away to the 
public for free.
 

 The only difference here is for Bruno and the community of people working 
 with him on the CMS. They might ask for the source code and benefit from 
 changes made by others. 


Someone might integrate Movuca with their own custom functionality that is 
specifically related to their business, which might not necessarily even be 
of interest to Movuca. Even in that case, though, they would be required to 
release their proprietary code to the public under AGPL.
 

 GPL will prevent anyone from making a proprietary system that includes 
 your code (LGPL allows that). However, it would be still possible to do it 
 without code distribution, for example in a software as service model. Only 
 AGPL will prevent that, as it requires to make the source available 
 whenever the code is deployed on a server.


Yes, GPL is probably at least tolerable in many situations, but AGPL is 
likely a deal breaker for most commercial applications.

Anthony

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Ross Peoples

I'm not sure how much my opinion matters here, but a lot of times, I am not 
allowed to touch GPL code, especially AGPL code for a business project. The 
legal department avoids (A)GPL like the plague. There are just too many 
gotchas with it, whether real or imaginary. They much prefer I use MIT or 
BSD, and have started to come around to LGPL. But there is no way they will 
let me use anything more restrictive. Our legal department can't be the 
only one in the corporate world that feels the same way.

So if you want real businesses to touch code, it has to be LGPL or better 
(less restrictive). I believe this was one of the reasons web2py is using 
LGPL now. But this is your project, and a great one at that! So feel free 
to license it however you like, just be aware of the adoption issues.

Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1

2012-02-07 Thread Ricardo Pedroso

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
 That is exactly what I had in mind, now I dont know if I stay with AGPL or
 change to LGPL..

 I chosen AGPL because I saw another related projetct using it
 (http://noosfero.org/Site/About)

Hi Bruno,

I'm completely ignorant about this licence deals, but I saw other projects
having a dual licence model.

Probably you should consider it for your Movuca.

And congrats for Movuca,

Um abraço,
Ricardo

[web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1