Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
Hi Bruno, thank so much for your movuca i tried this version: rochacbruno-Movuca-ed8c8dc but got error: run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca /setup/installhttp://localhost:8000/sns/setup/install --- it shows: bootstrap run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca /home/indexhttp://localhost:8000/sns/home/index -- got error ticket: type 'exceptions.AttributeError' 'Access' object has no attribute 'user_groups' Function argument list (self=applications.sns.modules.handlers.home.Home object) Code listing 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. for hook in hooks: self.__getattribute__(hook)() def allowed_content_types(self): if self.db.auth: allowed_types = self.db.auth.user_groups.values() query = (self.db.ContentType.access_control.contains(public)) for content_type in allowed_types: query |= (self.db.ContentType.access_control.contains(content_type)) return self.db(query).select() how to fix this? On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:15:32 AM UTC+9, rochacbruno wrote: 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
Looks like you have an error because of your web2py version. Movuca requires web2py-trunk, it needs the new user_groups key in auth, On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:45 AM, kokoyo hoatre2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bruno, thank so much for your movuca i tried this version: rochacbruno-Movuca-ed8c8dc but got error: run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca /setup/installhttp://localhost:8000/sns/setup/install --- it shows: bootstrap run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca /home/indexhttp://localhost:8000/sns/home/index -- got error ticket: type 'exceptions.AttributeError' 'Access' object has no attribute 'user_groups' Function argument list (self=applications.sns.modules.handlers.home.Home object) Code listing 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. for hook in hooks: self.__getattribute__(hook)() def allowed_content_types(self): if self.db.auth: allowed_types = self.db.auth.user_groups.values() query = (self.db.ContentType.access_control.contains(public)) for content_type in allowed_types: query |= (self.db.ContentType.access_control.contains(content_type)) return self.db(query).select() how to fix this? On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:15:32 AM UTC+9, rochacbruno wrote: have you done it first? - http://localhost:8000/appname/**setup/install 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#readmehttps://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca#readmebut 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] -- Bruno Rocha [http://rochacbruno.com.br]
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
Exactly, It works like a charm after updated web2py version as you said. Amazing speed thank a lot Bruno regards. On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 4:54:28 PM UTC+9, rochacbruno wrote: Looks like you have an error because of your web2py version. Movuca requires web2py-trunk, it needs the new user_groups key in auth, On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:45 AM, kokoyo hoatre2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bruno, thank so much for your movuca i tried this version: rochacbruno-Movuca-ed8c8dc but got error: run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca /setup/installhttp://localhost:8000/sns/setup/install --- it shows: bootstrap run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca /home/indexhttp://localhost:8000/sns/home/index -- got error ticket: type 'exceptions.AttributeError' 'Access' object has no attribute 'user_groups' Function argument list (self=applications.sns.modules.handlers.home.Home object) Code listing 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. for hook in hooks: self.__getattribute__(hook)() def allowed_content_types(self): if self.db.auth: allowed_types = self.db.auth.user_groups.values() query = (self.db.ContentType.access_control.contains(public)) for content_type in allowed_types: query |= (self.db.ContentType.access_control.contains(content_type)) return self.db(query).select() how to fix this? On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:15:32 AM UTC+9, rochacbruno wrote: have you done it first? - http://localhost:8000/appname/**setup/install 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#readmehttps://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca#readmebut 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] -- Bruno Rocha [http://rochacbruno.com.br]
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
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
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
*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
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
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
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
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
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]
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
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
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
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
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
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
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
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]
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]
Re: [web2py] Re: [w2py-dev] Re: Movuca - Social CMS beta 0.1
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
