+1
2010/12/21 mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu:
Because I do not want closed source commercial derivatives. I am
against people stealing other people work.
+1
Looks like we have enough consensus. The people who so far opposed to
a license change seem to be in favor of this change. As soon as I can
fix the open issues I will change the license for 1.91.1 to LPGL3 and,
after that do, I do not want to hear anything any more about the
license.
Perhaps I
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:08 PM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
Perhaps I should add a new exception: you loose the license to use
web2py if you complain about web2py or its license. ;-)
for 1000 years or life, whichever comes last ;)
--
Branko Vukelic
stu...@brankovukelic.com
We have continued this discussion about the license on the web2py-
developers list.
It is a complex issue.
There is one proposal on the table:
http://groups.google.com/group/web2py-developers/msg/863ddc9be36b723b
http://groups.google.com/group/web2py-developers/msg/b251cf4aa3ce4ba9
based
I guess I still support considering a permissive license (ie, BSD or MIT).
I'm curious why folks prefer GPL? Does a non-GPL license make it more
difficult to incorporate GPL code into a project? Have there been situations
where permissive licensing compromised a project? I realize many don't
Because I do not want closed source commercial derivatives. I am
against people stealing other people work.
On Dec 21, 12:45 am, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I still support considering a permissive license (ie, BSD or MIT).
I'm curious why folks prefer GPL? Does a non-GPL
oppose to moving to BSD or
MIT or other more permissive license?
Massimo
On Dec 16, 2:54 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: mdipierro
Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
If we
07:56 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to
modify web2py running on their servers without making available the
source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring
- Original Message -
From: mdipierro
Sent: 12/17/10 09:39 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I think we can all agree on two issues:
1) the current license (GPL + exception) is OK for almost everybody
2) the current license is unclear
I think that is a good solution.
On Dec 16, 2:09 am, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
Yes, I agree, but all I said was that the concerns are not invalid (I
also pointed out an issue that has not thus far been addressed --
standalone DAL). I think we can decide to stick with GPL while still
recognizing it may
- Original Message -
From: Anthony
Sent: 12/16/10 05:02 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I don't _think_ I'm missing the main point, as I agree with what you
state above.
Then why are we discussing the license? If you understand that GPL
On Dec 16, 11:11 am, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
I don't _think_ I'm missing the main point, as I agree with what you
state above.
Then why are we discussing the license? If you understand that GPL is there
to protect
the freeness of the software, and that's why web2py
We are discussing the license because it hinders adoption...hardly a
pointless topic. Anthony at least acknowledges this.
I posted the question on Quora and it got a reasonable first response:
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-license-for-a-web-framework-ex-Cake-Rails-Django-GPL-BSD-or-MIT
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 7:21:52 PM UTC+1, mdipierro wrote:
I think we should close this discussion. It is not going anywhere. The
license of web2py is not up for discussion. I say (and said) that the GPL
license applies to derivative work only. Applications built with web2py and
- Original Message -
From: =?ANSI_X3.4-1968?Q?Jos=3F_L=2E?=
Sent: 12/16/10 07:23 PM
To: web2py@googlegroups.com
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Also, is there any reason to stay in gpl v2 instead of moving to v3?
I think someone already pointed out that GPLv3 could
On Dec 16, 12:30 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: =?ANSI_X3.4-1968?Q?Jos=3F_L=2E?=
Sent: 12/16/10 07:23 PM
To: web2py@googlegroups.com
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Also, is there any reason to stay in gpl v2 instead
- Original Message -
From: mdipierro
Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to
modify web2py running on their servers without making available the
source code
:56 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to
modify web2py running on their servers without making available the
source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring
this.
What's
] Re: it case you missed it...
If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to
modify web2py running on their servers without making available the
source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring
this.
What's AGPL for then? Wasn't _AGPL_ supposed
-
From: mdipierro
Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to
modify web2py running on their servers without making available the
source code of their changes. I do
+1 for permissive.
Seems unlikely anyone would want to close up the source of a framework and
even if it happened, it shouldn't affect the project. And who would want to
use closed source framework?
But it should eliminate one of the adoption hurdles which is a good thing.
Don't you all want
branko, I'm curious why permissive licensing is a problem for you. is it a
philosophical thing? what's the downside? wouldn't it be cool if your code
was widely used? cake, django rails are permissively licensed (as are most
frameworks) and it doesn't seem to be a problem. people still seem
- Original Message -
From: pbreit
Sent: 12/17/10 12:52 AM
To: web2py@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
branko, I'm curious why permissive licensing is a problem for you. is it a
philosophical thing? what's the downside? wouldn't it be cool
Fair enough, I respect that. Massimo has done a wonderful job of adding
really good features while keeping web2py lean. As it gets more popular is
there a concern that more people will lean on Massimo to add bloat? That
would definitely be unfortunate.
- Original Message -
From: pbreit
Sent: 12/17/10 01:40 AM
To: web2py@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Fair enough, I respect that. Massimo has done a wonderful job of adding
really good features while keeping web2py lean. As it gets more popular
On Dec 16, 6:14 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
Reading the full text of the Apache license, I think dual-licensing web2py
under GPLv2
and Apache License 2.0 would solve all of the problems except 1: reuse of
web2py
components and libraries for building closed-source
- Original Message -
From: Anthony
Sent: 12/17/10 02:30 AM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Dec 16, 6:14 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
Reading the full text of the Apache license, I think dual-licensing web2py
under GPLv2
On Dec 16, 8:47 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
Now that there's a truly standalone DAL, what if someone wants to use
that in an application? What about some of the other contrib modules,
like markmin?
This is a question only Massimo can give a qualified answer to. The
I made this example (for teaching)
https://bitbucket.org/rochacbruno/dal_on_flask/src
I've been pointed to include this line:
# NOTE: web2py is licensed under GPL2 and Flask is licensed under
BSD# So, any derivative using both ['Flask','DAL'] should be GPL (not
BSD)
- Original Message -
From: Anthony
Sent: 12/17/10 03:33 AM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I guess it seems odd to say if you build an app using the entire
web2py framework, then you can close source your app, but if you build
Entire _unmodified_
On Dec 16, 9:45 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
I guess it seems odd to say if you build an app using the entire
web2py framework, then you can close source your app, but if you build
Entire _unmodified_ web2py framework.
Well, it's not clear that your app can be closed
- Original Message -
From: Anthony
Sent: 12/17/10 04:22 AM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
So, at least one advantage of BSD is it doesn't require all this
clearing up. ;)
How nice...
--
Branko Vukelic
branko.vuke...@gmx.com
http
Why GPL is discouraging users? Is it the case that Drupal, Wordpress
or Joomla have no users? They are all released on GPL terms. Moreover,
they consider themes and plugins to be derivative work and as such
they have to be released on GPL terms if distributed. Still, thousands
of plugins and
Don't start this discussion again. :) It's already soft-of decided
that web2py will remain GPL.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why GPL is discouraging users? Is it the case that Drupal, Wordpress
or Joomla have no users? They are all
The discussion was started by the advocates of non-copyleft licences. I'm
perfectly fine with web2py on GPL terms (even without exceptions), besides
maybe I would like to see it upgraded to GPLv3. However, it is too often we
see the attempts to frame the GPL as deterrent scary licence that
Sorry but this requires a response.
Django and Rails (frameworks!!) are *far* better examples than the CMSs you
point out.
BSD/MIT are definitionally better for users than GPL because they are more
permissive. You'd have to prove some sort of unintended circumstance to
dispute that for which
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry but this requires a response.
I was kind of hoping it did not, but there you go...
You'd have to prove some sort of unintended circumstance to
No! YOU would have to give us a CONCRETE case where GPL+exception
setup
I do not think that GPL is the determining factor of why Django or
Rails are popular.
It is not clear that GPL scares off potential users. I will go out
on the limp to say that most potential users of web2py will be in the
capacity of app developers, not framework developers. They might be
It's not worthwhile fiddling around with the exception since the GPL stigma
will remain.
It's clear that GPL scares off potential users.
I come from a background of relentlessly lowering barriers to adoption. I
would very much like to see Web2py usage go way up.
An excerpt: I think this sums it up.
---
GPL is a tool that uses copyright to enforce software freedom, but… in order
to be able to enforce that there must be a copyright holder that can take
action. The FSF is aware of this and is carefully requiring contributors and
their employers (!)
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:07 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's clear that GPL scares off potential users.
That bug is already marked invalid. You'd have to give us a stack
trace if you want to reopen it, and preferably attach a working patch.
Please also note the version of web2py
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:11:27 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:07 PM, pbreit wrote:
It's clear that GPL scares off potential users.
That bug is already marked invalid. You'd have to give us a stack trace if
you want to reopen it, and preferably
- Original Message -
From: Anthony
Sent: 12/15/10 10:54 PM
To: web2py@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I like GPL plus a (clarified) exception, but I wouldn't exactly say pbreit's
concerns are invalid. There clearly is some history of confusion
On Dec 15, 6:25 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote:
I like GPL plus a (clarified) exception, but I wouldn't exactly say pbreit's
concerns are invalid. There clearly is some history of confusion and concern
among web2py users/developers and their clients:
Point is, it's been
Anthony, thanks for keeping your posts reasonable and considerate.
:)
On Dec 15, 10:11 pm, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, thanks for keeping your posts reasonable and considerate.
- Original Message -
From: Anthony
Sent: 12/16/10 03:01 AM
To: web2py-users
Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Yes, I agree, but all I said was that the concerns are not invalid (I
also pointed out an issue that has not thus far been addressed --
standalone DAL). I
I am happy with what Massimo intends web2py's license to be. I think
a lot of people are too. App developers should not have to worry
about the licensing issues. I think the license should be precise and
concise. Further because it combines two types of licenses into one,
it should not be
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM, VP vtp2...@gmail.com wrote:
I am happy with what Massimo intends web2py's license to be. I think
a lot of people are too. App developers should not have to worry
about the licensing issues. I think the license should be precise and
concise. Further because
I agree that we may need clarification because it does not state that
the scaffolding app is public domain (it now says it in trunk), and
it does not say that importing web2py modules from an app should not
be considered linking and therefore it does not violate the GPL.
If you guys can come up
On Monday, December 13, 2010 2:00:08 AM UTC-5, mdipierro wrote: On
Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:46:38 PM UTC-5, mdipierro wrote: There
are three cases:
1) you distribute your app open or closed source with web2py source
(allowed by GPL)
Doesn't the GPL by itself actually prohibit
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
1) all web2py/*.py and web2py/gluon/*py files are LPGL
+1
2) all web2py/gluon/contrib/* files are LGPL unless specified
+1
otherwise (MIT or BSD are possible for third party contributions)
3rd party contributions
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
source and freeware for binaries) rather than LGPL with a commercial
exception (which could lead to confusion and concern).
LGPL _is_ the commercial exception. That's why they call it lesser. :)
--
Branko Vukelić
Ok, so I got word from GNU. What they say is that using imports the
way Python does is considered creating derivative work, and LGPL would
not, in their view, except the vendor from the obligation to release
their apps under the terms of (L)GPL (which is kinda surprising). As
solution to this they
On Monday, December 13, 2010 5:12:51 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote:
source and freeware for binaries) rather than LGPL with a commercial
exception (which could lead to confusion and concern).
LGPL _is_ the commercial exception.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, LGPL (I think) allows the exception to distribute the source along with
an application that links/imports the source. I was talking about the other
web2py exception, which allows distribution of the binaries without the
On Monday, December 13, 2010 5:07:52 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM, mdipierro mdip...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
otherwise (MIT or BSD are possible for third party contributions)
3rd party contributions that were released as MIT or BSD cannot be
licensed under LGPL
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, I thought it was just the opposite -- people like MIT/BSD because they
don't place any restrictions on how you license a modified/derived work. So,
you can take an MIT/BSD licensed program, modify/combine it, and then
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote:
Your app is GPL-free anyway
Because of the exception, to be precise, not according to GPL.
--
Branko Vukelić
bg.bra...@gmail.com
stu...@brankovukelic.com
Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/
Check out my
On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:29:00 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, I thought it was just the opposite -- people like MIT/BSD
because they
don't place any restrictions on how you license a modified/derived
work. So,
you
On Monday, December 13, 2010 9:36:37 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, LGPL (I think) allows the exception to distribute the source
along with
an application that links/imports the source. I was talking about the
other
web2py
On Monday, December 13, 2010 8:38:12 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
Ok, so I got word from GNU. What they say is that using imports the
way Python does is considered creating derivative work, and LGPL would
not, in their view, except the vendor from the obligation to release
their apps under the
To summarize:
- a python framework licensed under a pure GPLv2 would not allow for a
closed source application development, so Massimo's exception is
crucial for such projects
- changing the license from the current GPLv2 with en exception to the
LGPL brings no improvement
- changing from GPLv2
Before I dive into analysing the proposed licence changes in detail,
let me remind you one important thing: we are talking here about web
applications. Most of the time these applications are not distributed
as installable software but are deployed on servers. That is, the
distribution does not
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2010 8:38:12 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
Sorry, I missed this post. Would you mind sending the exact question you
asked and the full response from GNU? I'm surprised because I would think a
web2py
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
So as you see, the GPL alone as well as the special case of licensing of
web2py and application written for it is quite complex. I believe we all
would benefit from having all this explained in a separate
Unless there is a move away from GPL, I don't think it's worthwhile to
split hairs on all these intricacies. What is discouraging users
is GPL and I don't think adding more exceptions will avoid the
negative perception. If Massimo is married to GPL then there's probably
not much to discuss.
I
On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
Start verbatim copy -
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- lice...@fsf.org wrote:
Importing code and sharing namespaces would most probably be
creating a
derivative work and would need to be
On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:58:09 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
1) all web2py/*.py and web2py/gluon/*py files are LPGL
The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy,
redistribute,
understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered
software into a
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
intellectual property attorney with open source experience. Maybe it's not
worth the bother/cost right now, though.
First, technically, GPL license is totally ok if we look at web2py on
its own. It gets the job done. Releasing
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless there is a move away from GPL, I don't think it's worthwhile to split
Absolutely. You do not have to discuss the LGPL/GPL licensing issue if
it offends you so much. Especially if you cannot refrain from
name-calling
On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:46:09 AM UTC+11, Anthony wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
Start verbatim copy -
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- lic...@fsf.org wrote:
Importing code and sharing namespaces
On Monday, December 13, 2010 6:18:24 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
First, technically, GPL license is totally ok if we look at web2py on
its own. It gets the job done. Releasing web2py under LGPL
accomplishes nothing for the framework that GPL hasn't already.
Agreed.
We were actually
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Graham Dumpleton
graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
it being a part of the library. Thus technically the template code may be
construed as ending up as part of your application.
FSF specifically allows this in LGPL, if I'm not mistaken:
The object code form of
They may have clarified it then. I am only going by what problems I knew
came up many many many years ago, ie., early 90s.
Another good example of why lawyers are a good idea. We all often go based
on possibly out of date recollections. :-)
Graham
On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:03:59 PM
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Graham Dumpleton
graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
They may have clarified it then. I am only going by what problems I knew
came up many many many years ago, ie., early 90s.
However, web2py is still using GPLv2 :P That ought to be fixed. GPLv3
is both more
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
The FSF has a different agenda from people who want to distribute their
web2py applications closed source. GPL plus exceptions certainly works, but
However, FSF's agenda also aligns with that of Massimo and some of us,
On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:52:20 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote:
The FSF has a different agenda from people who want to distribute their
web2py applications closed source. GPL plus exceptions certainly works,
but
On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:17:39 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Graham Dumpleton
Another good example of why lawyers are a good idea. We all often go
based
on possibly out of date recollections. :-)
Well, that's something Massimo's wallet has to
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good. Though ideally we would get some expert advice at some point.
Agreed.
--
Branko Vukelić
bg.bra...@gmail.com
stu...@brankovukelic.com
Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/
Check out my portfolio:
1. GPL is more objectionable than BSD/MIT
Both GPL and BSD are not well suited to template code, that's the
point.
So which one would you suggest?
2. Frameworks tend not to use GPL
So?
So if many/most other frameworks do not use GPL, maybe not using GPL is
worth considering for the
I was a bit at odds when I saw a framework with a GPL v2 license that
claims that the developed code doesn't need to be GPL v2 compatible.
Has this scenario been looked over by a lawyer? Any such document would
enable us to put customers at ease.
We have used CakePHP for our PHP projects for
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
1. GPL is more objectionable than BSD/MIT
Both GPL and BSD are not well suited to template code, that's the point.
So which one would you suggest?
It's already been suggested (with a minor wording problem). Look at
the
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM, LightDot light...@gmail.com wrote:
Has this scenario been looked over by a lawyer? Any such document would
enable us to put customers at ease.
It's a no brainer. The license covers the platform, not the code
written _using_ that platform. It's not like
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote:
platform, mind you. GPL strictly covers the code that you have
_received_ not the one you've produced yourself.
Speaking of which, many developers use Linux, and many more sites are
served off Linux boxes. And Linux is
On Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:37:23 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote:
I think it's better to just remove the favicon. Having a default logo
is just as bad as having a web2py logo.
Agreed. I think the reason so many sites end up using the web2py
favicon is because they don't even think about
Please keep GPL on the framework, web2py is not backed by a single
commercial company, it is free!
I think that it would be much better that templates and static files
of welcome app (and admin app?) must be distributed with
a more liberal license.
We should eventually ask suggestions to FSF.
Companies don't really care if I tell them that it's a no brainer, they
look at this issues trough the eyes of a business risk and consult
lawyers to minimize them. There are some who get cold feet when they
see GPL but can live with MIT or BSD.
Don't know if the analogy of linux OS / webservers
The disadvantages of GPL are somewhat clear.
Are there any advantages of GPL (with respect to frameworks)?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any advantages of GPL (with respect to frameworks)?
It depends.
--
Branko Vukelić
bg.bra...@gmail.com
stu...@brankovukelic.com
Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/
Check out my portfolio:
It prevents a group of individuals or a company to make a better
closed source derivative, and screw the original project.
In my experience, MIT/BSD projects tend to be smaller, fragmented and
with a lot of incompatible forks when compared with GPL projects. Of
course there are exceptions.
I'm not sure you can make that generalization with frameworks. The
solid, widely used ones are all BSD/MIT (Rails, Django, Cake,
CodeIgniter, Pylons, Turbogears, Symfony, etc.).
But as you say, BSD/MIT are better for users.
I disagree. In the case of web2py it makes no difference to users
since the web2py license clearly states it does not apply to them.
Users of the framework can release their code under any license they
like.
Massimo
On Dec 12, 11:39 am, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure you
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
But as you say, BSD/MIT are better for users.
He didn't say that.
--
Branko Vukelić
bg.bra...@gmail.com
stu...@brankovukelic.com
Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/
Check out my portfolio:
The evidence is overwhelmingly in the other direction both in terms of
what users want and what other frameworks offer. I don't think that's
disputable.
I think we should close this discussion. It is not going anywhere.
The license of web2py is not up for discussion.
I say (and said) that the GPL license applies to derivative work only.
Applications built with web2py and distributed with web2py (compiled
or not) are not derivative work therefore
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 7:21 PM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
I think we should close this discussion. It is not going anywhere.
The license of web2py is not up for discussion.
+1
--
Branko Vukelić
bg.bra...@gmail.com
stu...@brankovukelic.com
Check out my blog:
Fair enough. But I do hope you will re-evaluate at some point as I
strongly believe that a non-GPL license would make Web2py much, much
better.
And I think it is worthwhile trying to gain users since usage is the
oxygen for something like a framework.
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
