Hi, Es sprach Jorge Godoy: > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A GPL framework doesn't compel you to release anything if you are just >> using it yourself. It's only when you want to distribute what you make >> that you have to release your code. As a framework for running your own >> sites and services, GPL works fine. > > Of course it does.
this is FUD. The GPL is all about distribution. Read for yourself at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php ... Clause 2, for example, says "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions [...]" and clause 3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following [...]". Please note that it says "copy and distribute" in both clauses. > That's what's written in the license No, it isn't. As long as you keep the changes for yourself (or, FWIW, the "derived work"), you don't have to distribute it. What's more: I don't think that an application that is implemented for a python framework that doesn't force you to include anything would have to be called a "derived work". But IANAL and for the remaining uncertainty it's perfectly reasonable to keep away from the framework as long as you want to *distribute* your work under another license. > and also the reason > why I made the above comment. You should pick another reason... ;-) Es sprach Bob Ippolito: > If it were an appropriate license for libraries, people would use it > as such. Approximately zero other python web libraries are of GPL-like > license to my knowledge. It's a pretty hostile license for a library, > especially when it's against the spirit of everything else it builds > upon (which are mostly MIT-style licensed projects). The MIT license says "take the code and do whatever you want with it as long as you mention my name. You may even make it part of a closed source project." And as much as I can understand that you don't want to use GPLed frameworks because you don't want your own code to be GPLed, I fail to see how the GPL could be "more evil" then a closed source license... GPL and MIT/BSD are both about freedom, but the GPL opts for limiting the freedom of the user to increase the user's users freedom whereas MIT/BSD opt for increasing the user's freedom, but not protecting the same amount of freedom for the user's users. Both ideas are valid and you may like whichever you want. But please don't start a lincense flame war or simple FUD when you see the other one mentioned. Cheers, --Jan Niklas -- Diese Mail habe ich mit SquirrelMail versandt. Sie ist deshalb nicht mit GPG signiert. Eine unsignierte Mail - auch diese - kann prinzipiell sehr leicht gefälscht werden. Bitte prüfe / prüfen Sie daher bei Bedarf durch persönliche Rückfrage o.ä., ob diese Mail tatsächlich von mir stammt. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
