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 exception, which allows distribution of the binaries without the > source at all (i.e., the freeware license for the binaries). Currently, we Why? I don't think it would be too much to ask companies to pay for binary-only bundling. If you can distribute with the sources (meaning either put sources in the bundle, or offer sources some other way, mind you), why not? I have absolutely nothing against that. If a company is not prepared to do that, they should use a closed-source product that allows this.
I'm not sure what you're asking about here. Thus far there has been absolutely no mention of requiring payment for binary-only. Currently the binary-only is free, and Massimo's suggested change keeps it free. My comments merely assume the status quo (i.e., free binary). My point was simply that if we want to offer the binaries as freeware, we should probably describe that as a dual license rather than as a exception to the GPL/LGPL license (simply for clarity). Anthony -- Branko Vukelić bg.b...@gmail.com stu...@brankovukelic.com Check out my blog: http://www.brankovukelic.com/ Check out my portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/foxbunny/ Registered Linux user #438078 (http://counter.li.org/) I hang out on identi.ca: http://identi.ca/foxbunny Gimp Brushmakers Guild http://bit.ly/gbg-group
