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 web2py under LGPL accomplishes nothing for the framework that GPL hasn't already. We were actually discussing applications built to run on top of web2py. That's covered by the exceptions, and imho, they should be enough. No change is required, since FSF's suggestions are already implemented. The only thing that needs to change is to make the exceptions more prominent (FTR, I haven't seen them before this discussion started.) On the psychological level, I doubt it would accomplish much in the way of changing people's perception of 'evilness' of the GPL and its derivatives (like LGPL). I am more and more convinced of this observing some of the reactions in this discussion. For those cases, I don't think there is a straightforward solution, other than counselling maybe. Having a concrete need for which GPL+exception poses a _real_ obstacle (and not 'what if, omg, wtf, bbq' FUD) is one thing. Massimo has already demonstrated that he is open to custom licensing should the need arise (and FTR, I think he should charge for it, too, but I also think he would not). If that is not good enough, then maybe web2py isn't for them after all. -- Branko Vukelić bg.bra...@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
