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 it combines two types of licenses into one, > it should not be contradicting each other in some way.
It does need a little bit of clarification, though, especially in the are of what is considered "including web2py source in your app", and what is meant by "acknowledging the author" etc. > Maybe, it doesn't need to be rewritten (much), but needs an FAQ > attached to it. Most certainly. I've checked the FAQ and there's no mention of the commercial exception. -- 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
