[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 19:40 -0400, Joe wrote: Jan Niklas Fingerle wrote: Hi, Es sprach mike bayer: the word on the street is that if you want commercial enterprises to use your software, if theres *anything* remotely GPL-ish about it they wont go near it... that must be the reason why no company at all is using linux. Yes you're right, companies can be quite, well, schizophrenic (at least) about licenses: If it's a well-known tool, nobody really cares, but if it's something unknown, the license becomes an issue: I've had an experience, where a MIT'ed project wasn't used because there was nobody that you could _buy_ a license from ... I didn't want to enter the fray, but ... Jan, IMHO the difference is not that Linux is well known. It's that most companies using Linux, even if they have some employees that end up hacking it here or there for the companies' own use, do not intend to become Linux distributors or to start their own Linux fork. And how is that different from a web framework? The idea of forking one and expecting to make a profit is pretty unrealistic (word on the street is that Python already has too many wink). More likely, hosted commercial services built on top of them would be the plan, in which case since the software isn't distributed, the GPL doesn't apply to any changes they might make. OTOH, with libraries and smaller application software, the possibility of improving them and maybe even trying to make a buck with them is a realistic consideration, even if the company isn't directly in the software business. I don't think this applies in the arena under discussion, and even if it did, I think it provides as much of an argument *for* using the GPL as for not. One thing that has never been adequately explained in these discussions is how the forking of a project by a commercial entity who has no plans of releasing source back to the project benefits the original project in any way. In fact it carries the potential of harming the original project, as forking often does, all licensing issues aside. Trac was released under the GPL prior to 0.9, but they chose to change to a modified BSD (and most of these arguments were discussed in their mailing list at the time the change was considered). I'd say it was already fairly well known at the time, but I believe (anecdotally) that it's done even better since then. Not only is that information anecdotal, there's nothing showing that the change in licensing had any part in it (although I'm sure it didn't hurt them any either). I'm not aware of any commercial entities selling modified copies of Trac either, so it appears to have been a fairly pointless move. To sum up my thinking on the entire GPL licensing issue wrt the web: completely irrelevant. It simply doesn't apply in 99% of the deployment scenarios. If company X won't use your web framework because it's GPL, I doubt it's a loss to anyone but company X anyway so I don't know why anyone would lose a bit of sleep over it. Regards, Cliff -- --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Hi, Es sprach mike bayer: the word on the street is that if you want commercial enterprises to use your software, if theres *anything* remotely GPL-ish about it they wont go near it... that must be the reason why no company at all is using linux. Yes you're right, companies can be quite, well, schizophrenic (at least) about licenses: If it's a well-known tool, nobody really cares, but if it's something unknown, the license becomes an issue: I've had an experience, where a MIT'ed project wasn't used because there was nobody that you could _buy_ a license from ... The GPL says I don't want you to build and distribute a derived work without giving your users the same freedom with your work as I gave you with my work. This can lead to companies not using your work. On the other hand, some companies release their own work under this precise license, because they don't want their work to be lost in other people's proprietary work. 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 turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Jan Niklas Fingerle wrote: Hi, Es sprach mike bayer: the word on the street is that if you want commercial enterprises to use your software, if theres *anything* remotely GPL-ish about it they wont go near it... that must be the reason why no company at all is using linux. Yes you're right, companies can be quite, well, schizophrenic (at least) about licenses: If it's a well-known tool, nobody really cares, but if it's something unknown, the license becomes an issue: I've had an experience, where a MIT'ed project wasn't used because there was nobody that you could _buy_ a license from ... I didn't want to enter the fray, but ... Jan, IMHO the difference is not that Linux is well known. It's that most companies using Linux, even if they have some employees that end up hacking it here or there for the companies' own use, do not intend to become Linux distributors or to start their own Linux fork. OTOH, with libraries and smaller application software, the possibility of improving them and maybe even trying to make a buck with them is a realistic consideration, even if the company isn't directly in the software business. Trac was released under the GPL prior to 0.9, but they chose to change to a modified BSD (and most of these arguments were discussed in their mailing list at the time the change was considered). I'd say it was already fairly well known at the time, but I believe (anecdotally) that it's done even better since then. Joe --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 13:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote: On 8/22/06, Karl Guertin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.cleverharold.org/ I mention this here because I follow both Planet Python and this list fairly carefully and I hadn't seen it mentioned. I figure it would be of interest to others who follow this list. Maybe nobody cares because it's GPL? Given Clever Harold's rather loose coupling mechanism (WSGI), I fail to see how the GPL will affect anything that isn't added directly to Clever Harold itself. GPL may not be the most appropriate license for Python-based projects, but in this case I don't see how it will matter much. Regards, Cliff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Cliff Wells wrote: Given Clever Harold's rather loose coupling mechanism (WSGI), I fail to see how the GPL will affect anything that isn't added directly to Clever Harold itself. GPL may not be the most appropriate license for Python-based projects, but in this case I don't see how it will matter much. the word on the street is that if you want commercial enterprises to use your software, if theres *anything* remotely GPL-ish about it they wont go near iteven if it seems ok, they'd rather not risk building their platform on it. This goes for the LGPL as well which is not written very clearly with regards to a dynamic language like Python. SQLObject is an example of an LGPL python library, which I have heard experienced some roadblocks due to its licensing. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Jorge Godoy wrote: Damjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You sound as if GPL is evil? When it forces you to release your code under the same license it gets a lot complicated to maintain your business running unless you always have very specific projects. 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. -- Ben Sizer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
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 turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Jan Niklas Fingerle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 ... You misread me. I said of course it does to his statement that for personal use it isn't needed to release code. This is not FUD at all. Read again. 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. And that's exactly what I said. It is suitable for personal project. If you work with different projects you can also use GPL if they're very specific to your client. If you have a generic project and reuse it a lot, then it gets more problematic. 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. So, we come back to the linking and depending debate for GPL. You should pick another reason... ;-) I believe you changed your mind now that you have re-read my post with my intentions explained above. 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... He didn't said more evil. He's worried with the same things I am: distributing your project with whatever license you want to use instead of being forced to use GPL. -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Hi, Es sprach Jorge Godoy: You misread me. I said of course it does to his statement that for personal use it isn't needed to release code. you're right. I read A GPL framework doesn't compel you [...] - Of course it does. as if you were not agreeing to Ben. You meant As a framework for running your own sites and services, GPL works fine. - Of course it does.. I'm sorry for this misunderstanding. 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... He didn't said more evil. He's worried with the same things I am: distributing your project with whatever license you want to use instead of being forced to use GPL. My point is that if the project is GPLed your may use it and are forced into using the GPL as well, if it's close sourced you can't use it at all. So, what's better? Now, Bob complained that CleverHarold is against the spirit of everything else it builds upon. Now, the spirit of the MIT/BSD licenses is that I'm free (and even encouraged) to use it in my closed source projects, so I fail to see how using those projects inside a GPLed project could be against the spirit [...]. Of course, if you want to distribute your project with whatever license you want, just don't include GPLed Libs/Frameworks (as well as closed sourced ones...), case closed. All I wanted to say, that the creator of CleverHarold is perfectly entitled to distribute his project whith whatever licnese *he* wants to use as well. If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't complain about him excercising the same rights that you'd like to have. And yes, you (Jorge) didn't, but Bob's against the spirit is a complaint. Here's another thing: I don't buy into the argument, that the project should fail because it's GPLed (see Bob's first mail): I know as many people who would never contribute to a GPLed project as I know people who would never contribute to a BSD/MIT licensed project. Then again, CleverHarold will probably go the sub way (pun inteded), because there are too many more mature frameworks around. But we'll see... 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 turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
On 8/23/06, Jan Niklas Fingerle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then again, CleverHarold will probably go the sub way (pun inteded), because there are too many more mature frameworks around. But we'll see... I don't care much about debating the GPL, I just put this up because I thought people might be interested in poking around with it, as it's pretty close to what I imagine FirstClass will look like. I didn't really intend to use it, as I'm expecting a wsgi-based TG to be out as soon as the docs get written and 1.0 gets released. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
Jan Niklas Fingerle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point is that if the project is GPLed your may use it and are forced into using the GPL as well, if it's close sourced you can't use it at all. But that's not the point... I can buy some closed source license. Some of them even allow me redistributing the parts I need to make my own code run, so I can use closed source in my projects. So, what's better? Now, Bob complained that CleverHarold is against the spirit of everything else it builds upon. Now, the spirit of the MIT/BSD licenses is that I'm free (and even encouraged) to use it in my closed source projects, so I fail to see how using those projects inside a GPLed project could be against the spirit [...]. There's one special thing here: BSD/MIT allows you to be more free. He has the choice and his user also has it. They can decide on what to do with the code as two separate entities. With GPL, once the code is obtained you're bound to it. Being less free on what you can do with it. There are advantages and disadvantages on both cases but... ;-) Of course, if you want to distribute your project with whatever license you want, just don't include GPLed Libs/Frameworks (as well as closed sourced ones...), case closed. All I wanted to say, that the creator That's the point that Bob pointed out. With CH one has to take care with how all of his libraries are licensend, how they interact, etc. not to violate it. With a freer license you can decide. of CleverHarold is perfectly entitled to distribute his project whith whatever licnese *he* wants to use as well. If you don't like it, don't use Of course he can use any licensing he wants. But his choices affect the users of his technology, so it impacts on their projects as well. This might not be all that important in many countries, but might be problematic where people are more concerned with licenses, code, copyright, etc. Specially inside companies. it. But don't complain about him excercising the same rights that you'd like to have. And yes, you (Jorge) didn't, but Bob's against the spirit is a complaint. We're all free to accept, disregard and complain. :-) Bob has done a hell lot of things and I believe he has studied licenses carefully before choosing the one he uses. Anyway, lets wait and see what happens... -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
On 8/22/06, Karl Guertin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.cleverharold.org/ CleverHarold is a WSGI framework stack similar to Pylons under development by Troy Melhase. Its main claim to fame is that the application running in the framework requires no imports from the framework (so it works in unit tests, non-web stuff, etc). Publishing is handled completely through the wsgi stack, which in turn is configured by an ini file. The project makes heavy use of Ian Bicking's Paste and provides a look at one possible future for TG. Publishing: Object/callable, a-la CherryPy Templating: Kid (at the moment), Cheetah second class ORM: SQLAlchemy recommended, but no framework ties at all Auth: Planned for 0.2, barrel middleware currently recommended I mention this here because I follow both Planet Python and this list fairly carefully and I hadn't seen it mentioned. I figure it would be of interest to others who follow this list. Maybe nobody cares because it's GPL? -bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
You sound as if GPL is evil? I don't think that the license is a problem for CH, it's just that there are currently a lot of frameworks and most in active development ... so people are probably saturated, and just wait to see what comes as a winner. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: Web Frameworks Watch: CleverHarold
On 8/22/06, Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You sound as if GPL is evil? When it forces you to release your code under the same license it gets a lot complicated to maintain your business running unless you always have very specific projects. 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). -bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
