On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 23:18 -0400, Lex Berezhny wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Kees Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anyway, we've heard about companies thinking of dropping use of > > pyjamas/pyjs, because of the uncertain future etc. This should be > > addressed (in my opinion the future of the project depends on companies > > using it) and embedding in a foundation would certainly help to gain > > confidence in the future of this project. > > Given that pyjs is currently a legal mine field I wouldn't be > surprised if some companies aren't using it for that reason alone. > Apache and GPL are incompatible licenses and yet there is quite a bit > of code in pyjs that's GPL. >
There's GPL code in pyjs? I was unaware. But (I am not a lawyer) even GPL is satisfied by maintaining the copyright information and providing the source code when distributing. Luke has been a stickler for that, and I do not see that changing under the new infrastructure. Since those provisions have not changed, I think it is unfair to consider the code to be a "legal minefield". The code itself has not done anything wrong. Any possible legal proceedings between the bosses should not affect anyone's usage of the code itself. It is all published with open-source-ish copyrights, so it is still usable, and (did I say I am not a lawyer?) even if there is legal nastiness, whatever code you have git-pulled, git-cloned, or downloaded from either repository is still free to use, subject to its included copyright information. BTW, we are all indebted to Luke's "free software" ideals for these rights to continue using and improving the code. - Jim Washington
