All I can say, it is classical FUD. On Jul 4, 1:16 pm, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/26/07, Jonas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 26 jun, 01:38, David Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jonas wrote: > > > > > I comment you the infrastructure that I would use in case we could > > > > collaborate: > > > > * License: GNU GPL-2 > > > > Could you consider the LGPL or the MIT license? I believe a good blog > > > application for Pylons would probably spread in a way that follows the > > > logic described in the essay about why you might want to use the LGPL. > > I'm sorry but the license will be GNU GPL. You can read about this > > decision in this > > thread:http://groups.google.com/group/blogtor/browse_thread/thread/f7910c0f8... > > The link is dead. Is the info available somewhere else? I found the > new mailing list (http://groups.google.com/group/aroundword-discuss/) > and site (http://www.aroundword.org/) but nothing about the license. > > I realize this won't change your mind, but going with the GPL is > unfortunate. It'll just mean somebody will have to write a non-GPL > version of the same thing later, which is reinventing the wheel and > wasting resoures. The GPL is so long and complicated it ends up > creating a hassle even for those who are trying to do the right thing. > For instance, the US government can't release anything under > copyright or with a copyright license; it has to release under public > domain. This contradicts the GPL which says that anything > incorporating a GPL component must be released under the GPL. The FSF > has two FAQ questions that half cover this but not > really:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGov > > But a Pylons program that uses a GPL library is not really "making > improvements to a GPL program", it's just using it. You're getting > the friggin' source anyway so what's the problem?!! But this > ambiguity is enough to scare some government lawyers and developers > away and say "just avoid GPL software in anything you release". This > causes a hassle if there is no adequate non-GPL library, so the net > result is less quality source code available to the public rather than > more. The idea of hiring a contractor to write software just to assume > copyright and reassign it to the government is absurd: it's a kludge > with a capital K. > > Looking back, I'm glad Python and 99% of its libraries are not GPL. > Otherwise I may be using PHP or Java (shudder). The MIT license is > short and straightforward: it's easy to tell whether your intended use > is compliant. The GPL is five pages and requires a lawyer to > scrutinize the words and guess whether a certain use is covered. And > if somebody embeds Python or my library in a proprietary program, so > what? It doesn't prevent me from using it. It hasn't prevented many > excellent open-source Python libraries or applications from being > written. The GPL talks about proprietary users freeloading off > open-source non-GPL software. What about GPL users freeloading off > open-source non-GPL software, making a library that can't be used > everywhere the original (Pylons) is? Why is that OK? Especially when > the library purports to fill one of the main holes in the Pylons > applications suite? > > -- > Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
