Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
+1 2010/12/21 mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu: Because I do not want closed source commercial derivatives. I am against people stealing other people work.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
+1
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:08 PM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: Perhaps I should add a new exception: you loose the license to use web2py if you complain about web2py or its license. ;-) for 1000 years or life, whichever comes last ;) -- Branko Vukelic stu...@brankovukelic.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Greetings. I am a new member of the community, however, I will take the dare to give my humble opinion: I think that a license of type BSD or MIT would be beneficial for web2py. I think the GPL license, frighten off the business and other potential users. Some do not understand the exception and others did not read it. Do not get me wrong, I love Free Software, moreover, are said to permissive licenses given the total freedom. I think that a license of type permissive favor the growth of the community web2py and I think we should not fear, because, as stated above, we take the example of communities of Django and Ruby on Rails, two very large communities, and very active communities that have facilitated the evolution of free software. 2010/12/16 mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu GPL2 creates the loophole. The AGPL closes the loophole. The GPL3 was supposed to incorporate language from AGPL and close the loophole but did not. It is not clear to me whether GPL3 closes the loophole or not. If it does not (like GPL2 does not). I have no objection to move to GPL3. Yet that does not help in clarifying the web2py license. As a hypothetical question. Who here would oppose to moving to BSD or MIT or other more permissive license? Massimo On Dec 16, 2:54 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote: - Original Message - From: mdipierro Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to modify web2py running on their servers without making available the source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring this. What's AGPL for then? Wasn't _AGPL_ supposed to prevent that? Anyway, I think GPLv3 makes i possible to use code licensed under licenses like MIT and BSD in a GPLv3 project, which is otherwise a bit incompatible. Or did I miss something? -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: mdipierro Sent: 12/17/10 09:39 PM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... I think we can all agree on two issues: 1) the current license (GPL + exception) is OK for almost everybody 2) the current license is unclear and it is confused with pure GPL. That is limiting the adoption of web2py. This needs to be addressed, How do people feel about the following license: GPL3 + Apache GPL3 and Apache are compatible (GPL2 and Apache are not). Apache is very similar to BSD but forces users who distribute modified versions to spell in detail the changes they make. That should be sufficient to discourage forks but not to discourage people to use it in commercial products. You were one step in front of me. :) +1 -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: Anthony Sent: 12/16/10 05:02 PM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... I don't _think_ I'm missing the main point, as I agree with what you state above. Then why are we discussing the license? If you understand that GPL is there to protect the freeness of the software, and that's why web2py uses it, then this discussion is pointless. -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
We are discussing the license because it hinders adoption...hardly a pointless topic. Anthony at least acknowledges this. I posted the question on Quora and it got a reasonable first response: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-license-for-a-web-framework-ex-Cake-Rails-Django-GPL-BSD-or-MIT
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: =?ANSI_X3.4-1968?Q?Jos=3F_L=2E?= Sent: 12/16/10 07:23 PM To: web2py@googlegroups.com Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... Also, is there any reason to stay in gpl v2 instead of moving to v3? I think someone already pointed out that GPLv3 could be an improvement over GPLv2. It closed many of the loopholes, and also became more compatible with other licenses such as MIT and BSD 3-clause. That's, I think, important since some libs do have code from those two licenses. -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: mdipierro Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to modify web2py running on their servers without making available the source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring this. What's AGPL for then? Wasn't _AGPL_ supposed to prevent that? Anyway, I think GPLv3 makes i possible to use code licensed under licenses like MIT and BSD in a GPLv3 project, which is otherwise a bit incompatible. Or did I miss something? -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Here's an excerpt from Apache License 2.0: ``Derivative Works shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.`` This sounds like a hint for the exception we needed (unless you are serious about moving to BSD or MIT). Full text can be found here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 so you can see the context. Reading the full text of the Apache license, I think dual-licensing web2py under GPLv2 and Apache License 2.0 would solve all of the problems except 1: reuse of web2py components and libraries for building closed-source software. For me, personally, that would not be fair game. If you are taking apart web2py and building something useful, you should share. - Original Message - From: mdipierro Sent: 12/16/10 11:33 PM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... GPL2 creates the loophole. The AGPL closes the loophole. The GPL3 was supposed to incorporate language from AGPL and close the loophole but did not. It is not clear to me whether GPL3 closes the loophole or not. If it does not (like GPL2 does not). I have no objection to move to GPL3. Yet that does not help in clarifying the web2py license. As a hypothetical question. Who here would oppose to moving to BSD or MIT or other more permissive license? Massimo On Dec 16, 2:54 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote: - Original Message - From: mdipierro Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to modify web2py running on their servers without making available the source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring this. What's AGPL for then? Wasn't _AGPL_ supposed to prevent that? Anyway, I think GPLv3 makes i possible to use code licensed under licenses like MIT and BSD in a GPLv3 project, which is otherwise a bit incompatible. Or did I miss something? -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
branko, I'm curious why permissive licensing is a problem for you. is it a philosophical thing? what's the downside? wouldn't it be cool if your code was widely used? cake, django rails are permissively licensed (as are most frameworks) and it doesn't seem to be a problem. people still seem excited to develop for those platforms.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: pbreit Sent: 12/17/10 12:52 AM To: web2py@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... branko, I'm curious why permissive licensing is a problem for you. is it a philosophical thing? what's the downside? wouldn't it be cool if your code was widely used? cake, django rails are permissively licensed (as are most frameworks) and it doesn't seem to be a problem. people still seem excited to develop for those platforms. Yes, it's a philosophical thing. I have participated in open-source projects before, always feeling inferior for not being able to code like a pro (since I'm a designer). I still managed to find a way to contribute (editing Wikis, contributing artwork, etc). Then I started programming (Ruby and Python), and I came to learn how great it is for developers to be able to share code freely. Even though FSF was established just a few years after I was born, I learned about the history of the movement that kicked it off, because I respected and loved the kind of spirit I was discovering. And I believe that if it weren't for FSF and their stubborn insistence on free software, there would be no open-source the kind we know today. Today, people are starting to take it all for granted and say shit like BSD is better than GPL, etc, and FSF hardliners scares them. Why? Just to win the popularity award? But think about it: if it weren't for those hardliners, BSD would be worth precisly bollocks, too. The only point where I possibly differ from FSF is that there should be a difference between normal usage (usage as intended including sharing/distribution) and modification. Modification should result in new free software, distribution should result merely in notification that the base software is free software. Free software should never become closed, that's my bottom line. That fact that a bunch of people like something says precisely fuckall. Just count how many people get off using Windows. Does that tell you something about how great Windows is? I hope not. That's hardly a valid point. On the frameworks side, look at Django. So many bug-fix releases lately. And their TRUNK used to be awesome. Now you can't even trust the releases. And it's growing fatter by day, and loose coupling song is starting to get a different tune. At one time I wrote permanent redirection middleware for both Django and web.py. What took me a day to write on web.py took me a week on Django, and it was never as simple as I liked it to be, the main reason being that it involved at least 3 core components and the (then) nasty polymorphism framework called content type or something like that. Soon it'll be too bloated to support its own weight, and people will start looking for lightweight frameworks like werkzeug and node.js. But that has nothing to do with BSD. It's the price of having too many hands involved in the process without an adequate system to ensure quality. -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Fair enough, I respect that. Massimo has done a wonderful job of adding really good features while keeping web2py lean. As it gets more popular is there a concern that more people will lean on Massimo to add bloat? That would definitely be unfortunate.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: pbreit Sent: 12/17/10 01:40 AM To: web2py@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... Fair enough, I respect that. Massimo has done a wonderful job of adding really good features while keeping web2py lean. As it gets more popular is there a concern that more people will lean on Massimo to add bloat? That would definitely be unfortunate. At that point, I'd just conclude it's become too popular for its own good. But I doubt Massimo would just add in any kind of crap that flies in. -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: Anthony Sent: 12/17/10 02:30 AM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... On Dec 16, 6:14 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote: Reading the full text of the Apache license, I think dual-licensing web2py under GPLv2 and Apache License 2.0 would solve all of the problems except 1: reuse of web2py components and libraries for building closed-source software. For me, personally, that would not be fair game. If you are taking apart web2py and building something useful, you should share. Now that there's a truly standalone DAL, what if someone wants to use that in an application? What about some of the other contrib modules, like markmin? This is a question only Massimo can give a qualified answer to. The following is merely my opinion: Yes, they should share the code. They wouldn't be _required_ (if you ask me), but they should. If they modify it in any way, or source the code from it, they should share both DAL _and_ their app. -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I made this example (for teaching) https://bitbucket.org/rochacbruno/dal_on_flask/src I've been pointed to include this line: # NOTE: web2py is licensed under GPL2 and Flask is licensed under BSD# So, any derivative using both ['Flask','DAL'] should be GPL (not BSD) *https://bitbucket.org/rochacbruno/dal_on_flask/src/3131e4d261ea/dalFlask.py* 2010/12/17 Anthony abasta...@gmail.com On Dec 16, 8:47 pm, Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com wrote: Now that there's a truly standalone DAL, what if someone wants to use that in an application? What about some of the other contrib modules, like markmin? This is a question only Massimo can give a qualified answer to. The following is merely my opinion: Yes, they should share the code. They wouldn't be _required_ (if you ask me), but they should. If they modify it in any way, or source the code from it, they should share both DAL _and_ their app. I guess it seems odd to say if you build an app using the entire web2py framework, then you can close source your app, but if you build your app using only part of the web2py framework, you must share your app. For example, suppose someone plugs the DAL into Flask and builds an app, should they be required to make the app itself (not the DAL part of it) open source? Doesn't seem consistent with the logic of the general exception for applications. -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: Anthony Sent: 12/17/10 03:33 AM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... I guess it seems odd to say if you build an app using the entire web2py framework, then you can close source your app, but if you build Entire _unmodified_ web2py framework. Also, it's not 'build', but 'distribute'. Big difference. If you are not sharing it with anyone, you can do whatever you want. your app using only part of the web2py framework, you must share your app. For example, suppose someone plugs the DAL into Flask and builds Ideally yes. But there's one catch. The keyword is _distribute_ not _build_. I hope it clears things up a bit. Someone has also cleverly noted tha if you build your app for your client using whatever GPL tools you stumbled upon, you are only required to share the source code with the client because you're distributing it to your client only. You don't actually have to put it some place where everyone can see. That's allowed. So, it's not like you have to share it with the rest of the world. In case of web2py as a whole, with GPLv2 + commercial exception, you don't even have to do that, unless you've modified web2py somehow, or used pieces of it in your application code (where 'pieces of it' excludes the welcome app). -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: Anthony Sent: 12/17/10 04:22 AM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... So, at least one advantage of BSD is it doesn't require all this clearing up. ;) How nice... -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Why GPL is discouraging users? Is it the case that Drupal, Wordpress or Joomla have no users? They are all released on GPL terms. Moreover, they consider themes and plugins to be derivative work and as such they have to be released on GPL terms if distributed. Still, thousands of plugins and themes have been made. Pay close attention here, *if* distributed. In common web development scenario where expected end product is the working web application deployed on some server, the application code is not distributed but simply used and doesn't have to be released on GPL terms. In those rare cases where client specifically require the source code as she wants to deploy the application on her own, you release the code on GPL terms but to her only. She paid for it's creation anyway right? And with web2py, thanks to exceptions, you don't even have to do that. Application code is not considered to be a derivative work. But changes to the framework and works build on top of it are (that is, *if* distributed). So again, you can have your own specialised version of web2py running on some servers, but you cannot make a proprietary fork of web2py. And this will be allowed by non-copyleft licences such as modified BSD licence or X11 licence. Now, those who would benefit from a proprietary fork are not the users. And in that sense, by not allowing the community fragmentation around a number of different less or more commercial oriented forks the GPL helps to create a good framework, as it keeps the community together. So as I just showed to you, GPL is a non-issue for the users and protects the freedom of the framework much better than non-copyleft licences would. Your only argument being the other Python frameworks use non-copyleft licences is not convincing. Statistic != merit.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Don't start this discussion again. :) It's already soft-of decided that web2py will remain GPL. On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Wikus van de Merwe dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote: Why GPL is discouraging users? Is it the case that Drupal, Wordpress or Joomla have no users? They are all released on GPL terms. Moreover, they consider themes and plugins to be derivative work and as such they have to be released on GPL terms if distributed. Still, thousands of plugins and themes have been made. Pay close attention here, *if* distributed. In common web development scenario where expected end product is the working web application deployed on some server, the application code is not distributed but simply used and doesn't have to be released on GPL terms. In those rare cases where client specifically require the source code as she wants to deploy the application on her own, you release the code on GPL terms but to her only. She paid for it's creation anyway right? And with web2py, thanks to exceptions, you don't even have to do that. Application code is not considered to be a derivative work. But changes to the framework and works build on top of it are (that is, *if* distributed). So again, you can have your own specialised version of web2py running on some servers, but you cannot make a proprietary fork of web2py. And this will be allowed by non-copyleft licences such as modified BSD licence or X11 licence. Now, those who would benefit from a proprietary fork are not the users. And in that sense, by not allowing the community fragmentation around a number of different less or more commercial oriented forks the GPL helps to create a good framework, as it keeps the community together. So as I just showed to you, GPL is a non-issue for the users and protects the freedom of the framework much better than non-copyleft licences would. Your only argument being the other Python frameworks use non-copyleft licences is not convincing. Statistic != merit. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
The discussion was started by the advocates of non-copyleft licences. I'm perfectly fine with web2py on GPL terms (even without exceptions), besides maybe I would like to see it upgraded to GPLv3. However, it is too often we see the attempts to frame the GPL as deterrent scary licence that limits the project adoption and nobody takes a strong stance against such unfair claims. Then this false image of what GPL is and how it works is spread, because people are lazy and they will rather accept anonymous comment on the Internet as true rather than check the GPL faq or the licence itself. This is why I replied. Who knows, maybe sombody will learn from it something new.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Sorry but this requires a response. Django and Rails (frameworks!!) are *far* better examples than the CMSs you point out. BSD/MIT are definitionally better for users than GPL because they are more permissive. You'd have to prove some sort of unintended circumstance to dispute that for which there is no evidence. Django and Rails have not suffered whatever Massimo is worried about. Quite the opposite, they have very large and active user bases.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry but this requires a response. I was kind of hoping it did not, but there you go... You'd have to prove some sort of unintended circumstance to No! YOU would have to give us a CONCRETE case where GPL+exception setup may prevent someone adopting and using web2py. Otherwise, this discussions previous conclusion (and that's that GPLv2 or GPLv3 will be used in conjunction with a clearer, more precise exception clause) still stands, and you may contribute usefully by answering Massimo's request: If you guys can come up with a better way to phrase the [exception clause], and there is consensus, I will probably adopt it. I think we all agree with the intended intentions.If you guys can come up with a better way to phrase the license, and there is consensus, I will probably adopt it. I think we all agree with the intended intentions. That's the new topic right now, and please do not try to divert it back to what's been already discussed for probably too long. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
It's not worthwhile fiddling around with the exception since the GPL stigma will remain. It's clear that GPL scares off potential users. I come from a background of relentlessly lowering barriers to adoption. I would very much like to see Web2py usage go way up.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
An excerpt: I think this sums it up. --- GPL is a tool that uses copyright to enforce software freedom, but… in order to be able to enforce that there must be a copyright holder that can take action. The FSF is aware of this and is carefully requiring contributors and their employers (!) to sign legal papers of copyright transfer: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html The problem is that most GPL projects can not afford to force potential contributors to get their employers to sign legal papers as it will reduce the number of contributions to 0 and therefore the copyright to their projects is either dispersed among the different contributors or even worse, is questionably held by a single person or entity (with emphasis on questionably). - Thadeus On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:21 PM, VP vtp2...@gmail.com wrote: I do not think that GPL is the determining factor of why Django or Rails are popular. It is not clear that GPL scares off potential users. I will go out on the limp to say that most potential users of web2py will be in the capacity of app developers, not framework developers. They might be scared if they don't understand it as intended, which is why some said it needs to be clarified. Once the licensing is clear, they have nothing to be scared about. As for framework developers, sure GPL is not permissive for commercial intentions. So, if you want to branch of web2py, customizing the framework, possibly improving it, and want to close source, then no you can't do that with GPL. But those cases are few, and arguably not what most potential users care about. On Dec 15, 1:07 pm, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: It's not worthwhile fiddling around with the exception since the GPL stigma will remain. It's clear that GPL scares off potential users. I come from a background of relentlessly lowering barriers to adoption. I would very much like to see Web2py usage go way up.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:07 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: It's clear that GPL scares off potential users. That bug is already marked invalid. You'd have to give us a stack trace if you want to reopen it, and preferably attach a working patch. Please also note the version of web2py that you are using. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:11:27 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:07 PM, pbreit wrote: It's clear that GPL scares off potential users. That bug is already marked invalid. You'd have to give us a stack trace if you want to reopen it, and preferably attach a working patch. Please also note the version of web2py that you are using. I like GPL plus a (clarified) exception, but I wouldn't exactly say pbreit's concerns are invalid. There clearly is some history of confusion and concern among web2py users/developers and their clients: https://groups.google.com/group/web2py/msg/ba5277320933a72a https://groups.google.com/group/web2py/msg/de8b75aa2efe2fa5 http://groups.google.com/group/django-users/msg/87b5cfc637c55433 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/ddg79/can_web2py_applications_be_provided_to_end_users http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/ej0p1/new_standalone_web2py_database_abstraction_layer/c18grty http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ (not web2py-specific) And of course, there's no telling how many potential users saw GPL and just moved on, without asking a question on the list, reddit, etc. Although the precise empirical impact of the GPL on adoption has not been established, nor has the real risk of a commercial fork (mitigation of which appears to be a primary motivation for using GPL). Another consideration is the ability to use individual components of web2py within commercial apps. For example, the new standalone DAL is GPL'ed. If someone uses the DAL in an application that does not otherwise use the rest of the web2py framework, would they have to GPL the application (the current web2py license exception doesn't appear to cover that case)? Of course, once we go more permissive (e.g., LGPL, BSD, MIT), it will be hard to go back, so we should be cautious with any change. Trying to improve the clarity of the current exceptions and the way we communicate them (e.g., explicitly and prominently stating it is dual licensed) is probably a good first step. Maybe that will be enough to resolve the concerns without resorting to a more permissive license. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: Anthony Sent: 12/15/10 10:54 PM To: web2py@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... I like GPL plus a (clarified) exception, but I wouldn't exactly say pbreit's concerns are invalid. There clearly is some history of confusion and concern among web2py users/developers and their clients: Point is, it's been discussed over and over, and over, and over... in a more-or less the same manner, too. Just saying BSD! won't make it BSD. I think that's become clear. And it's become painfully obvious that we are all divided between GPL and anything-but-GPL, and we have come to the conclusion that it's Massimo's call. Massimo called GPL, because we have also clarified that there isn't a technical threat to the end users. TECHNICALLY speaking, nobody should really be concerned as long as they are aware of the exception and agree to it. So, repeating discussion, using Gplophobia or Gnuphobia as the pivot is not productive, and it would go on like this forever. Branko p.s. Yes I've finally fully switched to my GMX account. It's the same me. :)
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
- Original Message - From: Anthony Sent: 12/16/10 03:01 AM To: web2py-users Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... Yes, I agree, but all I said was that the concerns are not invalid (I also pointed out an issue that has not thus far been addressed -- standalone DAL). I think we can decide to stick with GPL while still recognizing it may present a barrier for some (possibly simply due to confusion or risk aversion rather than a real legal threat). This issue is both complex and important, so a long discussion should not be surprising. I, for one, have learned a lot, and assuming we follow through, I believe the result of this long thread will be an improvement in the license and therefore the comfort of prospective users. Those uninterested in the topic can easily ignore the thread. You are missing the main point here, and that's software freedom and two incompatible views regarding that. It's not by conincidence that there is a commercial EXCEPTION to GPL in web2py. The reason it's called an exception is that it is incompatible with the intent of GPL. Now consider that Massimo has _chosen_ GPL with an intent, and that GPL aligns with that intent. Do I need to go on? -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: 1) all web2py/*.py and web2py/gluon/*py files are LPGL +1 2) all web2py/gluon/contrib/* files are LGPL unless specified +1 otherwise (MIT or BSD are possible for third party contributions) 3rd party contributions that were released as MIT or BSD cannot be licensed under LGPL because they're incompatible. e.g., BSD says shall not place any more limitations yada yada or something like that, and LGPL does just that: place limitations on what you can do by telling you not to close-source, etc. 3) the official web2py binaries for Mac and Windows are freeware There's no need. You just have to point to the source code and you can still distrubite Win/Mac as binary-only even, under LGPL. 4) the scaffolding app is public domain except for images/css/js files which may have their own licenses. I dunno about PD. It doesn't exist everywhere. :) A better solution would be to offer unrestricted use provided intellectual property (logos and web2py name) is removed etc etc. Is this more or less confusing? Yes. It's the nature of the beast. :) How can we make it more clear? A FAQ that explains what you can do with the stuff. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: source and freeware for binaries) rather than LGPL with a commercial exception (which could lead to confusion and concern). LGPL _is_ the commercial exception. That's why they call it lesser. :) -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Ok, so I got word from GNU. What they say is that using imports the way Python does is considered creating derivative work, and LGPL would not, in their view, except the vendor from the obligation to release their apps under the terms of (L)GPL (which is kinda surprising). As solution to this they suggested two things: 1. make dual license, of which the commercial license would be for-pay and would allow companies to make closed-source derivatives or distribution of web2py and/or web2py apps 2. make an exeption clause under GPL for the apps (which is what Massimo does and is perfectly ok) I think it'd be best that the source version of web2py be covered by the 2., and that the 'freeware' version be made 'shareware' (pay to bundle the binary, that is) as an option 1. At any rate, the conclusion is that the exception does cover the proprietary distribution of web2py apps and does not violate GPL. On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: source and freeware for binaries) rather than LGPL with a commercial exception (which could lead to confusion and concern). LGPL _is_ the commercial exception. That's why they call it lesser. :) -- 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 -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 5:12:51 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote: source and freeware for binaries) rather than LGPL with a commercial exception (which could lead to confusion and concern). LGPL _is_ the commercial exception. That's why they call it lesser. :) Yes, LGPL (I think) allows the exception to distribute the source along with an application that links/imports the source. I was talking about the other web2py exception, which allows distribution of the binaries without the source at all (i.e., the freeware license for the binaries). Currently, we describe the license as GPL with a commercial exception (the exception referring to the binary distribution option), but it may be more clear to refer to it as a dual license instead (above, I wrote LGPL with a commercial exception because I was assuming Massimo's new proposal, which switches to LGPL but still includes the freeware exception).
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, LGPL (I think) allows the exception to distribute the source along with an application that links/imports the source. I was talking about the other web2py exception, which allows distribution of the binaries without the source at all (i.e., the freeware license for the binaries). Currently, we Why? I don't think it would be too much to ask companies to pay for binary-only bundling. If you can distribute with the sources (meaning either put sources in the bundle, or offer sources some other way, mind you), why not? I have absolutely nothing against that. If a company is not prepared to do that, they should use a closed-source product that allows this. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 5:07:52 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM, mdipierro mdip...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: otherwise (MIT or BSD are possible for third party contributions) 3rd party contributions that were released as MIT or BSD cannot be licensed under LGPL because they're incompatible. e.g., BSD says shall not place any more limitations yada yada or something like that, and LGPL does just that: place limitations on what you can do by telling you not to close-source, etc. Hmm, I thought it was just the opposite -- people like MIT/BSD because they don't place any restrictions on how you license a modified/derived work. So, you can take an MIT/BSD licensed program, modify/combine it, and then release the modified/combined version as LGPL, GPL, or even closed source. You can't go the other way, though (i.e., you can't modify/combine a GPL/LGPL program and release it as MIT/BSD). The GNU website lists both the modified BSD and the MIT (Expat) licenses as GPL-compatible (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). If this isn't the case, then web2py would already be in violation of various contrib licenses, no? 3) the official web2py binaries for Mac and Windows are freeware There's no need. You just have to point to the source code and you can still distrubite Win/Mac as binary-only even, under LGPL. Yes, I think that's right (if you just point to the source rather than actually include it, you might have to make sure you point to the originally distributed version, not just the current version at web2py.com). We might simplify this by (a) including a link to the appropriate source version right in the license document of the binary version, or (b) including a zip file with the source right in the binary version -- so any distribution of the binary version would automatically satisfy the GPL/LGPL license without any further effort by the developer/distributor. Is this more or less confusing? Yes. It's the nature of the beast. :) Are you saying yes, it's more confusing? Whether or not it's confusing, I think it may be less confusing than the current license because it removes one of the exceptions (for web2py applications) by switching to the LGPL. If we can also remove the binary distribution exception (and rely on the GPL/LGPL provision for binary distribution), it would become simpler still. I guess the only issue is whether people would readily understand that the LGPL wouldn't apply to web2py apps and would allow binary distribution -- you have to read through the license carefully to figure that out (unless you're already familiar with the LGPL). So, if we switch to LGPL, it would probably be worth pointing this out in a FAQ, and maybe even including an explanation with the license, just so it's very clear what is permitted. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, I thought it was just the opposite -- people like MIT/BSD because they don't place any restrictions on how you license a modified/derived work. So, you can take an MIT/BSD licensed program, modify/combine it, and then release the modified/combined version as LGPL, GPL, or even closed source. MIT does not permit that, as far as I can tell. to deal in the Software without restriction, which invalidates your claim because The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Closed-source means restriction, and so does GPL. So MIT is not compatible. Afaik, GPL doesn't consider BSD as GPL-compatible, either. You can't go the other way, though (i.e., you can't modify/combine a GPL/LGPL program and release it as MIT/BSD). The GNU website lists both the modified BSD and the MIT (Expat) licenses as GPL-compatible (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). Yes, in a way they are. MIT is even viral, like GPL. If this isn't the case, then web2py would already be in violation of various contrib licenses, no? Yes. Yes, I think that's right (if you just point to the source rather than actually include it, you might have to make sure you point to the originally distributed version, not just the current version at web2py.com). We might simplify this by (a) including a link to the appropriate source version That won't do. According to GNU, you have to host the sources yourself, and ensure that it is available at least 3 years after you've stopped distributing the binaries. I think there is a loophole for this in v2, though, but v3 definitely plugged it. The Arch linux community was forced to start hosting the entire corpus of sources they were building on to get into compliance. right in the license document of the binary version, or (b) including a zip file with the source right in the binary version -- so any distribution of the binary version would automatically satisfy the GPL/LGPL license without any further effort by the developer/distributor. That's reasonable, yeah. Are you saying yes, it's more confusing? Whether or not it's confusing, I think it may be less confusing than the current license because it removes one of the exceptions (for web2py applications) by switching to the LGPL. If According to GNU, it does not. So an exception is the best solution. A more hussle-free option could be offered as a second license, whether for pay or free of charge, although I think for-pay would just be being fair to the project. we can also remove the binary distribution exception (and rely on the GPL/LGPL provision for binary distribution), it would become simpler still. I guess the only issue is whether people would readily understand that the LGPL wouldn't apply to web2py apps and would allow binary distribution -- you have to read through the license carefully to figure that out (unless you're already familiar with the LGPL). So, if we switch to LGPL, it would probably be worth pointing this out in a FAQ, and maybe even including an explanation with the license, just so it's very clear what is permitted. I think there need not be any provisions for using or distributing web2py itself except those that are offered by the GPL. In fact, I'd go as far as to make web2py AGPL isntead. The problem was this forced app developers to develop under GPL. And that's what the exception is about. GPL does NOT prevent you from distributing binary-only web2py with your proprietary binary-only app as long as you comply to GPL for the web2py part. Your app is GPL-free anyway. I just don't understand why you insist that closed-source web2py should be allowed. I don't think it should be, and Massimo has also stated to that effect. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote: Your app is GPL-free anyway Because of the exception, to be precise, not according to GPL. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:29:00 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, I thought it was just the opposite -- people like MIT/BSD because they don't place any restrictions on how you license a modified/derived work. So, you can take an MIT/BSD licensed program, modify/combine it, and then release the modified/combined version as LGPL, GPL, or even closed source. MIT does not permit that, as far as I can tell. to deal in the Software without restriction, which invalidates your claim because The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I'm not sure you can release a modified MIT program as GPL or closed source, but I believe you can include it in a GPL or closed source program -- this is according to the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License). In any case, this wouldn't apply to BSD, as BSD only requires inclusion of the copyright notice (not the permission notice). Closed-source means restriction, and so does GPL. So MIT is not compatible. Afaik, GPL doesn't consider BSD as GPL-compatible, either. The GNU website disagrees with you -- it lists both the modified BSD and the MIT (Expat) license as GPL-compatible (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). So do the Wikipedia entries for BSD and MIT. If this isn't the case, then web2py would already be in violation of various contrib licenses, no? Yes. Based on the above, it would appear not -- MIT/BSD programs can even be included in closed source/proprietary software. Yes, I think that's right (if you just point to the source rather than actually include it, you might have to make sure you point to the originally distributed version, not just the current version at web2py.com). We might simplify this by (a) including a link to the appropriate source version That won't do. According to GNU, you have to host the sources yourself, and ensure that it is available at least 3 years after you've stopped distributing the binaries. According to GPL, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party). You are obligated to make sure it remains available, so relying on a third party may be risky, but it appears to be allowed. I just don't understand why you insist that closed-source web2py should be allowed. I don't think it should be, and Massimo has also stated to that effect. I don't believe I have insisted nor even suggested that closed-source web2py should be allowed. Massimo already allows it -- that's the commercial exception. It says you can distribute the binary without the source. I don't believe we should allow anyone to modify the web2py framework itself and then make that closed source -- that's an entirely different issue, and I'm not talking about that. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 9:36:37 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, LGPL (I think) allows the exception to distribute the source along with an application that links/imports the source. I was talking about the other web2py exception, which allows distribution of the binaries without the source at all (i.e., the freeware license for the binaries). Currently, we Why? I don't think it would be too much to ask companies to pay for binary-only bundling. If you can distribute with the sources (meaning either put sources in the bundle, or offer sources some other way, mind you), why not? I have absolutely nothing against that. If a company is not prepared to do that, they should use a closed-source product that allows this. I'm not sure what you're asking about here. Thus far there has been absolutely no mention of requiring payment for binary-only. Currently the binary-only is free, and Massimo's suggested change keeps it free. My comments merely assume the status quo (i.e., free binary). My point was simply that if we want to offer the binaries as freeware, we should probably describe that as a dual license rather than as a exception to the GPL/LGPL license (simply for clarity). Anthony -- Branko Vukelić bg.b...@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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 8:38:12 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: Ok, so I got word from GNU. What they say is that using imports the way Python does is considered creating derivative work, and LGPL would not, in their view, except the vendor from the obligation to release their apps under the terms of (L)GPL (which is kinda surprising). As solution to this they suggested two things: Sorry, I missed this post. Would you mind sending the exact question you asked and the full response from GNU? I'm surprised because I would think a web2py app would qualify as an Application or a Combined Work under LGPL: An “Application” is any work that makes use of an interface provided by the Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library. Defining a subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a mode of using an interface provided by the Library. A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library with which the Combined Work was made is also called the “Linked Version”.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
To summarize: - a python framework licensed under a pure GPLv2 would not allow for a closed source application development, so Massimo's exception is crucial for such projects - changing the license from the current GPLv2 with en exception to the LGPL brings no improvement - changing from GPLv2 with an exception to BSD/MIT is not an option. I also see that the license for the Welcome application has been added in the default branch (public domain license). That's great, thanks. I also warmly appreciate Massimo's statements in this thread in regards to the possibility of individual licensing, should the need arise. So, it seems that my original questions and our customer's concerns in regards to licensing were more than valid. I would suggest creating a separate and prominent LICENSE page with the exact information, preferably looked over by an experienced lawyer. If that's possible, of course. I do understand that this entire project depends on it's community and a lot of work is done here on a purely volunteer basis. I would like to emphasise again, our only concern is about the web2py applications, not the web2py itself. It is not our wish to fork web2py under any license, nor has anyone approached us with such an idea. Warm regards to all
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 13, 2010 8:38:12 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: Sorry, I missed this post. Would you mind sending the exact question you asked and the full response from GNU? I'm surprised because I would think a web2py app would qualify as an Application or a Combined Work under LGPL: Start verbatim copy - On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- licens...@fsf.org wrote: Importing code and sharing namespaces would most probably be creating a derivative work and would need to be licensed under GPLv2 as well. Ok, so let me clarify a bit. By importing code, we mean (since this is a Python library) that the application framework will execute parts of the application, and that the application in turn may execute parts of the framework. It is a fact that the application may not execute properly without the presence of the framework, but the framework authors do not consider applications derivative work because of this. Could you please advise on this position? The answer would be the same. These activities would create a derivative work. Would releasing the framework under the terms of LGPL allow proprietary software vendors to If the goal is to allow proprietary software vendors to do certain things you should just say so. There are ways of doing this without harming the free software community. The LGPL isn't recommended in this case (see: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html]). One way is to dual-license the code. Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and if a company wishes to distribute it under proprietary terms sell them a copy of the software under a suitable license. Done right this is a great way of funding the development of free software. This was everyone always has access to a copy of the code under a free software license and proprietary software companies fund your development efforts. Another way is to Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and to add narrowly defined exceptions which would allow proprietary software to interact with your software in particular ways. See: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs] End verbatim copy - Judge for yourself if I understood correctly what the guy says. An “Application” is any work that makes use of an interface provided by the Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library. Defining a subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a mode of using an interface provided by the Library. A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library with which the Combined Work was made is also called the “Linked Version”. Well, yes. That's exactly why I considered LGPL a good option for us. But apparently GNU differs on this. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Wikus van de Merwe dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote: So as you see, the GPL alone as well as the special case of licensing of web2py and application written for it is quite complex. I believe we all would benefit from having all this explained in a separate section of the website, to avoid confusion. Massimo is not available atm for health reasons, but he has already considered doing this, and I'm sure he will make it very clear that web2py is, indeed, dual-licensed. 1) all web2py/*.py and web2py/gluon/*py files are LPGL The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too. [10] And I believe this is a major point in the discussion. Special privileges for distribution of the application code is one thing, and allowing proprietary derivative works of the framework itself is another. To be honest I don't see any benefits of such a licence change. Thank you for summing that up. :) I also believe people are missing the main point here, and that is Massimo is fully commited to the points above. That is the first reason why he chose GPL as the license in the first place. To go against the authors' wishes just to change the license to the one someone feels more comfortable with is unfair to say the least. As Massimo said once, web2py is not about creating a mass-consumption framework. There are plenty of those to go around. His wish is to create a good framework that does its job well, and I think GPL license can only help that. This is what we currently have, with except to LGPL for files in contrib, so I guess there is not much to discuss here. As long as contrib files are optional and their licence is GPL compatible, everything is fine here. Binaries under the GPL exception are effectively freeware. And the template app will work best as public domain as the licensing issues won't get in the way. It might be good though to explicitly state the permissions (e.g. as in CC0 [11])as in some countries such as France, work can't be put into the public domain voluntarily. Again, even the welcome app can be GPL as long as there is an exception clause similar to the one used for web2py apps. For instance, if you consider welcome app as part of web2py (because it uses it to scaffold new applications via the wizard, for instance), all development on the welcome app should contribute back to upstream, and GPL ensures this. However, the actual use of the welcome app for scaffolding your apps can be liberated from the terms of GPL. It all depends on whether you consider it worthwhile to do that. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Unless there is a move away from GPL, I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs on all these intricacies. What is discouraging users is GPL and I don't think adding more exceptions will avoid the negative perception. If Massimo is married to GPL then there's probably not much to discuss. I don't buy that Massimo doesn't care about the number of users. He promotes the heck out of Web2py. And frameworks benefit greatly from usage. I also don't understand how GPL helps to create a good framework. Does BSD/MIT somehow prevent that?
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: Start verbatim copy - On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- lice...@fsf.org wrote: Importing code and sharing namespaces would most probably be creating a derivative work and would need to be licensed under GPLv2 as well. Ok, so let me clarify a bit. By importing code, we mean (since this is a Python library) that the application framework will execute parts of the application, and that the application in turn may execute parts of the framework. It is a fact that the application may not execute properly without the presence of the framework, but the framework authors do not consider applications derivative work because of this. Could you please advise on this position? The answer would be the same. These activities would create a derivative work. Would releasing the framework under the terms of LGPL allow proprietary software vendors to If the goal is to allow proprietary software vendors to do certain things you should just say so. There are ways of doing this without harming the free software community. The LGPL isn't recommended in this case (see: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html]). One way is to dual-license the code. Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and if a company wishes to distribute it under proprietary terms sell them a copy of the software under a suitable license. Done right this is a great way of funding the development of free software. This was everyone always has access to a copy of the code under a free software license and proprietary software companies fund your development efforts. Another way is to Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and to add narrowly defined exceptions which would allow proprietary software to interact with your software in particular ways. See: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs] End verbatim copy - Judge for yourself if I understood correctly what the guy says. Thanks for investigating that. Reading their FAQ, it seems that GNU doesn't generally want anyone to use LGPL at all, purely based on principle. So their response may be more of a preference than a legal opinion (i.e., even if we could use LGPL, they would prefer we don't). If a web2py application doesn't count as an Application or Combined Work under LGPL, then I don't know what does. In any case, this discussion has convinced me that if we really want to get this right, we would probably have to consult an intellectual property attorney with open source experience. Maybe it's not worth the bother/cost right now, though. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:58:09 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: 1) all web2py/*.py and web2py/gluon/*py files are LPGL The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too. [10] And I believe this is a major point in the discussion. Special privileges for distribution of the application code is one thing, and allowing proprietary derivative works of the framework itself is another. To be honest I don't see any benefits of such a licence change. Thank you for summing that up. :) I also believe people are missing the main point here, and that is Massimo is fully commited to the points above. That is the first reason why he chose GPL as the license in the first place. To go against the authors' wishes just to change the license to the one someone feels more comfortable with is unfair to say the least. As Massimo said once, web2py is not about creating a mass-consumption framework. There are plenty of those to go around. His wish is to create a good framework that does its job well, and I think GPL license can only help that. These are good points. It appears that the LGPL would probably be somewhat more liberal than the current GPL plus exceptions. The downside is that we might not want to allow that extra freedom. The upside is that it might be more clear and be perceived as less risky to some, which could promote greater usage of the framework. Certainly we don't want to promote more usage at all cost, but we don't want to impose unnecessary barriers to adoption either. Although the LGPL might allow someone to use all or part of web2py within a proprietary system, I don't think it would allow a commercial enterprise to modify web2py itself and then release the modified framework as a proprietary competitor to web2py, which I think is the scenario Massimo really wants to guard against. Ultimately, of course, it is up to Massimo to decide how he wants to trade off these various concerns. I for one am perfectly happy with the current license, but I'm open to change if it would be better for the framework and community as a whole (including those not yet part of the community). Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: Unless there is a move away from GPL, I don't think it's worthwhile to split Absolutely. You do not have to discuss the LGPL/GPL licensing issue if it offends you so much. Especially if you cannot refrain from name-calling during the process. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:46:09 AM UTC+11, Anthony wrote: On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: Start verbatim copy - On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- lic...@fsf.org wrote: Importing code and sharing namespaces would most probably be creating a derivative work and would need to be licensed under GPLv2 as well. Ok, so let me clarify a bit. By importing code, we mean (since this is a Python library) that the application framework will execute parts of the application, and that the application in turn may execute parts of the framework. It is a fact that the application may not execute properly without the presence of the framework, but the framework authors do not consider applications derivative work because of this. Could you please advise on this position? The answer would be the same. These activities would create a derivative work. Would releasing the framework under the terms of LGPL allow proprietary software vendors to If the goal is to allow proprietary software vendors to do certain things you should just say so. There are ways of doing this without harming the free software community. The LGPL isn't recommended in this case (see: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html%5D). One way is to dual-license the code. Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and if a company wishes to distribute it under proprietary terms sell them a copy of the software under a suitable license. Done right this is a great way of funding the development of free software. This was everyone always has access to a copy of the code under a free software license and proprietary software companies fund your development efforts. Another way is to Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and to add narrowly defined exceptions which would allow proprietary software to interact with your software in particular ways. See: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs] End verbatim copy - Judge for yourself if I understood correctly what the guy says. Thanks for investigating that. Reading their FAQ, it seems that GNU doesn't generally want anyone to use LGPL at all, purely based on principle. So their response may be more of a preference than a legal opinion (i.e., even if we could use LGPL, they would prefer we don't). If a web2py application doesn't count as an Application or Combined Work under LGPL, then I don't know what does. In any case, this discussion has convinced me that if we really want to get this right, we would probably have to consult an intellectual property attorney with open source experience. Maybe it's not worth the bother/cost right now, though. The manner in which the LGPL works when applied to a library actually depends to a degree on more than just the function APIs the library may expose. Take C++ for example. You might think that the LGPL on a reusable class library would be fine, but technically this may not be the case. The problem with C++ is template classes. For these the code implementation is effectively in the header files which get included into your application code when compiled and the expansion of those templates against types within your application ends up as part of your application binary, as opposed to it being a part of the library. Thus technically the template code may be construed as ending up as part of your application. As such, the library API in C++ may not draw a distinct enough line whereby that library could then be replaced with a distinct implementation of that library and provide the same functionality without reliance on any of the prior LGPL code. This being because the LGPL code is a part of your program binary still. Even with the C programming language you might have issues if you were using preprocessor macros to do a poor mans version of C++ template. So, it can depend not only on the specific language being used, but how that language is used and how the language is implemented. The LGPL and how it applies therefore isn't always clear cut and that is possibly part of why they have a preference for it not being used. This is why you always need to have lawyers who have some understanding of how programming systems are implemented, or have had sufficient expert advice on it, to make judgements and advise you. It is dangerous to simply assume that something sounds okay. Graham
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 6:18:24 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: 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. Agreed. 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 FSF has a different agenda from people who want to distribute their web2py applications closed source. GPL plus exceptions certainly works, but apparently it does create an obstacle for some (at least 3 people in this thread, and several on reddit, who presumably are representative of some segment of the potential user population). Is it worth catering to this segment of the population? Perhaps not, but I don't necessarily want to dismiss them as in need of counseling. Most other frameworks are indeed MIT/BSD, so these people aren't crazy. The only thing that needs to change is to make the exceptions more prominent (FTR, I haven't seen them before this discussion started.) I would say we might also want to work on the wording. For example, the exception for web2py applications simply says: You can distribute web2py app under any license you like as long they do not contain web2py code. First, let's fix the grammar and say web2py applications. Then, how do we define web2py application, and exactly what does it mean to contain web2py code? What if you import Auth or Mail? How are plugins treated? plugin_wiki? wizard code? A lawyer evaluating this one line exception might justifiably be concerned about exactly what it permits and prohibits. (There's some more explanation on the Download page in the License section, but it's not clear whether that is a legally binding part of the license, or just commentary on the license.) 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). Well, this is an empirical question. Intuition may not be a good guide to the answer. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: it being a part of the library. Thus technically the template code may be construed as ending up as part of your application. FSF specifically allows this in LGPL, if I'm not mistaken: The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
They may have clarified it then. I am only going by what problems I knew came up many many many years ago, ie., early 90s. Another good example of why lawyers are a good idea. We all often go based on possibly out of date recollections. :-) Graham On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:03:59 PM UTC+11, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Graham Dumpleton graham.d...@gmail.com wrote: it being a part of the library. Thus technically the template code may be construed as ending up as part of your application. FSF specifically allows this in LGPL, if I'm not mistaken: The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. -- Branko Vukelić bg.b...@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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: They may have clarified it then. I am only going by what problems I knew came up many many many years ago, ie., early 90s. However, web2py is still using GPLv2 :P That ought to be fixed. GPLv3 is both more liberal about some things, and fixes lots of loopholes from GPLv2, so it's basically 'better', depending on where you come from, that is. Another good example of why lawyers are a good idea. We all often go based on possibly out of date recollections. :-) Well, that's something Massimo's wallet has to decide. :) -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: The FSF has a different agenda from people who want to distribute their web2py applications closed source. GPL plus exceptions certainly works, but However, FSF's agenda also aligns with that of Massimo and some of us, contributors. We DO go by the spirit in which GPL was created (incidentally, I also license my open-source code under GPL/LGPLv3 lately). If exception works, than I think it's good enough. apparently it does create an obstacle for some (at least 3 people in this thread, and several on reddit, who presumably are representative of some segment of the potential user population). Is it worth catering to this segment of the population? Perhaps not, but I don't necessarily want to dismiss them as in need of counseling. Most other frameworks are indeed MIT/BSD, so these people aren't crazy. I don't know about Massimo, but to me, potential user facing a real trouble would be someone like LightDot, who found Massimo's statements and the exception good enough. You should also look at others who have already created commercial applications under the provided terms with no legal consequence. Perhaps these things are underexposed, but nevertheless it looks to me like there is a way for people to get informed and start hacking at their own business. Rather than just switching licenses, why don't we just help Massimo clarify what he wanted to convey? You can distribute web2py app under any license you like as long they do not contain web2py code. Yes, but that is not entirely correct. Your application will contain some scaffolding code. It is extremely important that the scaffolding code be either liberated from the terms of GPL via an exception. I think I've already mentioned this early on in this thread. Anyway, here's the excerpt from the book: web2py is open source and released under the GPL2.0 license, but applications developed with web2py are not subject to any license constraint. In fact, as long as they do not contain web2py source code, they are not considered derivative works. web2py also allows the developer to bytecode-compile applications and distribute them as closed source, although they will require web2py to run. The web2py license includes an exception that allows web developers to ship their products with original pre-compiled web2py binaries, without the accompanying source code. The actual commercial exception clause states the following: We allow the redistribution of unmodified binary versions of web2py provided that they contain a link to the official web2py site. This means you can redistribute web2py in binary or other closed source form together with the applications you develop as long as you acknowledge the author. If you make any modification to web2py you must distribute it together with the modified source code according to GPLv2.0. You can distribute web2py app under any license you like as long they do not contain web2py code. Maybe something like this would be better (optionally vetted by a lawyer): binary version means byte code version of web2py or your application application or app is software that is written specifically to run on web2py framework scaffolding is a process of setting up the necessary directory structure and files as the initial state of your application source code template code includes content in HTML and/or CSS and/or plain text format, placeholder text, images, and Python and/or JavaScript code to create the initial state of the application source code copyrighted template material includes images and copyright notices that appear in template content. you means licensee, and may be an individual or a company bundling means distributing an application along with web2py either as source code or as binary version in unmodified form A You hare hereby granted non-exclusive and non-perpetual license to: 1. Freely distribute or modify the template code to create an application. 2. Distribute the application under a license of your choosing for commercial and/or personal use. 3. Distribute the application as source code and/or as binary version. 4. Bundle the binary version of web2py with your application 5. Deploy your application on a web server, or as a service on an operating system using either the source code or a binary version of web2py. B Following restriction apply to above usage: 1. Your application may not include copyrighted template material. 2. Your application may not include web2py source code in either modified or unmodified form except under the terms of GNU General Public license, version 2 or any later version (at your option). 3. If your application includes portions of web2py source code, GNU General Public License shall apply only to the portions of the source code described under B/2 4. If you bundle the binary version of web2py, you must clearly note the current web address (URL) of web2py homepage and keep that information
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:52:20 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Anthony abas...@gmail.com wrote: The FSF has a different agenda from people who want to distribute their web2py applications closed source. GPL plus exceptions certainly works, but However, FSF's agenda also aligns with that of Massimo and some of us, contributors. We DO go by the spirit in which GPL was created (incidentally, I also license my open-source code under GPL/LGPLv3 lately). If exception works, than I think it's good enough. Yes, we're agreed on how we would like the _framework_ to be licensed -- GPL is great for that. The issue is how best to make it clear (both legally and in terms of marketing) that web2py _applications_ can be released under any license (including closed source). I think Massimo and most others are comfortable allowing developers to do what they want with their own applications. Empirically, I don't think we have a handle on the extent to which the current license might be a hindrance, or whether any reasonable alternative (LGPL?) would actually help. Rather than just switching licenses, why don't we just help Massimo clarify what he wanted to convey? Sounds good. Though ideally we would get some expert advice at some point. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:17:39 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Graham Dumpleton Another good example of why lawyers are a good idea. We all often go based on possibly out of date recollections. :-) Well, that's something Massimo's wallet has to decide. :) Or the community could pitch in. :)
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds good. Though ideally we would get some expert advice at some point. Agreed. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
1. GPL is more objectionable than BSD/MIT Both GPL and BSD are not well suited to template code, that's the point. So which one would you suggest? 2. Frameworks tend not to use GPL So? So if many/most other frameworks do not use GPL, maybe not using GPL is worth considering for the Web2py framework. That seems a reasonable conclusion or at least a basis for consideration.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I was a bit at odds when I saw a framework with a GPL v2 license that claims that the developed code doesn't need to be GPL v2 compatible. Has this scenario been looked over by a lawyer? Any such document would enable us to put customers at ease. We have used CakePHP for our PHP projects for years now and license was never an issue (MIT license). But with web2py, customers always bring this up when the application needs to be closed source. And there isn't much we can tell them other than they should read the site and decide for themselves.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: 1. GPL is more objectionable than BSD/MIT Both GPL and BSD are not well suited to template code, that's the point. So which one would you suggest? It's already been suggested (with a minor wording problem). Look at the other posts in the topic.. 2. Frameworks tend not to use GPL So? So if many/most other frameworks do not use GPL, maybe not using GPL is worth considering for the Web2py framework. That seems a reasonable conclusion or at least a basis for consideration. Well, most people use PHP. Shall we consider using PHP then? ;) -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM, LightDot light...@gmail.com wrote: Has this scenario been looked over by a lawyer? Any such document would enable us to put customers at ease. It's a no brainer. The license covers the platform, not the code written _using_ that platform. It's not like Microsoft EULA and other commercial user licenses that also cover what you can produce on the platform, mind you. GPL strictly covers the code that you have _received_ not the one you've produced yourself. GPL is only relevant in cases where the code you've produces contains the code directly taken from the platform (and that's what we've been discussing here). For example, if welcome app were GPL (and it's not), you'd be forced to release your work as GPL unless you removed significant portions of the welcome app from your own application (and 'significant' depends on jurisdiction). However, according to Massimo, welcome app is _not_ GPL, so you don't have a problem with this. The only problem with the welcome app is that it's 'public domain', which is a concept that may not apply in all jurisdictions (especially outside US). Despite that, rest assured that the author of the welcome app will not sue your clients. ;) -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote: platform, mind you. GPL strictly covers the code that you have _received_ not the one you've produced yourself. Speaking of which, many developers use Linux, and many more sites are served off Linux boxes. And Linux is GPL. And that doesn't seem to bother anyone, right? -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:37:23 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: I think it's better to just remove the favicon. Having a default logo is just as bad as having a web2py logo. Agreed. I think the reason so many sites end up using the web2py favicon is because they don't even think about changing or removing the default. I think the most sensible default is probably simply no favicon at all (the browser already has its own default). Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Please keep GPL on the framework, web2py is not backed by a single commercial company, it is free! I think that it would be much better that templates and static files of welcome app (and admin app?) must be distributed with a more liberal license. We should eventually ask suggestions to FSF. mic 2010/12/12 Anthony abasta...@gmail.com: On Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:37:23 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: I think it's better to just remove the favicon. Having a default logo is just as bad as having a web2py logo. Agreed. I think the reason so many sites end up using the web2py favicon is because they don't even think about changing or removing the default. I think the most sensible default is probably simply no favicon at all (the browser already has its own default). Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Companies don't really care if I tell them that it's a no brainer, they look at this issues trough the eyes of a business risk and consult lawyers to minimize them. There are some who get cold feet when they see GPL but can live with MIT or BSD. Don't know if the analogy of linux OS / webservers completely applys here. I'm writing this from a laptop running Fedora 14 and we run CentOS on all our severs, but web2py application and it's relation to web2py could be a different thing. Nego, srdačan pozdrav iz Šapca :) On Sunday, December 12, 2010 2:03:32 PM UTC+1, Branko Vukelic wrote: It's a no brainer. The license covers the platform, not the code written _using_ that platform. It's not like Microsoft EULA and other commercial user licenses that also cover what you can produce on the platform, mind you. GPL strictly covers the code that you have _received_ not the one you've produced yourself. It's a no brainer. The license covers the platform, not the code GPL is only relevant in cases where the code you've produces contains the code directly taken from the platform (and that's what we've been discussing here). For example, if welcome app were GPL (and it's not), you'd be forced to release your work as GPL unless you removed significant portions of the welcome app from your own application (and 'significant' depends on jurisdiction). However, according to Massimo, welcome app is _not_ GPL, so you don't have a problem with this. The only problem with the welcome app is that it's 'public domain', which is a concept that may not apply in all jurisdictions (especially outside US). Despite that, rest assured that the author of the welcome app will not sue your clients. ;) -- Branko Vukelić bg.b...@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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
The disadvantages of GPL are somewhat clear. Are there any advantages of GPL (with respect to frameworks)?
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any advantages of GPL (with respect to frameworks)? It depends. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:39 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: But as you say, BSD/MIT are better for users. He didn't say that. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 7:21 PM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: I think we should close this discussion. It is not going anywhere. The license of web2py is not up for discussion. +1 -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
2010/12/12 pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com: Fair enough. But I do hope you will re-evaluate at some point as I strongly believe that a non-GPL license would make Web2py much, much better. And I think it is worthwhile trying to gain users since usage is the oxygen for something like a framework. Sorry I have to disagree with this, many users are developers and contributors. They agreed to share their work with GPL by contract. GPL grants that credit is due to developers and contributors. It is simple: individuals and corporations that invest in web2py *are users* and agree to share all modifications to the framework with other individuals or corporations that use them. It is a matter of *fair competition*.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
But as you say, BSD/MIT are better for users. He didn't say that. He said it prevents users from making a better derivative. My apologies to the community and Massimo for be-laboring the point but I think it's unfortunate that the license alone is discouraging use of the framework. I'm very close to selecting Web2py for a large, public project but am having my doubts.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Since someone mentioned linking, etc, here's an exceprt from the GNU FAQ: Q. Does prelinking a GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its performance, count as modification? A. No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects of compilation would. If you're allowed to link the program to the libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well. If you distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of section 6. I think this answers the original question. You do not violate GPL by having import statements in your code, as you can safely detach your code from web2py and reattach to another copy running somewhere else. On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/ On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:01 AM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: Yes. The GPL prevents users from make a CLOSED SOURCE better derivative of the framework. That is exactly what this community wants to protect against. That is something that can kill an open source project and the reason GPL was invented. This discussion has nothing to do with users who are not affected. Please contact me privately about what you want to do. Perhaps you need a special license. Depending on what you need to do I may provide such license to you. Massimo On Dec 12, 6:53 pm, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: But as you say, BSD/MIT are better for users. He didn't say that. He said it prevents users from making a better derivative. My apologies to the community and Massimo for be-laboring the point but I think it's unfortunate that the license alone is discouraging use of the framework. I'm very close to selecting Web2py for a large, public project but am having my doubts. -- 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 -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
This may also be relevant: Q. In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? A. Only when the program copies part of itself into the output. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Monday, December 13, 2010 1:39:57 PM UTC+11, Branko Vukelic wrote:Since someone mentioned linking, etc, here's an exceprt from the GNU FAQ: Q. Does prelinking a GPLed binary to various libraries on the system, to optimize its performance, count as modification? A. No. Prelinking is part of a compilation process; it doesn't introduce any license requirements above and beyond what other aspects of compilation would. If you're allowed to link the program to the libraries at all, then it's fine to prelink with them as well. If you distribute prelinked object code, you need to follow the terms of section 6. I think this answers the original question. You do not violate GPL by having import statements in your code, as you can safely detach your code from web2py and reattach to another copy running somewhere else. No I'll think you find it doesn't imply what you think it does. The prelinking case being talked about as I understand it is where a pre existing non GPL library exists with some published public interface and where someone comes along and writes a GPL variant of the library which adheres to the same published public interface such that the GPL library could be used in place of the original library by prelinking it instead of the original so as to provide a better performing implementation. This is an entirely different situation to use of 'import' statements in Python as in this case the original API was a public API and not an API which is covered by the GPL which is effectively the case with web2py. If I remember correctly, there was a specific case where there once existed a library which was under the GPL and so the API itself, including structure definitions, was effectively covered by the GPL. There were then some issues when some people tried to replace the GPL library with a non GPL version and implement against that instead, so as to specifically get around that a application written against the original GPL library implementation was then covered by the GPL. In other words they were trying to trigger the clause above in reverse, but because the GPL library existed first it was seen as trying to circumvent the GPL. As such, you can't rely on what you quote above. The only way is an exception statement to the GPL and even then that would need to be very carefully worded. In all this you really need a lawyer to look at the situation and draft that exception. If that hasn't been done and some legal evidence provided to show that the way the exception is done is valid and will stand up in a court of law, it is very easy to see why companies, who are going to be very risk averse, would be hesitant to use software that relies on the GPL but with some sort of stated exception where the latter is of unknown validity and with no legal precedent to support it. Graham On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Branko Vukelic bg.b...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/ On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:01 AM, mdipierro mdip...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: Yes. The GPL prevents users from make a CLOSED SOURCE better derivative of the framework. That is exactly what this community wants to protect against. That is something that can kill an open source project and the reason GPL was invented. This discussion has nothing to do with users who are not affected. Please contact me privately about what you want to do. Perhaps you need a special license. Depending on what you need to do I may provide such license to you. Massimo On Dec 12, 6:53 pm, pbreit pbreit...@gmail.com wrote: But as you say, BSD/MIT are better for users. He didn't say that. He said it prevents users from making a better derivative. My apologies to the community and Massimo for be-laboring the point but I think it's unfortunate that the license alone is discouraging use of the framework. I'm very close to selecting Web2py for a large, public project but am having my doubts. -- Branko Vukelić bg.b...@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 -- Branko Vukelić bg.b...@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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: As such, you can't rely on what you quote above. The only way is an exception statement to the GPL and even then that would need to be very carefully worded. In all this you really need a lawyer to look at the situation and draft that exception. If that hasn't been done and some legal evidence provided to show that the way the exception is done is valid and will stand up in a court of law, it is very easy to see why companies, who are going to be very risk averse, would be hesitant to use software that relies on the GPL but with some sort of stated exception where the latter is of unknown validity and with no legal precedent to support it. Graham You keep forgetting that 1. such an exception exists, and 2. Massimo is the only person that can exercise GPL in this case, since all contributors specifically signed such a contract. Anyway, I've already asked GNU to advise. I'll let you know what they say. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I simply said we had customers expressing concern about using GPLv2 web2py framework for the task of developing a closed source web2py application. It was never about making closed source versions of web2py itself. Anyway, I think this issue has been addressed with authority in massimo's posts and that's good enough for me. I can perhaps relate my experience with CakePHP (using it since the middle of 2006). Every once in a while I see a published code snippet/module/plugin saying something like this was a part of our closed source application and we are now making it public... etc. The MIT license of Cake PHP enables this without any question. But apparently so does the license of web2py. We are talking about the application side of the things here... I have never either wanted or needed to fork the CakePHP framework and make it de facto closed source. I'm not saying it hasn't been done (MIT license and all), but I've never seen it or done it. So if the end result is the same (one can freely produce open or closed source applications, modules, etc.), i'm all for the GPLv2 license. It is clearly better for the community.
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:53 AM, LightDot light...@gmail.com wrote: and all), but I've never seen it or done it. Which is also the point of MIT. And exactly why massimo insists on GPL, which forbids this. So if the end result is the same (one can freely produce open or closed source applications, modules, etc.), i'm all for the GPLv2 license. It is clearly better for the community. There's a difference between GPLv2 and Massimo. Massimo specifically allows creating closed-source software that runs on web2py despite the possibility that GPL itself may not necessarily allow this. Regardless of the conclusion of this GPL agenda, the bottom line is you are free to create closed-source web2py apps (as long as you don't publish binary-only web2py modifications, that is). ;) -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:46 AM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: imported module are distributed with the compiled app (case 1). It is not linking if the py or pyc modules are not distributed together (case 2). In case 2 the GPL does not apply. Case 1 is not allowed by the GPL and that is why have the commercial exception. There's an exception clause in LGPL that allows you to do 1 provided that the vendor makes an explicit offer of source code for the portions covered by LGPL and explains to the users that the portions are covered by LGPL in the first place. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I hope so. A different license would certainly help with my fight for adoption by a few clients On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:31:15PM -0800, pbreit spake: Did I read correctly that you might evaluate Web2py's license? It does seem like GPL could potentially discourage usage since it makes the code harder to modify. That might be why very few frameworks are GPL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
As long as it's not Affero GPL, they really have nothing to worry about. I acutally like GPL more than BSD and other crap. Viral licenses are much better for upstream. On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: are you talking about the web2py license? Why would a client care? Web2py imposes no restriction on their code. I an write a letter to this effect if at all necessary. Massimo On Dec 11, 10:11 am, G. Clifford Williams g...@notadiscussion.com wrote: I hope so. A different license would certainly help with my fight for adoption by a few clients On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:31:15PM -0800, pbreit spake: Did I read correctly that you might evaluate Web2py's license? It does seem like GPL could potentially discourage usage since it makes the code harder to modify. That might be why very few frameworks are GPL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Thanks I appreciate that and I'll surely take you up on that it I think it'll help me win one of these battles. The bottom line is that many commercial entities frown on GPL licensed software. Legal departments go ape when someone brings in new software and 1) it's free and 2) it's GPL'd. For one particular client I'd built a front-end management interface to some system configs (firewalls, software packages, etc... ). This was something they were distributing to their clients as part of a bundle. When told that it would be built with a Python web framework, they assumed it would be Django. When I was done with it and had turned in my documentation they had a fit. I got calls from the CTO asking why I would put them in such a position. They didn't know whether I'd modified anything that was ...part of web2py, and if I had they wanted to know whether it was ...configuration or code. The only GPL'd apps they ship to customers are compiled binaries. They wanted me to 'decouple' what I'd done and submit it for review by their one internal python guy so that he could determine whether anything in my code was 'stolen' from web2py. I was asked to rewrite everything in Django, Pylons or RoR. I'm not saying they were either right or wrong. It's just an ongoing battle and one more headache that I could really do without. On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 08:17:23AM -0800, mdipierro spake: are you talking about the web2py license? Why would a client care? Web2py imposes no restriction on their code. I an write a letter to this effect if at all necessary. Massimo On Dec 11, 10:11 am, G. Clifford Williams g...@notadiscussion.com wrote: I hope so. A different license would certainly help with my fight for adoption by a few clients On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:31:15PM -0800, pbreit spake: Did I read correctly that you might evaluate Web2py's license? It does seem like GPL could potentially discourage usage since it makes the code harder to modify. That might be why very few frameworks are GPL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM, G. Clifford Williams g...@notadiscussion.com wrote: Thanks I appreciate that and I'll surely take you up on that it I think it'll help me win one of these battles. The bottom line is that many commercial entities frown on GPL licensed software. Legal departments go ape when someone brings in new software and 1) it's free and 2) it's GPL'd. For one particular client I'd built a front-end management interface to some system configs (firewalls, software packages, etc... ). This was something they were distributing to their clients as part of a bundle. When told that it would be built with a Python web framework, they assumed it would be Django. When I was done with it and had turned in my documentation they had a fit. I got calls from the CTO asking why I would put them in such a position. They didn't know whether I'd modified anything that was ...part of web2py, and if I had they wanted to know whether it was ...configuration or code. The only GPL'd apps they ship to customers are compiled binaries. They wanted me to 'decouple' what I'd done and submit it for review by their one internal python guy so that he could determine whether anything in my code was 'stolen' from web2py. The legal guys at my company are not able to vet 2 GPL and 2 BSD apps for corporate use after 2 months of research. People are stupid like that. I'm actually quite fascinated about how stupid they get sometimes. You know. M$ gives you a long-ass EULA, and most of it is mumbo-jumbo, and nobody ever questions it. If you look at the EULA for Corel Draw, for example, you find out that you aren't even permitted to use the software for any purpose. It's clearly defined what's allowed and what's not. I'm not talking about where you can or cannot install. It covers shit like what you can DRAW with it. Yet this type of BS makes perfect sense to them. And GPL doesn't. Nobody ever checked stuff I was drawing and vetted them with the legal. And they're taking 2 months just to decide whether I can have Blender and Inkscape installed on my workstation. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, VP vtp2...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is this. The apps that you develop with Web2py does not have to be GPL, and can be licensed in any way you want. (I am unsure if this violates GPL's terms or not, but this is what I think how web2py's licensing permits). What is GPL is the web2py framework itself. So, as long as your app does not touch web2py's core and stay within web2py/applications/ yourapp directory, that should be okay. On the other hand, if you want to take web2py add features to it, modify it, then it will have to be GPL. There's one catch, though. If a piece of code is a template that comes with web2py (which means the template code is also GPL), does the template, which is covered by GPL, also prevent you from distributing templates as binary-only. I don't mean HTML etc. Those are static files anyway. I mean the .py templates like the db.py template that is included in the welcome app. When you start off, 100% of your app is comprised of GPL'd code from the welcome app. -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ 2010/12/11 mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu You have a good point. The welcome scaffolding app is not GPL. It is pubic domain (no license whatsoever). I have said that before but it is not explicitly stated in the license. I will add a statement to the top of each .py file in the welcome app. Massimo On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, VP vtp2...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is this. The apps that you develop with Web2py does not have to be GPL, and can be licensed in any way you want. (I am unsure if this violates GPL's terms or not, but this is what I think how web2py's licensing permits). What is GPL is the web2py framework itself. So, as long as your app does not touch web2py's core and stay within web2py/applications/ yourapp directory, that should be okay. On the other hand, if you want to take web2py add features to it, modify it, then it will have to be GPL. There's one catch, though. If a piece of code is a template that comes with web2py (which means the template code is also GPL), does the template, which is covered by GPL, also prevent you from distributing templates as binary-only. I don't mean HTML etc. Those are static files anyway. I mean the .py templates like the db.py template that is included in the welcome app. When you start off, 100% of your app is comprised of GPL'd code from the welcome app. -- 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 Guildhttp://bit.ly/gbg-group -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
DO WHAT THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE YOU WANT LICENSE On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:31 PM, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote: Yes. That is the license for the welcome app but I think we should phrase a little more professionally. ;-) On Dec 11, 3:16 pm, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ 2010/12/11 mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu You have a good point. The welcome scaffolding app is not GPL. It is pubic domain (no license whatsoever). I have said that before but it is not explicitly stated in the license. I will add a statement to the top of each .py file in the welcome app. Massimo On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, Branko Vukelic bg.bra...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, VP vtp2...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is this. The apps that you develop with Web2py does not have to be GPL, and can be licensed in any way you want. (I am unsure if this violates GPL's terms or not, but this is what I think how web2py's licensing permits). What is GPL is the web2py framework itself. So, as long as your app does not touch web2py's core and stay within web2py/applications/ yourapp directory, that should be okay. On the other hand, if you want to take web2py add features to it, modify it, then it will have to be GPL. There's one catch, though. If a piece of code is a template that comes with web2py (which means the template code is also GPL), does the template, which is covered by GPL, also prevent you from distributing templates as binary-only. I don't mean HTML etc. Those are static files anyway. I mean the .py templates like the db.py template that is included in the welcome app. When you start off, 100% of your app is comprised of GPL'd code from the welcome app. -- 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 Guildhttp://bit.ly/gbg-group -- Bruno Rochahttp://about.me/rochacbruno/bio -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:02 AM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth, I believe the following is accurate: 1. GPL is more objectionable than BSD/MIT Both GPL and BSD are not well suited to template code, that's the point. 2. Frameworks tend not to use GPL So? -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
as long as the name is changed When using the welcome app, we should require that the web2py favicon be removed -- I keep running into web2py powered sites that display the web2py favicon. Actually, maybe it would be a better idea to simply not include the web2py favicon with the welcome app -- it usually doesn't make sense for sites based on the welcome app to have the web2py favicon. Anthony
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
we can have a different favicon following the different logo that welcome has. @branko can suggest one? 2010/12/12 Anthony abasta...@gmail.com as long as the name is changed When using the welcome app, we should require that the web2py favicon be removed -- I keep running into web2py powered sites that display the web2py favicon. Actually, maybe it would be a better idea to simply not include the web2py favicon with the welcome app -- it usually doesn't make sense for sites based on the welcome app to have the web2py favicon. Anthony -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
I think it's better to just remove the favicon. Having a default logo is just as bad as having a web2py logo. On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote: we can have a different favicon following the different logo that welcome has. @branko can suggest one? 2010/12/12 Anthony abasta...@gmail.com as long as the name is changed When using the welcome app, we should require that the web2py favicon be removed -- I keep running into web2py powered sites that display the web2py favicon. Actually, maybe it would be a better idea to simply not include the web2py favicon with the welcome app -- it usually doesn't make sense for sites based on the welcome app to have the web2py favicon. Anthony -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio -- 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
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
The new DAL looks fantastic Massimo. So that people don't get the wrong impression though: It's a bit disconcerting to click the initial link in the Reddit article about 'brand new DAL' and then get a very large title saying 'Old web2py blog' and response flash saying 'Some info may be out of date' especially as there is no 'published' or 'modified' date for the page content there. The AlterEgo site definitely needs 'last modified' dates on articles. Hopefully this is constructive criticism ;-)
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
The new DAL looks fantastic Massimo. So that people don't get the wrong impression though: It's a bit disconcerting to click the initial link in the Reddit article about 'brand new DAL' and then get a very large title saying 'Old web2py blog' and response flash saying 'Some info may be out of date' especially as there is no 'published' or 'modified' date for the page content there. The AlterEgo site definitely needs 'last modified' dates on articles. Hopefully this is constructive criticism ;-) I totally agree, I think that the alter ego should wear the same layout as web2py main site (examples app)
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
Agree too, 'old web2py blog' and the 'flash' informing that the info could be oudated... ..If we're linking to the new DAL, recently wrote. :D Hopefully this is constructive criticism too ;) On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote: ego should wear the same layout as web2py main site (examples app)
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
2010/12/10 pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com Is there a decent Web2py-based blogging appliance? Instant Press! instant2press.com It would be great to have some good implementations of some core apps like blog, forums, CRM, etc. -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio
Re: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it...
latinux is using this in production: http://pressroom.latinux.com/ 2010/12/10 Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com 2010/12/10 pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com Is there a decent Web2py-based blogging appliance? Instant Press! instant2press.com It would be great to have some good implementations of some core apps like blog, forums, CRM, etc. -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio -- Bruno Rocha http://about.me/rochacbruno/bio