+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.
+1
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
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
- 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
- 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
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
- 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
- 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
-
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
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
- 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
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.
- 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
- 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
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)
- 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_
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 (!)
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
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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
The disadvantages of GPL are somewhat clear.
Are there any advantages of GPL (with respect to frameworks)?
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:
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:
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:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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?
--
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 --
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
95 matches
Mail list logo
