While we are on the topic of Licensing, I found this bit of news interesting:
Jacobsen vs Katzer in the JMRI case: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/features/article.php/3866316/Bruce-Perens-Inside-Open-Sources-Historic-Victory.htm Quote " Part of the problem in this case was Jacobsen's choice of Open Source license, the Artistic License 1.0. It's not very good as a legal document. A point I've tried to make on the Open Source Initiative's license-approval mailing list is that a license with weak legal language is useless, even if it says what the programmer involved wants it to say. The Artistic License was written by Larry Wall, creator of the Perl language, way back before Open Source developers had any lawyers who would help them. Larry's a nice guy, but he messed up the license just as any Open Source developer who tries to write one on their own, without competent legal assistance, is liable to do. " PS: web2py book uses Artistic license, should it be reviewed and moved up to a stronger license? Regards Anand On Feb 23, 4:22 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes this is allowed. > > On Feb 22, 3:29 am, Miguel Lopes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Massimo, > > > I wonder if web2py's license would allow for a SaaS kind of application? > > > By SaaS I mean access to the site (web app) would be paid for. In practice > > end users would pay a fee for accessing the site functionality. This seems > > very, very borderline to me. I know you are not laywers. But would this be > > possible? > > > br, > > Miguel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
