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 [email protected] [email protected] 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
