On Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:46:38 PM UTC-5, mdipierro wrote: There are three cases: 1) you distribute your app open or closed source with web2py source (allowed by GPL)
Doesn't the GPL by itself actually prohibit distributing a closed source web2py app because of the linking issue? I thought the following explicit exception is what allows that, no? "You can distribute web2py app under any license you like as long they do not contain web2py code." 2) you distribute your app open or closed source with web2py binary (not allowed by GPL but allowed by the web2py commercial exception which treats the web2py binaries not as GPL but as freeware) 3) you distribute your app closed source with part of web2py or with a modified version of web2py (this is not allowed by the current license but it would be allowed if the license was MIT/BSD or LGPL). I do not know of any "standard" license that allows 1,2 but not 3. I'm not too familiar with it, but isn't the LGPL meant to get around the linking issue while still protecting the core code? Maybe the LGPL could achieve the same purpose as the above web2py exception for applications (I don't think it would cover the exception allowing binary distibution, though). That might simplify things a bit. It sounds like there may be two problems with the current web2py license. First, although it's not strictly GPL (because of the two exceptions), many people seem to mistakenly think it's just GPL, which leads to concerns about app distribution. This is a marketing/communication problem. Second, even those who are aware of the exceptions may be nervous about their exact legal meaning -- lawyers probably prefer to deal with standard licenses that are well known and tested rather than new and unique. This may be a harder problem to solve, unless there is a standard license that already addresses our concerns (maybe LGPL?). Anthony Massimo On Dec 12, 10:01 pm, Branko Vukelic <bg.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:53 AM, LightDot <ligh...@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.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 Guildhttp://bit.ly/gbg-group
