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
