On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:16 PM, mdipierro <massimodipierr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry Russ, > > I did not say nor implied that any of the points above were > distinctive or unique. I just tried to clarify some issues raised by > other users here.
No problems - I'm not trying to accuse you of anything nefarious. I just wanted to counterclarify the same points. > About the license. We do not annotate GPL we just clarify that the > license does not apply to applications that require web2py but only to > products that contain web2py source. Very much like FreeBSD is BSD > even if compiled with GCC which is GPL. If you bundle your app with > web2py you just have to state which files belong to your app and which > ones are web2py files. I did not mean say that the web2py license > (GPL) is more permissive than Django's license (BSD). I meant to say > that not enforcing any license on applications is more permissive then > BSD. For example, web2py users can release their apps under any > license they like and only need to say "requires web2py" while if they > were to be bound by the BSD they would have to include the BSD > copyright notice, the disclaimer, and comply with BSD advertisement > requirements (even if the app itself may not be BSD). Notice I am not > making any statement about Django here. These legal issue are beyond > me. Again, I'm not sure the licensing situation is as simple as you seem to think it is. This licensing arrangement you describe is much closer to the situation for Django than it is for Web2py. *Django* uses the BSD license. If you download and redistribute *Django's* code, you are bound by the BSD *for your redistribution of Django*. If you write your own app or library that calls into Django's code, you are free to use whatever license you want *for your own code*. Django's BSD license makes no claim or restriction on the way you license your own code - hence, you are able to distribute your own project under any license you want. Under the terms of the BSD, you can even distribute a modified version of Django (without source code) as long as you retain and display the copyright notice. However, This *isn't* a claim you can make unambiguously about the GPL. The GPL is *specifically* designed to prevent people from leveraging free software to produce proprietary software. Yes, I are free to choose whatever license you want for your own code, but the terms of the GPL mean that your own choice of license on your own project *may* affect whether or not I can distribute Web2py along with my code. The comparison with GCC isn't valid, because we're talking about code running in an interpreted language (Python). GCC is undeniably a program that takes input, and provides output. There is no internal linking of the subject code (FreeBSD) by the GPL licensed program (GCC). However, as soon as you say "import web2py" or "import django", you're no longer talking about clean execution. You're potentially talking about linking, and this is where a problem arises. GPL2 -- which is what web2py uses -- is vague about what constitutes "linking" in an interpreted language (for the record, GPL3 is less vague, but not in a way that particularly helps your interpretation). This vagueness is where the problem lies (and why I said "may" a couple of paragraphs back). The GPL question came up in the Django community about 6 months ago, which prompted Jacob to publish a set of 20 questions that points out the ambiguities that exists: http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ The ensuing discussion demonstrates the depth of the ambiguities. :-) The comments from VanL (who I believe is Van Lindberg, who *is* a lawyer) are particularly enlightening. However, again: * IANAL * He who writes the code gets to pick the license. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they are wrong for choosing the GPL. The GPL is very well designed for what it tries to achieve. If those goals are compatible with your own goals, then by all means choose the GPL. Whatever license you choose, I implore anyone to be fully aware of the consequences of your choices before you make your selection. * If you intend to use code with a particular license (whatever that license may be), you should seek whatever professional legal advice you require to clarify the situation with your own projects. > web2py would not have existed without Django so thank you all. And thanks to you for keeping us honest. A software monoculture is never a good thing. Having alternatives to Django means the Python community as a whole is a richer. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
