Paul Rubin wrote: > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Unfortunately, that doesn't really satisfy the GPL's concerns. The work > > arguably "contains or is derived from" Karrigell, > > I don't see that. The web app gets run by Karrigell like a CGI script > is run by Apache, like a Linux app is run by the Linux kernel.
The web app uses parts of Karrigell though - things like the QUERY variable or or Session object. That is analogous to linking with Karrigell as a library. > The LGPL has fallen into some disfavor at the FSF, and I don't see > Karrigell as a library. The LGPL ultimate subverts the intent of the GPL in that it lets people use open source code without having to give much back. Still, it is 'better' in that regard than BSD or zlib. The only practical difference in this case would be that the LGPL makes it clear that there's a separation between your code and Karrigell code. > The application is not an integrated blob > combining Karrigell and user code, from what I can tell. Rather, the > user code is run under Karrigell's control, like Karrigell itself > is run under the Python interpreter. I see your point, but I think 95% of Karrigell apps will end up making calls back into the framework. The intent of the GPL is arguably that if you rely directly upon some GPL code for your application, your app falls under the license. From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation : "What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.[...] If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. " This is largely academic since the author seems willing to reconsider the license; but it's an interesting point for applications like this generally, especially in Python where 'linking' is a little less stringently defined than in C/C++. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
