On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:53 AM, LightDot <light...@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.bra...@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 Guild http://bit.ly/gbg-group
