On Dec 13, 12:28 am, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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."
Not quite because importing is not the same as linking. Anyway, let's take a poll. What if we do the following? 1) all web2py/*.py and web2py/gluon/*py files are LPGL 2) all web2py/gluon/contrib/* files are LGPL unless specified otherwise (MIT or BSD are possible for third party contributions) 3) the official web2py binaries for Mac and Windows are freeware 4) the scaffolding app is public domain except for images/css/js files which may have their own licenses. Is this more or less confusing? How can we make it more clear? Would any of the major contributors strongly oppose? If so, why? Massimo
