On Monday, December 13, 2010 2:00:08 AM UTC-5, mdipierro 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. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Earlier you said importing modules in an interpreted language (like Python): "is equivalent to linking IF and only IF, the py or the pyc files of the imported module are distributed with the compiled app (case 1). It is not linking if the py or pyc modules are not distributed together (case 2). In case 2 the GPL does not apply. Case 1 is not allowed by the GPL and that is why have the commercial exception." Above, you mentioned distributing your app "with web2py source", which would appear to make the importing equivalent to linking, thereby necessitating the exception to GPL. The exception is unnecessary only if you distribute your app without including web2py at all (presumably the user receiving the app woud have to obtain their own copy of web2py in that case). Or am I missing something? 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? At first glance this sounds pretty good, though we should probably investigate the LGPL more to make sure it really does what we want. Also, do we need a separate (possibly existing standard) freeware license for the binaries? For that matter, what is the purpose of the freeware exception for the binaries? I assume it's so applications can be distributed along with the binaries for convenience. But I think the GPL (and LGPL) already allow distributions of binaries (i.e., non-source code) as long as the source code is also made available (even a written offer to provide it upon request satisfies the license). So, if a developer wants to distribute the binaries, couldn't they easily satisfy the license by also including the source in a zip file along with the distribution (the end user doesn't ever have to install or look at the source, but this would satisfy the license). If that would be satisfactory for developers, then maybe all we really need is the LGPL, with no exceptions, which would really make things simple and clear. Anyway, if we feel it is still helpful to have the freeware alternative, maybe it would be more clear to describe it as a dual license (LGPL for source and freeware for binaries) rather than "LGPL with a commercial exception" (which could lead to confusion and concern). Anthony
