On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, December 13, 2010 8:38:12 AM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: > Sorry, I missed this post. Would you mind sending the exact question you > asked and the full response from GNU? I'm surprised because I would think a > web2py app would qualify as an "Application" or a "Combined Work" under > LGPL:
Start verbatim copy --------------------------------- > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- <licens...@fsf.org> wrote: > > Importing code and sharing namespaces would most probably be creating a > > derivative work and would need to be licensed under GPLv2 as well. > Ok, so let me clarify a bit. By importing code, we mean (since this is > a Python library) that the application framework will execute parts of > the application, and that the application in turn may execute parts of > the framework. It is a fact that the application may not execute > properly without the presence of the framework, but the framework > authors do not consider applications derivative work because of this. > Could you please advise on this position? The answer would be the same. These activities would create a derivative work. > Would releasing the framework under the terms of LGPL allow > proprietary software vendors to If the goal is to allow proprietary software vendors to do certain things you should just say so. There are ways of doing this without harming the free software community. The LGPL isn't recommended in this case (see: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html]). One way is to dual-license the code. Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and if a company wishes to distribute it under proprietary terms sell them a copy of the software under a suitable license. Done right this is a great way of funding the development of free software. This was everyone always has access to a copy of the code under a free software license and proprietary software companies fund your development efforts. Another way is to Release the code under a strong copyleft license such as the GPL and to add narrowly defined exceptions which would allow proprietary software to interact with your software in particular ways. See: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs] End verbatim copy --------------------------------- Judge for yourself if I understood correctly what the guy says. > "An “Application” is any work that makes use of an interface provided by the > Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library. Defining a > subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a mode of using an > interface provided by the Library." > > "A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an Application > with the Library. The particular version of the Library with which the > Combined Work was made is also called the “Linked Version”. > Well, yes. That's exactly why I considered LGPL a good option for us. But apparently GNU differs on this. -- 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
