On Monday, December 13, 2010 3:30:17 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: Start verbatim copy --------------------------------- > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, --- <lice...@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.
Thanks for investigating that. Reading their FAQ, it seems that GNU doesn't generally want anyone to use LGPL at all, purely based on principle. So their response may be more of a preference than a legal opinion (i.e., even if we could use LGPL, they would prefer we don't). If a web2py application doesn't count as an "Application" or "Combined Work" under LGPL, then I don't know what does. In any case, this discussion has convinced me that if we really want to get this right, we would probably have to consult an intellectual property attorney with open source experience. Maybe it's not worth the bother/cost right now, though. Anthony
