On Monday, December 13, 2010 10:52:20 PM UTC-5, Branko Vukelic wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Anthony <abas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The FSF has a different agenda from people who want to distribute their > > web2py applications closed source. GPL plus exceptions certainly works, > but > > However, FSF's agenda also aligns with that of Massimo and some of us, > contributors. We DO go by the spirit in which GPL was created > (incidentally, I also license my open-source code under GPL/LGPLv3 > lately). If exception works, than I think it's good enough. > Yes, we're agreed on how we would like the _framework_ to be licensed -- GPL is great for that. The issue is how best to make it clear (both legally and in terms of marketing) that web2py _applications_ can be released under any license (including closed source). I think Massimo and most others are comfortable allowing developers to do what they want with their own applications. Empirically, I don't think we have a handle on the extent to which the current license might be a hindrance, or whether any reasonable alternative (LGPL?) would actually help.
> Rather than just switching licenses, why don't we just help Massimo > clarify what he wanted to convey? > Sounds good. Though ideally we would get some expert advice at some point. Anthony
