I agree that we may need clarification because it does not state that the scaffolding app is "public domain" (it now says it in trunk), and it does not say that importing web2py modules from an app should not be considered linking and therefore it does not violate the GPL.
If you guys can come up with a better way to phrase the license, and there is consensus, I will probably adopt it. I think we all agree with the intended intentions. Massimo On Dec 14, 11:10 am, Branko Vukelic <bg.bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM, VP <vtp2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am happy with what Massimo intends web2py's license to be. I think > > a lot of people are too. App developers should not have to worry > > about the licensing issues. I think the license should be precise and > > concise. Further because it combines two types of licenses into one, > > it should not be contradicting each other in some way. > > It does need a little bit of clarification, though, especially in the > are of what is considered "including web2py source in your app", and > what is meant by "acknowledging the author" etc. > > > Maybe, it doesn't need to be rewritten (much), but needs an FAQ > > attached to it. > > Most certainly. I've checked the FAQ and there's no mention of the > commercial exception. > > -- > 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 Guildhttp://bit.ly/gbg-group
