No opposition here. Like others, I was originally confused whether using the web2py framework would force my web app to be open source. I would welcome a change in license.
On Dec 16, 4:33 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > GPL2 creates the loophole. The AGPL closes the loophole. The GPL3 was > supposed to incorporate language from AGPL and close the loophole but > did not. It is not clear to me whether GPL3 closes the loophole or > not. If it does not (like GPL2 does not). > > I have no objection to move to GPL3. > > Yet that does not help in clarifying the web2py license. > > As a hypothetical question. Who here would oppose to moving to BSD or > MIT or other more permissive license? > > Massimo > > On Dec 16, 2:54 pm, "Branko Vukelic" <branko.vuke...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: mdipierro > > > Sent: 12/16/10 07:56 PM > > > To: web2py-users > > > Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... > > > If we were to move from GPL2 to GPL3 people would not be allowed to > > > modify web2py running on their servers without making available the > > > source code of their changes. I do not see any reason for requiring > > > this. > > > What's AGPL for then? Wasn't _AGPL_ supposed to prevent that? Anyway, I > > think GPLv3 makes i possible to use code licensed under licenses like MIT > > and BSD in a GPLv3 project, which is otherwise a bit incompatible. Or did I > > miss something? > > > -- > > Branko Vukelic > > > branko.vuke...@gmx.com > > >http://www.brankovukelic.com/http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
