Here's an excerpt from Apache License 2.0: ``"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.``
This sounds like a hint for the exception we needed (unless you are serious about moving to BSD or MIT). Full text can be found here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 so you can see the context. Reading the full text of the Apache license, I think dual-licensing web2py under GPLv2 and Apache License 2.0 would solve all of the problems except 1: reuse of web2py components and libraries for building closed-source software. For me, personally, that would not be fair game. If you are taking apart web2py and building something useful, you should share. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mdipierro > Sent: 12/16/10 11:33 PM > To: web2py-users > Subject: [web2py] Re: it case you missed it... > > 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 -- Branko Vukelic branko.vuke...@gmx.com http://www.brankovukelic.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/foxbunny
