Wow, some heavy duty concerns in this thread... I'm not fully versed in the detailed legalities of those things, but I'll elaborate things as I understand them and perhaps I can be corrected if I'm wrong...
Basically, I get Web2py under the GLP licence. Under that licence, I can: 1) Use and distribute the unmodified web framework indefinitely as long as I provide a copy of the licence and the source code 2) Modify the source code of the Framework as I see fit as long as long as I make an open source copy of my modification available with an original copy of the licence and indicate how it was modified from the original source The above would apply to any copy I downloaded when the licence was in force, even if say, Massimo was struck by a meteor and Web2py stopped being distributed under such a licence. So, the main worry isn't that if Massimo is eaten by raiding cannibals, people won't have the legal means to distribute future modified copies of Web2py, but rather that nobody may have the expertize or interest to do so, correct? On Dec 28, 12:28 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > Afoundationis a corporation and, believe it or not, in US a > corporation is a person: > > http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/01/the... > > The Djangofoundationwas created two years ago (and Django is 4-5 > years older thanweb2py). Do you have any evidence that it has > improved its popularity: > > http://www.google.com/trends?q=django? > > Python has afoundationand it looks to me it is always broke. I just > spoke with a recruiter that was looking for Python programmers for a > big US bank and I complained that his client relied on a product > (Python) and did not make any donation to support it. The python > developers are not supported by thefoundation, as far as I know. > > Afoundationhas costs higher than a corporation and I do not get > enough donation to cover those costs. A corporation > (experts4solutions) is cheaper (it still costs at least $500/year of > my own money). Moreover afoundationimplies that design decision are > taken by committee and I do not believe in that. > > I consult with core developers and users on important matters but I > think there has to be one individual who ultimately takes decisions > about the direction of the project. > > We have explored the possibility of joining the free software > conservatory but we got no feedback. > > Rails is owned by a corporation (37signals) which is owned by one > individual. It seems to be the model works well for them. In my case I > decided not to pass copyright and trademark to experts4solutions > because I thought some would have criticized it. > > I am not the only committer to the mainweb2pybranch. Jonathan L. is > also a committer and will use his power in case I am incapacitated. > Yet, that should not be a crowded space in order to avoid internal > conflicts. > > I will write a will that explains what happens to theweb2pytrademark > and copyright in case I die. > > Massimo > > On Dec 28, 2:12 am, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 5:37:30 PM UTC+11, mdipierro wrote: > > > > Not sure what a single person framework means. This framework counts > > > almost 100 contributors and at least 50 people very skilled here. If I > > > get hit by a track any of them can take over by forking my branch as > > > allowed by the license. > > > That last line actually supports the idea that a piece of software is owned > > and controlled by a single person. If a piece of software was owned by a > > group, be it a corporation or afoundation, the death of the core developer > > would make no difference as it would continue to be developed within the > > structure of that corporation orfoundationand copyright still held by the > > continuing entity. > > > In your case, if you get hit by a bus driven by a disgruntled Python > > developer, then no one else can simply take over the software as it is now, > > using any existing legal structure etc. Instead it would as you say need to > > be forked and in being forked legally may even need to change names as a > > result if you have sole rights over the original name. > > > So, your own words support the contention expressed by some that it is > > 'single person framework' as far as ownership and control is concerned, an > > issue which is distinct from whether or not you have other contributors. > > > Graham > > > > The purpose of thefoundationis to collect money for development and > > > advertising. Other organization like Rails have chose to create a > > > company instead of afoundation. > > > > We have created a company (experts4solutions.com) whose purpose is to > > > promote skilledweb2pyprofessionals (and you can joins), foster > > >web2pyprojects, sell consulting and long term support contracts. > > > > This was advertised here a few months ago. Some users have joined. > > > > Massimo > > > > On Dec 27, 9:46 pm, Pepe Araya <pepe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > some news about this topic? > > > > > I think 2 things are going in favor of creating afoundationor > > > [whatever]: > > > > 1. the community has grown a lot. > > > > 2. in all the reviews I read aboutweb2py, always, always, ALWAYS!!! say > > > it > > > > is a single-person framework and that takes away the future security of > > > > their development. > > > > > kind regards > > > > > Pepe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
