web.py goes public domain?
Aaron Swartz
to be under -- giving them the options of the current license, GPL3,
and Public Domain. Here are the results:
AGPL: 0
GPLv3: 3.5
Public domain: 6.5
Other:
LGPL: 1
GPL2: 1
So I think I'm going to make web.py public domain.
FAQ:
## Public domain? I've never heard of that.
Public domain means that web.py has no copyright so you can use it
however you like with absolutely no restrictions.
## So what exactly can I do with it?
Let me say that again: ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS.
## Oh. Doesn't that mean someone could copy web.py and claim they wrote it?
Someone can claim they invented the World Wide Web as well. It's
absurd to start threatening to sue people because they say false
things.
## I really think this is a bad move.
Well, here's your chance to explain why. Send me an email and maybe
I'll reconsider.
tom berger
So I think I'm going to make web.py public domain.
tom
--
http://intellectronica.net/
john_s...@yahoo.com
domain. I mean, it sounds kinda' funny to me: you host the software
repository, the wiki, set up the irc channel and the mailing list, but
don't put your name on the code...
User: Excuse me, is this your web.py software?
You: Hm? Me?
User: Yes, you. Is this yours?
You: No, not mine.
User: But I downloaded it from your site.
You: Did you now?
User: Yes, I did. But there's no copyright notice in it.
You: Is that so?
User: Well, did you write it?
You: I wrote much of it, with help from others.
User: Then why didn't you sign your name on it? You know, to assert
your copyright on it.
You: Is there some law that says I need to sign everything I write?
User: No, I just mean... well, how are people supposed to know it's
yours?
You: I already told you, it's not mine. Listen, is there something I
can help you with?
:)
Yeah, public domain sounds pretty good.
Randy Parker
about how the old license should be interpreted, and while you
volunteered to release people from its terms if they asked, that didn't
fill me with lots of confidence. In fact, just last night I went back
to working with TurboGears, but it wasn't long after my 1st KID error
that I was longing for web.py's error page and that the web.py
situation for commercial apps was cleanly resolved.....and now it is.
Deepak Sarda
>
> Interesting. Sounds good, though I'm not so familiar with public
> domain. I mean, it sounds kinda' funny to me: you host the software
> repository, the wiki, set up the irc channel and the mailing list, but
> don't put your name on the code...
>
Why not go with the standard Python license Aaron? If I understand
correctly, it is basically public domain + copyright assertion, isn't
it?
Anyway, great that you've made this decision :-)
_max
domimob
> correctly, it is basically public domain + copyright assertion, isn't
> it?
Same question here ;-) Why not consider the Python Foundation License
or the BSD License? I think it is natural (not egoistic) keep the
authorship of your own ideas.
Anyway, i wish to congratulate Aaron about his good intentions. I think
it is a brave solution to web.py license buzz.
Essien Essien
I host a project on sourceforge: pysystray(https://sourceforge.net/projects/pysystray), and the Bittorrent guys currently use it. I'd initially not really specified a license and they asked me to choose one, and asked if i'd mind BSD or MIT that its very confortable... and heck... what's the fun of writing something if ppls don't use it huh? ;) I went with BSD... b/cos i actually took a look at it, and understood it :)
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License
Anyways... anyone you pick... i'm stuck on web.py... i just tried it out last weekend... and that's it. Python is once again my number one choice for web development. web.py really stays out of my way. thnx for a good anti-framework framework ;)
Aaron Swartz
> repository, the wiki, set up the irc channel and the mailing list, but
> don't put your name on the code...
Huh? When did I say I wasn't going to put my name on the code?
Aaron Swartz
> correctly, it is basically public domain + copyright assertion, isn't
> it?
I'm opposed to the confusing proliferation of licenses. Python's had
at least three different licenses over its lifetime, all of which have
a bunch legalese and complicated clauses, none of which have anything
to do with protecting users. Explaining public domain, by contrast,
couldn't be clearer -- do whatever you like with it.
jemi
+1
I don'r really like the taste of "PD". Most projects that i remember
(back in those days of the amiga) that have been PD have been one-man
shows. I would prefer to stress the community aspect and that web.py
has a real "home" where peolple come together to contribute and to
improve.
Aaron Swartz
> has a real "home" where peolple come together to contribute and to
> improve.
I hope that web.py is a community where people come together. I can't
really argue against your impressions of things, but in reality if
web.py was copyrighted that would mean that anyone who contributed
would have to assign their copyrights to me personally. If it's public
domain, they simply need to release them to the community. That seems
a lot more community-encouraging to me.
David Terrell
> So I think I'm going to make web.py public domain.
Thank you for resolving this. It's nice to be able to get back to work
without worrying about license incompatibilities.
john_s...@yahoo.com
Well, show's what I know about putting software in the public domain.
What about form.py and template.py?
domimob
> If web.py was copyrighted that would mean that anyone who contributed
> would have to assign their copyrights to me personally.
> If it's public domain, they simply need to release them to the community.
smells like pragmatic spirit! ;)
Aaron Griffin
Hooray!
I'll say this, with web.py as a PD project, feel free to snag it, and
throw your own license on it. It's allowed. Now, it won't hold up as
far as court stuff goes, as you will be unable to proove prior art.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk
simplest license and works best with any other license you can imagine.
Sqlite is an example of a very succesful project that uses that license
(although my theory is that it's not the license that makes or breaks
projects, as long as it's good enough, and PD certainly is).
peter
I would have preferred this. It makes no difference to users except it
fits in with the current python license & has no suprises for
user/developer. with total public domain this means contributions
fall under the same license?
john_s...@yahoo.com
Here's what I've found:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware :
| ``public domain'' is a legal term and means, precisely, ``not
copyrighted''.
| [snip]
| Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed,
anything
| written down is automatically copyrighted. This includes programs.
| Therefore, if you want a program you have written to be in the public
| domain, you must take some legal steps to disclaim the copyright on
it;
| otherwise, the program is copyrighted.
http://www.uwo.ca/its/pps/softethics.html :
| Public domain software carries an explicit statement from the author
| indicating that no protection under copyright is being claimed.
Software
| without copyright notice is not necessarily in the public domain.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html :
| Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete
| abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for
| non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify
| one byte and put their name on it.
Finally, http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html :
| Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it
might
| as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license.
So, to answer your question Peter, I don't have an answer to your
question. It could be that all contributors are supposed to put in
their
name and explicitly say that they're placing their contributions into
the
public domain... it could be that if they do not put their name on it,
the door is open for them to later claim copyright on their
contribution(s).
Dunno.
I agree with Aaron that the whole series of Python licenses is a mess,
however, the the MIT license, for example, is pretty darn simple and
mostly just says, "do what you like with it, but preserve the copyright
notice." Have a look:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
My guess is that the free software community understands software
licenses better than it understands the public domain "un-license".
john_s...@yahoo.com
> I would have preferred this.
If you don't like web.py going public domain and
can make a good argument, I believe it's still not
too late to convince Aaron not to go public domain.
The version of web.py on his site still says AGPL in it.
Tommi
decision! :)
Adrien Beau
>
> So a while back I took a poll about what license people wanted web.py
> to be under -- giving them the options of the current license, GPL3,
> and Public Domain. Here are the results:
>
> AGPL: 0
> GPLv3: 3.5
> Public domain: 6.5
> Other:
> LGPL: 1
> GPL2: 1
I missed that. I would have voted for an X11-style license, a modern
cleaned-up version of the so-called BSD and MIT licenses which others
have mentioned in this thread already.
You can read more about it here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#X11License
You can read the license itself here:
http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#3
> So I think I'm going to make web.py public domain.
Excellent news! Your previous choice of GPL-style licenses bothered me
greatly ; I felt I had found an excellent and exciting software package
only to discover its license terms were a tad too demanding. Not that I
dislike the GPL, but I felt having such a low-level component impose
its license to any and every application built on top of it, no matter
how trivial or complex, how semi-private, small or hugely successful...
I felt it was slightly on the side of Wrong. I stopped studying webpy
at that point, but no other frameworks-thingies were as appealing. I
was unhappy.
You told us about your desire to have many people share to source code
to their webapps. I understand that, but I don't think a public domain
dedication or an X11-style license will make much of a practical
difference here, compared to a GPL-style license.
I have one issue with public domain dedication, however. I believe I
cannot dedicate my work to the public domain under the French
Intellectual Property Code. I definitely can use your code, but I
believe I cannot contribute to it -- I would have to fork it and put a
license on the result. It is possible there are other countries where
this is also the case.
This is why I would have voted for an X11-style license, the closest
thing there is to public domain.
Anyway, thanks a lot for considering a license change, and thanks for
sharing!
Adrien Beau