From: "Shot (Piotr Szotkowski)" <shot@...>
Date: 2008-06-26T23:15:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Zed and Luis drop the bomb on Ruby's poor performance

--H8ygTp4AXg6deix2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

grocery_stocker:

> On Jun 23, 7:24=C2=A0am, "M. Edward (Ed)
> Borasky" <zn...@cesmail.net> wrote:

>> The way I interpret open source licenses, if you take an open source
>> toolset, squeeze all the major bottlenecks out of it and put it into
>> production in a server, there's no requirement for you to release the
>> source of your hacks as long as you don't attempt to distribute the
>> resulting binaries. :)

> I could be wrong, but I believe that only
> applies to the BSD license. Not the GNU one.

It applies both to BSD and GPL, but not to AGPL =E2=80=93 which is basicall=
y GPL
plus the clause that the requirement of sharing the code also applies
when the code is distributed over a network, not just as a =E2=80=98binary=
=E2=80=99.

Or, to say it differently: in general, releasing a webapp under the
GPL is a bit pointless, and either BSD or AGPL should be used instead.
(The only case I can think of is the situation when you want a BSD-like
licence, but you incorporate some third-party code that=E2=80=99s GPL-licen=
ced,
so you can=E2=80=99t BSD-licence it.)

-- Shot
--=20
I used to have a drinking problem. Now I love this stuff.

--H8ygTp4AXg6deix2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIY6ami/mCfdEo8UoRAiimAKCqoGWLJnKpzGywPSzca403xtmE4QCguwvO
upnlYIyTXfV4E0l3Me2DpNE=
=Km/X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--H8ygTp4AXg6deix2--