discuss: WGPL (WebGPL)

[Bruce Dodson]

I think the GPL itself would be fine for web pages, as long as you make it
clear that your page content is source code as far as you're concerned.  You
can do that by putting the GPL's license notice in a comment block.  But the
trouble there, I guess, is that GPL's idea of linkage doesn't mesh with the
web's idea of linkage... I think the GPL scope would end up extending to
content that you embed (e.g. JavaScript files) but not to other pages that
you link to.

Has anyone looked at the Design Science License http://www.dsl.org/ as an
open source license?  It seems to me this would make sense for content that
doesn't meet a strict definition of "software" in everyone's book (e.g. a
web page) and would also work for parts of the content that are
unambiguously software.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Arromdee" <arromdee at rahul.net>
To: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: discuss: WGPL (WebGPL)


> Does this license make it illegal to use an ad-filtering proxy on the page
> without accepting the license?  After all, using an ad-filtering proxy
> copies and modifies the page, and it's not clear that this is 'running the
> Web'.
>
> What about putting the page on a site like Geocities which automatically
> modifies the code?  Geocities ad-popup code is not GPL, after all.
>
> What exactly is a "web page"?  More specifically, are framed content,
inlined
> images, etc. considered part of the web page?
>
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3