The GPL seems weird for a webpage to have in its source code because I don't think of webpages as programs or "software" as the template says. Why is the GPL used for a webpage? I understand it's good for some of the other things that people use Geany to make because those are actual programs. Would the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license be more applicable for webpages? I think I might make some more templates with one of these licenses and/or the HTML 5 format.
Dnia czwartek, 30 grudnia 2010 o 04:53:02 Kete napisał(a):
The GPL seems weird for a webpage to have in its source code because I don't think of webpages as programs or "software" as the template says. Why is the GPL used for a webpage? I understand it's good for some of the other things that people use Geany to make because those are actual programs. Would the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license be more applicable for webpages? I think I might make some more templates with one of these licenses and/or the HTML 5 format.
If a web page contains script, e.g. to write the markup in the browser, the script might be under GPL as well.
Chris
Am Donnerstag, den 30.12.2010, 11:29 +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Żelechowski:
Dnia czwartek, 30 grudnia 2010 o 04:53:02 Kete napisał(a):
The GPL seems weird for a webpage to have in its source code because I don't think of webpages as programs or "software" as the template says. Why is the GPL used for a webpage? I understand it's good for some of the other things that people use Geany to make because those are actual programs. Would the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license be more applicable for webpages? I think I might make some more templates with one of these licenses and/or the HTML 5 format.
If a web page contains script, e.g. to write the markup in the browser, the script might be under GPL as well.
In that case the AGPL may be better, since it guarantees the source to be open. With GPL it would be possible to run a server-side program without having the sources public...
Well, that's philosophy at all... :)
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:06:34 +0100 Dominic Hopf dmaphy@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 30.12.2010, 11:29 +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Żelechowski:
Dnia czwartek, 30 grudnia 2010 o 04:53:02 Kete napisał(a):
The GPL seems weird for a webpage to have in its source code because I don't think of webpages as programs or "software" as the template says. Why is the GPL used for a webpage? I understand it's good for some of the other things that people use Geany to make because those are actual programs. Would the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license be more applicable for webpages? I think I might make some more templates with one of these licenses and/or the HTML 5 format.
If a web page contains script, e.g. to write the markup in the browser, the script might be under GPL as well.
In that case the AGPL may be better, since it guarantees the source to be open. With GPL it would be possible to run a server-side program without having the sources public...
GPLv2 yes, GPLv3 is having some progress at this point ;)
Cheers, Frank
On Thursday December 30, 2010 2:06:34 pm Dominic Hopf wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 30.12.2010, 11:29 +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Żelechowski:
If a web page contains script, e.g. to write the markup in the browser, the script might be under GPL as well.
In that case the AGPL may be better, since it guarantees the source to be open. With GPL it would be possible to run a server-side program without having the sources public...
I think that's a good point because the AGPL is for software that is sent over a network.
Dnia czwartek, 30 grudnia 2010 o 20:06:34 Dominic Hopf napisał(a):
Am Donnerstag, den 30.12.2010, 11:29 +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Żelechowski:
Dnia czwartek, 30 grudnia 2010 o 04:53:02 Kete napisał(a):
The GPL seems weird for a webpage to have in its source code because I don't think of webpages as programs or "software" as the template says. Why is the GPL used for a webpage? I understand it's good for some of the other things that people use Geany to make because those are actual programs. Would the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license be more applicable for webpages? I think I might make some more templates with one of these licenses and/or the HTML 5 format.
If a web page contains script, e.g. to write the markup in the browser, the script might be under GPL as well.
In that case the AGPL may be better, since it guarantees the source to be open. With GPL it would be possible to run a server-side program without having the sources public...
Whether the sources on the server are public or not is completely irrelevant to Geany.
That said, I have no problem with server-side code with a proprietary license.
* If it is not your server, you cannot modify the code anyway. * If it is your server and third-party code, it comes with a binding license already. * If it is your server and your code, you have no obligation to publish the code. In this case, instead of providing the code, you serve your processing power and your bandwidth to the public.
IMHO, Chris
Am Freitag, den 31.12.2010, 10:33 +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Żelechowski:
Whether the sources on the server are public or not is completely irrelevant to Geany.
Well, I was talking about Software one writes using Geany. Usually, the author himself decides under which license the software is he writes.
That said, I have no problem with server-side code with a proprietary license.
- If it is not your server, you cannot modify the code anyway.
If it's a free software license, there is a place where you can download the code and modify it then, and then run it on your own server, if you like, of course.
- If it is your server and third-party code, it comes with a binding license already.
Not sure what you mean by "binding license". But I know free software with which it is possible to use, study, modify and spread even if it is designed to run server-side. Of course, this is just possible because of the license - either AGPLv2+ or GPLv3+ if I understood Frank correctly.
- If it is your server and your code, you have no obligation to publish the code. In this case, instead of providing the code, you serve your processing power and your bandwidth to the public.
That's correct, yes, of course. Talking about Free Software, we talk about Freedom, so one should also have the Freedom to decide if he licenses his software under a free software license or not. :)
In any way, Geany doesn't force an author to put his code under a specific license. Geany does just suggestions by default installation. The templates where the licenses are included, are customizable anyway.
So, to get back to the original topic, I appreciate the idea of suggesting Creative Commons for HTML documents by default. In my opinion, it should suggest AGPLv2+ or GPLv3+ for PHP then (I think it already does so)
Regards, Dominic
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:53:02 -0500 Kete kwfj@suddenlink.net wrote:
The GPL seems weird for a webpage to have in its source code because I don't think of webpages as programs or "software" as the template says. Why is the GPL used for a webpage? I understand it's good for some of the other things that people use Geany to make because those are actual programs. Would the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license be more applicable for webpages? I think I might make some more templates with one of these licenses and/or the HTML 5 format.
If you only have a look onto the content, GFDL or one of the CC would be surely better.If you have a look onto e.g. inline JS you would need a real software license. I think with GPL3 its getting a bit better here in this special case but not this much. However, its not an optimal decision I'm sure to use GPL here, but the templates are completely changeable to fit users purposes.
Cheers, Frank
thanks, everyone, for your replies. it's good to know the gpl is necessary for php and js. it's also good to know either gfdl or cc is more appropriate when there are no scripts
On Thursday December 30, 2010 6:25:11 am Frank Lanitz wrote:
the templates are completely changeable to fit users purposes.
They didn't look "completely" changeable. I could change my name and e-mail address but not the license or the xhtml stuff from the preferences' templates tab, so I was thinking about making a template file to open for new pages.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:22:24 -0500 Kete kwfj@suddenlink.net wrote:
thanks, everyone, for your replies. it's good to know the gpl is necessary for php and js. it's also good to know either gfdl or cc is more appropriate when there are no scripts
Well, these are only suggestion. Of course its depending on the content which license is apply able.
On Thursday December 30, 2010 6:25:11 am Frank Lanitz wrote:
the templates are completely changeable to fit users purposes.
They didn't look "completely" changeable. I could change my name and e-mail address but not the license or the xhtml stuff from the preferences' templates tab, so I was thinking about making a template file to open for new pages.
You can change the system wide templates or just copy it into your local config dir. Maybe you can check http://www.geany.org/manual/current/index.html#file-templates for further details.
Cheers, Frank