4 ms·
WT has been around for years. It's interesting from a technology standpoint, but before you get too excited, TAL at their license[1]. Gui toolkits often have e
by elromulous 5y ago
WT has been around for years. It's interesting from a technology standpoint, but before you get too excited, TAL at their license[1].
Gui toolkits often have exceptions so that their license doesn't infect the application using it. Not wt. They have only two options, gpl and commercial.
[1] https://github.com/emweb/wt/blob/master/doc/licenses.md https://github.com/emweb/wt/blob/master/doc/licenses.md
- zerr 5y agoFor web development, GPL is not an issue for commercial applications - you are not distributing binaries to the end-user.
- dvdkon 5y agoWt is a frontend framework with some JavaScript components, so you are actually redistributing it.
- zerr 5y agoThe font-end part is already open source anyway.
- cbsmith 5y agoIn the case of Wt, the JavaScript would not be considered the source code.
- freedomben 5y agoYeah this is a big gray area, because in this case the javascript is the build artifact. It's the "compiled" version on the code. I'd love to hear a lawyer weigh in on this.
- 6yyyyyy 5y agoIt's not a grey area at all. The GPL clearly defines source code, and Javascript build artifacts ain't it.
- dvdkon 5y agoSort of, but the question is whether you're producing and distributing a derived work, and I'd say that is the case, even if the parts you're distributing aren't the "important" ones.