Is Python fit for multi-tired apps?

[Graham Dumpleton]

steven_shaw at users.sourceforge.net (Steven Shaw) wrote in message news:<503ca784.0109262310.461e0dd8 at posting.google.com>...
> grahamd at dscpl.com.au (Graham Dumpleton) wrote in message news:<dc6f5c99.0109191612.5763a09f at posting.google.com>...
> > OSE can be found at "http://ose.sourceforge.net". The documentation for the
> > Python interfaces is more up to date than that for the C++ components, so if
> > you look through that it will give you the best idea of what the system can do.
> 
> As I understand it, OSE cannot be used with proprietary applications.
> Probably something that needs mentioning up front when you are
> promoting it.

I have pushed onto the web site updated versions of some material which
I had ready as part of a bigger release which is pending, which highlights
a little better the options you have with respect to developing proprietary
software. The fact still remains though, that the QPL is no different than
the GPL in respect of restricting your ablity to develop proprietary software
in as much as that both require you to make your source code available for
free if your application is distributed. I don't however see calls being made
for every person who releases a package under the GPL to fore warn people
that you will not be able to develop closed source proprietary applications.
Thus I find a call to add such a warning strange at best.

I actually go to a fair bit of effort on the web site to describe the
implications of the QPL being applied to OSE. This is because in the past
OSE was available under a different license which didn't qualify as an
Open Source license. As OSE has a fair number of corporate users it was
thus important to indicate what the differences were so they knew if they
could still use it without getting a separate license. To my knowledge,
there are few if any other Open Source package which have been released with
any sort of description of the implications to developers of proprietary
applications of using the software. One can speculate that since these
issues aren't discussed that many companies don't bother investigating it
and thus go and use the software anyway, in violation of any license
agreement. Thus perhaps I should drop any discussion of the issues and I
might at least get more users adopting the software even if the way they
use the software isn't legal. :-)

Anyway, I was damned when the software wasn't released as Open Source
and now I am damned because it is. One can't win. :-(