Which Python web framework is most like Ruby on Rails?

[Robert Kern]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Richie Hindle <richie at entrian.com> writes:
>>
>>>A good solution would be multiple-licensing.  You state that the
>>>code is (for example) triple-licensed under the GPL, LGPL and BSD
>>>licenses.  The user of your code decides which license to obey.
>>>It's no more work for you, and you can please almost everyone (the
>>>only people you won't please are those who believe that there is One
>>>True License, and frankly you should ignore them - it's your code).
>>
>>That's silly, you might as well just use BSD instead of triple
>>licensing like that.  
> 
> You're pointing out yourself, a few lines lower, while this isn't so:
> 
>>Another downside to BSD is that it becomes impermissible to improve
>>Karrigell by transplanting GPL code into it from other programs.  Yet
> 
> ...which obviously is not a problem if K is available under either GPL
> or BSD at the user's choice: anybody wanting to transplant GPL code into
> it will pick the GPL side of the dual-licensing (I don't see any further
> advantage in adding LGPL to the mix, maybe I'm missing s/thing...).

If K were to be dual licensed GPL/BSD, Pierre could not take some GPLed third
party code, incorporate it into K, and distribute K+3rdparty under both
licenses. 3rdparty would always be under the GPL, and the GPL conditions would
apply to the combination as a whole. That's the scenario Paul is referring to.

Of course, someone who is not Pierre who wants to distribute a web app with K
and some third party GPL module can do so just as well if K is only BSD-licensed
since BSD is compatible with the GPL. Dual licensing would only be necessary if
the alternative licenses were incompatible, e.g. Artistic/GPL like Perl or
MPL/GPL like Mozilla.

-- 
Robert Kern
robert.kern at gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
 Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
  -- Richard Harter