Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001 23:37:25 +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On 26 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > > > DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling > > development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform. > > Yes, and forcing those paying customers to use GPL is very hard (and not > very nice, either). Um. Even if Zope was GPL'd, DC's customers would only be 'forced' to do anything if they redistributed Zope, as opposed to just using it themselves. If DC makes custom changes to Zope for a customer, even DC would only be 'forced' to give the source to those changes to *that* customer which they presumably would do anyway. > > Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a > > proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing. > > No, that's not the issue, since I don't believe there will ever be a large > successfull proprietary version of Zope. I think that is where we differ > in opinions. Which is something that can only be tested by applying time > on it :). I'm a worry-wart :-) Better safe than sorry. > > As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a > > content mangement solution for the southeast asian market. > > I just don't think it would be very successfull. Zope isn't the type of > application that would be great as a closed-source one. I just can't see > that happen; maybe I'm too naive. And maybe I'm too suspicious. Time will tell. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote: > > With great trepidation, I add a post to this thread. As Barry has > mentioned, this has all been discussed a LOT. I'll try to summarize and > clarify a few points: > > 1) I wanted to specifically address something in Michael's post here. > We fully expect people to profit from Zope, even if that means for-fee, > intact redistributions. They simply have to provide credit. Others may > have a different philosophy, but that's ours. This is similar in some > regards to Perl's and Apache, I believe. > > 2) We specifically expect to produce a packaged version of Zope. It's > clear that it's the only way to appeal to the mainstream market. We > hope others do the same. To clarify my opinion here, I have nothing against charging for software. I look forward to boxed retail versions of Zope in the marketplace, whether from DC or someone else. But, I think it would be nice if those redistributions (of Zope itself) also came with source code, even if the distribution included proprietary Zope Products (with no source). I guess I'm trying to draw a line between proprietary add-ons to Zope, and proprietary changes *to* Zope. This would prevent Company X's proprietary Zope Product from only working with Company X's proprietary Zope distribution. This is perhaps not an entirely likely eventuality, but I worry about these things. > 3) Regarding other posts, our license is nearly identical to Apache's > license, close enough legally to say it is the same. Therefore, to say > Zope isn't free enough is to say Apache isn't free enough. Anybody that > says that loses a fair amount of credibility, at least with me. Apache > is an example of a crossover success (open and commercial) that I think > provides a fantastic role model. Apache and Zope are just as Free as GPL'd software, this is true. However GPL'd software is better guaranteed to *remain* Free than BSD-style licenses. If Zope had a GPL-like license that allowed both proprietary and GPL'd Zope Products (which subclass Zope base classes), I would be ecstatic (as opposed to 'merely' happy). I have some code I haven't released (and in a couple of cases, haven't finished) because I can't currently release them as GPL. It's nothing particularly earth-shaking, but there it is. > 4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of > an Apache-style license. > > No approach pleases everyone, unfortunately. We do the best we can. And let me say, Paul, that you and the rest of DC have been doing an excellent job in listening to differing points of view and navigating among them. Thank you for your time, Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Paul Everitt wrote: > It is a *desire* of ours to be GPL-compatible. Not a requirement, as > it can be awfully tricky, complicated, and time-consuming to get > there. But we've told people that we're intending to give it a shot. That's much appretiated :) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
I'd like to add a quick clarification, then I'll reply more later. Frederico brought up a good point that indicated I wasn't clear. It is a *desire* of ours to be GPL-compatible. Not a requirement, as it can be awfully tricky, complicated, and time-consuming to get there. But we've told people that we're intending to give it a shot. --Paul Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > hi, > > i wanted to draw myself from this thread before annoying the whole list, > so i'll take paul mail as an excuse to write some final comments. > > On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote: > >>1) I wanted to specifically address something in Michael's post here. >>We fully expect people to profit from Zope, even if that means for-fee, >>intact redistributions. They simply have to provide credit. Others may >>have a different philosophy, but that's ours. This is similar in some >>regards to Perl's and Apache, I believe. >> > > i think that nobody (ever gpl-oriented people like me) have anything > against making profit from free software. profit means more time and > resources to write even better software, profit is *good*. > > >>2) We specifically expect to produce a packaged version of Zope. It's >>clear that it's the only way to appeal to the mainstream market. We >>hope others do the same. >> > > that's a business strategy. good or bad has nothing to do with > licensing. i wish you all possible luck with a packaged version of zope. > i'll even buy one if includes a well-written well-printed manual about > zope internals... ;-) > > >>3) Regarding other posts, our license is nearly identical to Apache's >>license, close enough legally to say it is the same. Therefore, to say >>Zope isn't free enough is to say Apache isn't free enough. Anybody that >>says that loses a fair amount of credibility, at least with me. Apache >>is an example of a crossover success (open and commercial) that I think >>provides a fantastic role model. >> > > again, i agree. apache. *is* free. zope *is* free. end of the argument. > > >>4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of >>an Apache-style license. >> > > let me try to explain why this is bad and a gpl-compatible license will > be better. a lot of people, like me, wants other use their work, even > for making money. but we want something back. this is why the gpl is > good. if you use my work you can: > > 1/ release your sources under a gpl compatible license; or > > 2/ give me some money for an alternate license: this is good because > i'll use the money to write even more software (see it as an exchange, > you can keep your sources propietary but you finance someone for writing > free code that will be made available to the community.) > > the main problem with licenses like tha apache one is that they allow > people to use public, free code without giving *anything* back. > > with its current license dc is forcing *me* to release under a license > that i don't like (ZPL) because if i release my software unsed the gpl > nobody will be able to redistribute it. this will make more and more > people like me abandon zope first or later (i hope later). the current > license surely does not push away companies that don't want to open > their sources but what good come from that? nothing. no software for us > and no money for dc. > > what if the zpl would be gpl-compatible? the situation will be reversed. > a lot of people will continue to write and distribute zope products and > the occasional company not wanting to release will pay dc and other > developers for an alternate license. this will make *everybody* happy. > > as i said before the *worst* case for zope going gpl-compatible is the > no-harm situation, while going apache-like is a little harm to some > entusiast developers and surely no good. > > i finished. no more mail on this argument, and sorry for my bad english, > i wrote this one in an hurry... > > federico > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
hi, i wanted to draw myself from this thread before annoying the whole list, so i'll take paul mail as an excuse to write some final comments. On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote: > 1) I wanted to specifically address something in Michael's post here. > We fully expect people to profit from Zope, even if that means for-fee, > intact redistributions. They simply have to provide credit. Others may > have a different philosophy, but that's ours. This is similar in some > regards to Perl's and Apache, I believe. i think that nobody (ever gpl-oriented people like me) have anything against making profit from free software. profit means more time and resources to write even better software, profit is *good*. > 2) We specifically expect to produce a packaged version of Zope. It's > clear that it's the only way to appeal to the mainstream market. We > hope others do the same. that's a business strategy. good or bad has nothing to do with licensing. i wish you all possible luck with a packaged version of zope. i'll even buy one if includes a well-written well-printed manual about zope internals... ;-) > 3) Regarding other posts, our license is nearly identical to Apache's > license, close enough legally to say it is the same. Therefore, to say > Zope isn't free enough is to say Apache isn't free enough. Anybody that > says that loses a fair amount of credibility, at least with me. Apache > is an example of a crossover success (open and commercial) that I think > provides a fantastic role model. again, i agree. apache. *is* free. zope *is* free. end of the argument. > 4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of > an Apache-style license. let me try to explain why this is bad and a gpl-compatible license will be better. a lot of people, like me, wants other use their work, even for making money. but we want something back. this is why the gpl is good. if you use my work you can: 1/ release your sources under a gpl compatible license; or 2/ give me some money for an alternate license: this is good because i'll use the money to write even more software (see it as an exchange, you can keep your sources propietary but you finance someone for writing free code that will be made available to the community.) the main problem with licenses like tha apache one is that they allow people to use public, free code without giving *anything* back. with its current license dc is forcing *me* to release under a license that i don't like (ZPL) because if i release my software unsed the gpl nobody will be able to redistribute it. this will make more and more people like me abandon zope first or later (i hope later). the current license surely does not push away companies that don't want to open their sources but what good come from that? nothing. no software for us and no money for dc. what if the zpl would be gpl-compatible? the situation will be reversed. a lot of people will continue to write and distribute zope products and the occasional company not wanting to release will pay dc and other developers for an alternate license. this will make *everybody* happy. as i said before the *worst* case for zope going gpl-compatible is the no-harm situation, while going apache-like is a little harm to some entusiast developers and surely no good. i finished. no more mail on this argument, and sorry for my bad english, i wrote this one in an hurry... federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
With great trepidation, I add a post to this thread. As Barry has mentioned, this has all been discussed a LOT. I'll try to summarize and clarify a few points: 1) I wanted to specifically address something in Michael's post here. We fully expect people to profit from Zope, even if that means for-fee, intact redistributions. They simply have to provide credit. Others may have a different philosophy, but that's ours. This is similar in some regards to Perl's and Apache, I believe. 2) We specifically expect to produce a packaged version of Zope. It's clear that it's the only way to appeal to the mainstream market. We hope others do the same. 3) Regarding other posts, our license is nearly identical to Apache's license, close enough legally to say it is the same. Therefore, to say Zope isn't free enough is to say Apache isn't free enough. Anybody that says that loses a fair amount of credibility, at least with me. Apache is an example of a crossover success (open and commercial) that I think provides a fantastic role model. 4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of an Apache-style license. No approach pleases everyone, unfortunately. We do the best we can. --Paul Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > On 26 Jun 2001 10:29:39 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote: > >Michael "R." Bernstein wrote > >>>Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC >>>doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style >>>license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional >>>attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. >>> >>They will probably lose developer mindshare. Given how important >>this is to Zope's growth (and to DC's growth, as a result), this >>is far far more important than the karma from switching to the >>far less flexible GPL >> > > You're right. I hadn't considered that the ZPL needs to be 'proprietary > compatible' so far as add-on products are concerned. perhaps the LGPL > would suffice, as that would permit creating proprietary Zope products. > But I won't be entirely happy if the ZPL permits proprietary third-party > redistributions of Zope itself. > > >>Your argument seems to be that DC would want to control other companies >>ability to make distributions derived from Zope - unless they've been >>hiding this nefarious plan from the community, this doesn't seem to >>be an objective for them. >> > > Heh. I guess I shouldn't have stuck that in there. An argument I've > occasionally heard for BSD-style licenses is that the original (usually > corporate) author wants to be able to make proprietary releases based on > other peoples contributions. The argument for NPL-style licenses is that > they (the original author) want to be the *only* one with such a > privileged position. DC has never indicated that either of these was > important to them. > > >>As far as a contributor to Zope wanting to keep their work free, then >>if the ZPL is GPL compatible, they can make their components GPLd. >> > > True. > > Michael Bernstein. > > > ___ > Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev > ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** > (Related lists - > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
>>> Michael "R." Bernstein wrote > I guess I don't understand how licensing Python under the GPL would > prevent people from writing proprietary software in Python. embedded or frozen python. I know I'd much rather see Python embedded in applications than Tcl or (god help us all) Javascript/ECCCHMAScript. I can't see cisco agreeing to opensource IOS so that they can embed a decent language in it. -- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling > development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform. Yes, and forcing those paying customers to use GPL is very hard (and not very nice, either). > Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a > proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing. No, that's not the issue, since I don't believe there will ever be a large successfull proprietary version of Zope. I think that is where we differ in opinions. Which is something that can only be tested by applying time on it :). > As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a > content mangement solution for the southeast asian market. I just don't think it would be very successfull. Zope isn't the type of application that would be great as a closed-source one. I just can't see that happen; maybe I'm too naive. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
> "MRB" == Michael R Bernstein writes: MRB> On 26 Jun 2001 10:30:06 -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: >> > "JA" == Jerome Alet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> JA> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all JA> what people usually call "open source" languages, the license JA> of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order JA> for the language in question to not become bastardized by some JA> powerful entity. >> I think I'm accurately channeling Guido when I say that Python >> will never be GPL'd. AFAIK, there is no GPL code even in the >> standard Python distribution. Both of those states of affair >> are by conscious decision: regardless of what you think of the >> GPL (and I personally happen to believe it can be a good >> license for /some/ software, but not all) GPL'ing Python would >> be a very bad thing. Guido has always intended for people to >> do whatever they want with Python, including using it in >> everything from closed source, proprietary, big-$$$ software to >> completely free software. MRB> I guess I don't understand how licensing Python under the GPL MRB> would prevent people from writing proprietary software in MRB> Python. Here's a case in agreement with the above: There's a statistical language, "R", whose implementation is GPL'd. Recently, a research organization in Australia (who shall remain nameless) starting selling a binary package for it to do microarray analysis. So, value-added software, and the question was whether it violated the GPL. Current thinking (as well as that of the R-core team) was to state that if they wanted to profit, fine, as long as they didn't build using GPLd header files (and the core team promptly LGPL'd the headers). best, -tony -- A.J. RossiniRsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics U. of Washington Biostatistics [EMAIL PROTECTED] FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wednesday/friday is unknown) FHCRC: M-Tu : 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email UW:Th : 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001 10:30:06 -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > > > "JA" == Jerome Alet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > JA> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all > JA> what people usually call "open source" languages, the license > JA> of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order > JA> for the language in question to not become bastardized by some > JA> powerful entity. > > I think I'm accurately channeling Guido when I say that Python will > never be GPL'd. AFAIK, there is no GPL code even in the standard > Python distribution. Both of those states of affair are by conscious > decision: regardless of what you think of the GPL (and I personally > happen to believe it can be a good license for /some/ software, but > not all) GPL'ing Python would be a very bad thing. Guido has always > intended for people to do whatever they want with Python, including > using it in everything from closed source, proprietary, big-$$$ > software to completely free software. I guess I don't understand how licensing Python under the GPL would prevent people from writing proprietary software in Python. Compiling a program using gcc doesn't require that the program be GPL'd. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001 09:46:09 +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote: > > > For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people > > usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be > > the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question > > to not become bastardized by some powerful entity. > > I can't see this happening to that entitys success. Could you give me an > example of something like that happening in the past? Microsoft's proprietary version of Kerberos. Kerberos was licensed under a BSD-style license. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 25 Jun 2001 21:54:16 +0200, Jerome Alet wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:22:32PM -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > > > > Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any > > other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? > > ... > > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC > > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style > > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional > > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. > > I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed. > > However we should take into consideration the fact that this would > mandate that any Zope product should be GPLed too, since in the FSF > view we "link" them to Zope. Did anyone ever get an 'official' statement to that effect? Specifically that creating a Zope Product that subclasses Zope base classes would require the product to be GPL'd? What about the LGPL? > The same for Python C extensions, we would link them to a GPLed software > (Python), so they would have to be GPLed too. > > That's why I'm pretty sure that unfortunately both Zope and Python > would loose supporters if they were GPLed. This makes sense. Michael. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001 10:29:39 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote: > > >>> Michael "R." Bernstein wrote > > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC > > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style > > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional > > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. > > They will probably lose developer mindshare. Given how important > this is to Zope's growth (and to DC's growth, as a result), this > is far far more important than the karma from switching to the > far less flexible GPL You're right. I hadn't considered that the ZPL needs to be 'proprietary compatible' so far as add-on products are concerned. perhaps the LGPL would suffice, as that would permit creating proprietary Zope products. But I won't be entirely happy if the ZPL permits proprietary third-party redistributions of Zope itself. > Your argument seems to be that DC would want to control other companies > ability to make distributions derived from Zope - unless they've been > hiding this nefarious plan from the community, this doesn't seem to > be an objective for them. Heh. I guess I shouldn't have stuck that in there. An argument I've occasionally heard for BSD-style licenses is that the original (usually corporate) author wants to be able to make proprietary releases based on other peoples contributions. The argument for NPL-style licenses is that they (the original author) want to be the *only* one with such a privileged position. DC has never indicated that either of these was important to them. > As far as a contributor to Zope wanting to keep their work free, then > if the ZPL is GPL compatible, they can make their components GPLd. True. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001 09:30:49 +1000, Richard Jones wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:22, Michael "R." Bernstein wrote: > > On 25 Jun 2001 10:26:10 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: > > > According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we > > > expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says: > > > > > > "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same > > > license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license > > > like Apache's." > > > > Hmm. So a BSD style license, then. Are there currently any Zope-derived > > distributions that are proprietary (third-party or DC's)? > > Absolutely! We use Zope as a core component in our product that's about to > "hit the shelves". I guess the question is whether your product is simply a combined distribution of Zope and a proprietary product, or if you've made changes to Zope itself. > > If not, does DC anticipate there being this kind of third-party > > proprietary derived distribution in the future? > > Absolutely! We have several products in mind that are based on Zope. Again, are these products making proprietary changes to Zope itself, or simply creating proprietary products and other add-ons to Zope? > We will be distributing the entirety of the source code of all open-source > components of our product. We cannot distribute the source code of our > product - that would be sheer foolishness. We've invested about 2 man-years > in the code, and we're not about to just give that away. Our investors would > string us up! Is your product a 'Zope Product'? If so, I think that's perfectly acceptable, and Zope's license should certainly allow such. Perhaps the LGPL for Zope would work. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 26 Jun 2001 00:29:05 +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On 25 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > > > Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any > > other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? > > Yes. A commercial one; an imperative one. If I make a Zope Python > Product, I must license it as GPL to be able to redistribute. That's just > unacceptable in my eyes. Umm. Yes, you're right. The compatibility needs to go both ways as far as Products are concerned. The Zope license should allow GPL'd Products, as well as proprietary ones.. > > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC > > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style > > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional > > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. > > How do you suppose DC make their monies? I'm quite sure they can't > license Zope under the GPL because they would intimidate their market too > much with it (an assumption that could be wrong, naturally). DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform. > Let's hope they go for a GPL-compatible one. I can't see what they > would/could loose by using a BSD-style one, maybe you have some thoughts > on that? Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing. BSD style licenses permit proprietary free-riders. Contributing anything back to the open-source version is not required (although companies can still choose to do so). As DC is the copyright holder, they have the ability to do this with their work regardless of what license they choose, since they can always relicense or dual-license. But I have a problem allowing other players the same privilege. As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a content mangement solution for the southeast asian market. They go to a lot of trouble to internationalize Zope so it can handle CJK character sets, and translate the management interfaces. then they distribute the entire thing as a proprietary, binary-only, retail software package, and don't contribute back to the existing community i8ln effort. While they would be saddled with maintaining their proprietary fork thereafter, they still reap a huge initial windfall. They can also continue to incorporate improvements from the community with no repurcussions. Now, far be it from me to say that companies that make improvements to Zope are not entitled to a return on their investment, but I think that the example I've given here is one of a disproportionate reward. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
Jerome Alet wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote: > > > > > Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-) > > > > I really can't see that Java has been bastardized by it, though. > > I was told that some java programs only run under windows, that's what I > called bastardization. > > However I don't know for sure, because I don't use Java: I use a beautiful > language instead, and it's called: Python ;-) There sure are python programs that run only under windows too ;) Not that I'd recommend writing them in such a way but it happens, especially if they are developed/debugged under windows only and/or use windows-specific extensions. Banning such extensions also seems stupid, as one of main strengths of python is its extensibility. And the fact that you can't use some stackless python features reasonably under plain c-python does not bother me at all. It would not bother me even if people at Transmeta would make proprietary Crusoe JIT to interpret python bytecodes directly ;) I would say that it would make me very glad instead, even if it causes some python programs make "wrong" assumptions and thus run prohibitively slow even on 1.4 GHz Athlons . -- Hannu ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
Jerome Alet wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Anthony Baxter wrote: > > > > > >>> Jerome Alet wrote > > > I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed. > > > > Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's > > license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose > > to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core > > package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make > > the world a better place? Hopefully Zope will soon be considered a "universally available system library" and this will not matter any more ;) > For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people > usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be > the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to > not become bastardized by some powerful entity. I see GPL as a good license for GCC and other _compiled_ languages, but for an interpreted language GPL or even LGPL could well be viewed as forcing _anything_ written in it to be forced under *GPL. Even more ridiculous would be the situation where pure python modules can be proprietary but modules written in C must be *GPL (think picle vs cPicle) > The problem with plain GPL, as mentionned in my previous message, is that > this would make a lot of people run away. However the LGPL seems to be a > very good choice, because this wouldn't allow the core (of Python or Zope) > to be bastardized with proprietary versions, while still allowing > proprietary products/extensions to be created. AFAIK the ability to be "bastardized" is one of main strengths of python. It would be extremely hard to bastardise the main python (as it requires you to brainwash Guido), but having proprietary (or open-source) versions that behave in some ways differently, like ZODB-python that has transactional persistency seems to be a feature and not a bug of Python license. > And yes, a thounsand times yes, I use the GPL for ideological reasons, > because I really believe this will make the world a better place. "Think global, act local" may be a good slogan for software revolutionaries as well ;) > > I've thought about the LGPL, and doesn't see any argument against it. > I just can't see what LGPL would mean for _whole_ works vs. libraries (or lessers as they are called nowadays ;) --- Hannu ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
> "JA" == Jerome Alet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JA> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all JA> what people usually call "open source" languages, the license JA> of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order JA> for the language in question to not become bastardized by some JA> powerful entity. I think I'm accurately channeling Guido when I say that Python will never be GPL'd. AFAIK, there is no GPL code even in the standard Python distribution. Both of those states of affair are by conscious decision: regardless of what you think of the GPL (and I personally happen to believe it can be a good license for /some/ software, but not all) GPL'ing Python would be a very bad thing. Guido has always intended for people to do whatever they want with Python, including using it in everything from closed source, proprietary, big-$$$ software to completely free software. That's been a key to Python's success, IMO. I don't think anybody's really concerned that forking and bastardizing is a real threat. Heck, if you include Jython/JPython, .NET Python, Vyper, and Stackless there are already forks of Python out in the world getting real use. (C)Python's success hasn't suffered one bit, in fact, it's probably /benefitted/ from them. Cheers, -Barry ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote: > > > Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-) > > I really can't see that Java has been bastardized by it, though. I was told that some java programs only run under windows, that's what I called bastardization. However I don't know for sure, because I don't use Java: I use a beautiful language instead, and it's called: Python ;-) bye, Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote: > Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-) :) I really can't see that Java has been bastardized by it, though. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote: > > > For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people > > usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be > > the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question > > to not become bastardized by some powerful entity. > > I can't see this happening to that entitys success. Could you give me an > example of something like that happening in the past? Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-) bye, Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote: > For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people > usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be > the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question > to not become bastardized by some powerful entity. I can't see this happening to that entitys success. Could you give me an example of something like that happening in the past? ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Anthony Baxter wrote: > > >>> Jerome Alet wrote > > I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed. > > Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's > license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose > to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core > package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make > the world a better place? For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to not become bastardized by some powerful entity. The problem with plain GPL, as mentionned in my previous message, is that this would make a lot of people run away. However the LGPL seems to be a very good choice, because this wouldn't allow the core (of Python or Zope) to be bastardized with proprietary versions, while still allowing proprietary products/extensions to be created. And yes, a thounsand times yes, I use the GPL for ideological reasons, because I really believe this will make the world a better place. But please don't let this thread become the usual licenses flame war... However I'm not blind, and Zope is an existing product which many people use with (and develop) proprietary products. That's why I said that the GPL wouldn't be realistic. I've thought about the LGPL, and doesn't see any argument against it. bye, Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
>>> Michael "R." Bernstein wrote > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. They will probably lose developer mindshare. Given how important this is to Zope's growth (and to DC's growth, as a result), this is far far more important than the karma from switching to the far less flexible GPL. Your argument seems to be that DC would want to control other companies ability to make distributions derived from Zope - unless they've been hiding this nefarious plan from the community, this doesn't seem to be an objective for them. As far as a contributor to Zope wanting to keep their work free, then if the ZPL is GPL compatible, they can make their components GPLd. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
>>> Jerome Alet wrote > I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed. Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make the world a better place? Anthony, who's seen too much of the GPLd-for-GPLs-sake. -- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:22, Michael "R." Bernstein wrote: > On 25 Jun 2001 10:26:10 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: > > According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we > > expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says: > > > > "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same > > license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license > > like Apache's." > > Hmm. So a BSD style license, then. Are there currently any Zope-derived > distributions that are proprietary (third-party or DC's)? Absolutely! We use Zope as a core component in our product that's about to "hit the shelves". > If not, does DC anticipate there being this kind of third-party > proprietary derived distribution in the future? Absolutely! We have several products in mind that are based on Zope. > Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any > other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? I think I've answered that question. We will be distributing the entirety of the source code of all open-source components of our product. We cannot distribute the source code of our product - that would be sheer foolishness. We've invested about 2 man-years in the code, and we're not about to just give that away. Our investors would string us up! Richard -- Richard Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Software Developer, Bizar Software (www.bizarsoftware.com.au) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote: > (Paul says:) "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to > converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some > off-the-shelf license like Apache's." Wow, lobbying the management team at DC is pretty easy ;-). It's good to see that things will be resolved; thanks Shane. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 25 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any > other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? Yes. A commercial one; an imperative one. If I make a Zope Python Product, I must license it as GPL to be able to redistribute. That's just unacceptable in my eyes. (It would probably go against my personal beliefs to do that, but in the business-would you can't barge in with a hard GPL-attitude all over your face and expect people do readily do business with you. That's why we need a transition period; 'till the catch up with us.) I, for one, am quite convinced that most of the revenue Zope help companies create out there is done by proprietary Zope Python Products. With Zope under GPL this wouldn't be possible. (Me thinks.) > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. How do you suppose DC make their monies? I'm quite sure they can't license Zope under the GPL because they would intimidate their market too much with it (an assumption that could be wrong, naturally). Let's hope they go for a GPL-compatible one. I can't see what they would/could loose by using a BSD-style one, maybe you have some thoughts on that? ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:22:32PM -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote: > > Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any > other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? > ... > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed. However we should take into consideration the fact that this would mandate that any Zope product should be GPLed too, since in the FSF view we "link" them to Zope. The same for Python C extensions, we would link them to a GPLed software (Python), so they would have to be GPLed too. That's why I'm pretty sure that unfortunately both Zope and Python would loose supporters if they were GPLed. bye, Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On 25 Jun 2001 10:26:10 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: > According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we > expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says: > > "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same > license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license > like Apache's." Hmm. So a BSD style license, then. Are there currently any Zope-derived distributions that are proprietary (third-party or DC's)? If not, does DC anticipate there being this kind of third-party proprietary derived distribution in the future? Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? As I see it, BSD style licenses ensure that anyone can make proprietary derived distributions. They are very similar to public domain in this regard. The GPL ensures that no-one can make proprietary derived distributions, except that the copyright holder always has the option of releasing under another license if they wish, so dual licensing or changing the license is always an option *if you have contributors assign the copyright of their contributions to you*. NPL (Netscape Public Licence) style licenses try to make it possible for no-one to make proprietary redistributions *except the original author*. The license generally requires contributors to allow the original author to make proprietary redistributions using their contributions even without copyright assignment (or that assignment is implicit in the contribution). Note that re-licensing (or dual licensing) would still require contributors to assign copyright just as with the GPL. Given that DC is the copyright holder for Zope, they would do well (IMO) to consider relicensing Zope under the GPL or LGPL, as that would force anyone who wished to redistribute a proprietary version of Zope to negotiate a separate license with DC, actually strengthening DC's position in that regard, while generally ensuring that contributors work would remain GPL. If some contributor did not wish to let DC relicense their contribution, they could simply not assign the copyright to DC. DC has the option of not adding the contribution into the distribution, or of removing the contribution from any relicensed version. So. The current ZPL is essentially a BSD style license with the optional attribution clauses, and a mandatory advertising clause (although there's an escape hatch too). It seems that the mandatory advertising clause is most applicable when someone creates a proprietary derived distribution of Zope. If there are none such (I'm not aware of any), then the clause is unneccessary. Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain. Note that this is a different option than merely switching to a BSD style license that is 'GPL compatible'. Michael Bernstein. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote: > According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we > expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says: > > "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same > license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license > like Apache's." Why not use the new Python's one instead ? just to know... Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says: "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's." Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-dev]ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 07:49:40PM -0700, ender wrote: > On Saturday 23 June 2001 11:20, Erik Enge wrote: > >>[Simon Michael] > >> > >>| Now you're talking. Seconded. > >> > >>Me too! > > i'd very much like to see a GPL compatible zope license as well, both for > products i create and to integrate with third party gpl products. > > would a petition be useful? As much as I would appreciate it if DC was able (from an economic viewpoint, this it) to release Zope under the GPL, I think that it's much more important that they release Zope under a GPL compatible license (which is definitely a very different thing). If this is what you meant, I agree with all of you ;-) Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-dev]ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Saturday 23 June 2001 11:20, Erik Enge wrote: >>[Simon Michael] >> >>| Now you're talking. Seconded. >> >>Me too! i'd very much like to see a GPL compatible zope license as well, both for products i create and to integrate with third party gpl products. would a petition be useful? kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-dev]ZPL and GPL licensing issues
[Simon Michael] | Now you're talking. Seconded. Me too! And if the management team really needs alot of serious breakdowns as to why this is a problem (GPL-incompatability, that is) let me know and I'll drum up a nice little mail of my own. :) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-dev]ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Now you're talking. Seconded. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-dev]ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Simon Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, I'm guessing there was a shout of joy around the world - it made > my day. I think many of us then said "well thank god for some sanity" PS, and in case that wasn't clear - I want to say a BIG THANK YOU to all who put so much hard work into solving the Python licensing problems. -Simon ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 22 Jun 2001 10:29:19 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote: > On Friday 22 June 2001 04:24, Erik Enge wrote: > > I'd love to lobby DC to start thinking about this, how do I get in > > touch with the management team? It would be great if we could discuss > > this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or similar) and have them read/comment > > on that list. To start off with, it would be great if we could see the > > rationale for the ZPL, and how they think it applies to the current > > situation. > > Explain why it's important to you and why you can't get by on the current > situation. You can send them directly or I can forward emails to the > management. a lot of people use Zope. a lot of people release under the GPL, mainly because they don't want others (companies?) to "use" their code wothout giving back something (their code) or release modified code without giving back the modifications. a lot of people belongs _both_ groups and experience a lot of difficulties releasing code for zope. i think that releasing zope under a gpl-compatible license or under a double license (zpl+gpl, the distributor can choose) will do a lot of good to the people using the gpl and *no harm* to dc, because being dc holder of the copyright can always distribute under alternate licenses, usefull to its business plans, etc. also, the gpl-compatible license seems better to me than double license, because everybody (not only the users on one of the two licenses) will be able to include and distribute *any* code written for zope. ciao, federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Friday 22 June 2001 04:24, Erik Enge wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote: > > Now, if the ZPL were GPL compatible, the GPL would be in full effect > > for products. Digital Creations would automatically have the rights > > to redistribute derivatives of ZWiki. I believe DC would even be > > able to distribute ZWiki with Zope as long as any dependent products > > (such as CMFWiki) are also GPL'ed. Zope itself would not have to be > > GPL'ed since it does not depend in any way on ZWiki. > > Now I think I have two different answers to one of my fundamental > questions in this discussion: if I have a GPL-compatible licensed > product and I distribute it with a GPL product, do I need to relicense > the former one to GPL? Because that is what I understand you to say. > Others have said the opposite. I agree with Morten--yes, you can distribute GPL compatible code and GPL code together. ZWiki is just in a strange position because the GPL is not actually in effect. > > - DC has not changed the ZPL because there hasn't been any strong > > push to make it happen. [...] Make your voice heard. Keep in mind > > that many on the management team don't have time to read the zope-dev > > and zope lists. > > I hope that you guys at DC reading the list make them aware of the fact > that many people as frustrated with this. And it is not a small issue, > either, as I'm sure we are all too aware of. > > I'd love to lobby DC to start thinking about this, how do I get in > touch with the management team? It would be great if we could discuss > this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or similar) and have them read/comment > on that list. To start off with, it would be great if we could see the > rationale for the ZPL, and how they think it applies to the current > situation. Explain why it's important to you and why you can't get by on the current situation. You can send them directly or I can forward emails to the management. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote: > Ok, good. Then Thingamy's intermediate solution will be to create a TPL > which is basically the ZPL with the incompatible-clauses ripped out > (number 4 and 7, I think). That way we are compatible with both the ZPL > and the GPL. Something like that. Verifying the license with the GNU people now. -Morten ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > Yes, you can distribute a GPL-compatible licensed code with GPL > licensed code without licencing the former under GPL. Take a look in > the Linux-kernel source tree for example. Ok, good. Then Thingamy's intermediate solution will be to create a TPL which is basically the ZPL with the incompatible-clauses ripped out (number 4 and 7, I think). That way we are compatible with both the ZPL and the GPL. It's still a mess, though. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote: > Now I think I have two different answers to one of my fundamental > questions in this discussion: if I have a GPL-compatible licensed product > and I distribute it with a GPL product, do I need to relicense the former > one to GPL? Because that is what I understand you to say. Others have > said the opposite. Yes, you can distribute a GPL-compatible licensed code with GPL licensed code without licencing the former under GPL. Take a look in the Linux-kernel source tree for example. And yes, it would be very interesting to see the underlying reason(s) for the ZPL.. Regards, Morten ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Now, if the ZPL were GPL compatible, the GPL would be in full effect > for products. Digital Creations would automatically have the rights > to redistribute derivatives of ZWiki. I believe DC would even be able > to distribute ZWiki with Zope as long as any dependent products (such > as CMFWiki) are also GPL'ed. Zope itself would not have to be GPL'ed > since it does not depend in any way on ZWiki. Now I think I have two different answers to one of my fundamental questions in this discussion: if I have a GPL-compatible licensed product and I distribute it with a GPL product, do I need to relicense the former one to GPL? Because that is what I understand you to say. Others have said the opposite. This is very important. Because if you can't be compatible without escaping to have to relicense to GPL, the GPL is worthless to me. > If your philosophy agrees with the GPL, I urge you to lobby DC to get > the ZPL changed. : > - DC has not changed the ZPL because there hasn't been any strong push > to make it happen. [...] Make your voice heard. Keep in mind that > many on the management team don't have time to read the zope-dev and > zope lists. I hope that you guys at DC reading the list make them aware of the fact that many people as frustrated with this. And it is not a small issue, either, as I'm sure we are all too aware of. I'd love to lobby DC to start thinking about this, how do I get in touch with the management team? It would be great if we could discuss this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or similar) and have them read/comment on that list. To start off with, it would be great if we could see the rationale for the ZPL, and how they think it applies to the current situation. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Jim Penny wrote: > DC and FSF somehow have to come to some understandings of the following > questions. Here is my own view (not DC's offical word!) > Can a GPL (unmodified) component be distributed for Zope (at all)? I think the message by Bradley Kuhn is a little misleading. If you are the original developer, you can distribute your product. The GPL does not try to limit the rights of the original developer. As the original developer you have the rights granted by copyright law, which is a "higher" law than the GPL. The GPL primarily affects redistribution. If, for example, Apple decides they like your product, even though you tried to GPL it they'll have to ask you to re-release your product under a different license before they can redistribute your product since it depends on Zope and the ZPL is not compatible. > Can a GPL (modified per fog) component be distributed for Zope? Yes, but only by the original developer or with permission from the original developer. You can post your product on zope.org, but since the GPL and ZPL aren't compatible, another site cannot mirror your product unless you specifically grant permission. The intent of the GPL is to grant specific redistribution rights to those who receive your product, but since a condition of the GPL cannot be met, the license is effectively meaningless. So what does a voided license mean? It means that the recipient of your product effectively has no rights to redistribute your product in any way, except according to your terms expressed through other means. Now let's say some company decides to take your product and distribute a derivative without source code. Let's say you don't like what they've done and the case goes to court. I'm no lawyer, but as I see it the GPL won't be in effect, yet the fact that you tried to use the GPL clearly demonstrates your intent. The intent was clearly stated from the start. It's hard to say how much legal weight intent really has (especially outside the U.S.), but regardless of the GPL your work would still be covered by copyright law. The only time copyright law no longer applies is when you declare your work to be in the "public domain". > If yes to either, may the component be invoked (dtml-var, dtml-call, > or equivalent) from a non-GPL component? > If yes to either, may the component be subclassed by a non-GPL component? These are really the same question in the eyes of the GPL. The answer is yes, but the non-GPL component can't be distributed except under terms not contained in the GPL. Let's take a real-life example: Simon Michael created the ZWiki product and released it under the GPL. Digital Creations modified it to fit better in the CMF. Digital Creations cannot redistribute the derivative unless Simon (assuming he is the copyright holder) specifically says we can. He holds copyright privileges and can release the work under multiple licenses or under special terms. Now, if the ZPL were GPL compatible, the GPL would be in full effect for products. Digital Creations would automatically have the rights to redistribute derivatives of ZWiki. I believe DC would even be able to distribute ZWiki with Zope as long as any dependent products (such as CMFWiki) are also GPL'ed. Zope itself would not have to be GPL'ed since it does not depend in any way on ZWiki. By the way, the "operating system" clause of the GPL does not apply. The clause is there because it's clear that although an operating system is required to run most GPL'ed software, a *specific* operating system is not required. If there were multiple distinct implementation of the Zope APIs, there would be grounds for a different interpretation of the GPL. So let me summarize: - GPL applied to Zope products is currently meaningless. If, however, the ZPL is made GPL compatible at some time, the GPL will automatically take effect for products that currently attempt to apply the GPL. - As the original developer you can distribute to whomever you please, but trying to use the GPL to grant rights to redistributors is ineffective right now. (Technically, those who receive the product don't have the right to use the product at all, except for the fact that posting it on zope.org and attempting to apply the GPL is a somewhat weak means of expressing permission.) - Unless you're making something substantial, you shouldn't be concerned that your code will be stolen by code sharks. You might consider a dual-licensing scheme where users are allowed to apply either the GPL, when it becomes possible, or some other license. - The GPL is designed to build a pool of software from which anyone can draw as long as they play by the rules. As long as the ZPL is not compatible with the GPL, no one can truly add Zope products to this pool. If your philosophy agrees with the GPL, I urge you to lobby DC to get the ZPL changed. - DC has not changed the ZPL because there hasn't been any strong push to make it happen. I certainly can'
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 21 Jun 2001 21:18:16 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > On 21 Jun 2001 12:07:36 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote: > [snip] > > > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long > > > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your > > > > No, No, no, NO! > > > > The License of PYTHON only applies to modifications, derivations, etc. > > of _PYTHON_, NOT anything _written_ in it. > > > you stand right here. i was thinking about psycopg that actually is C > code that gets linked to python. but the border is not that clear. the > question, as always, is: what if i subclass python core classes > (released under the python license)? but that's a purely academical > question, i think... > At that point, it is rather academic. To carry it to the full, we would then need to look at the license on C, and determine if that had an effect, and I am sure we could carry it down even further, but as you said, it is academic. Almost philosophical. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Erik Enge writes: > Another question which I feel is very related, and to which I cannot get > any real clarification: Can Zope run GPL Zope Python Products without > being relicensed as GPL? I think, we can answer this with a clear yes: As an analogy: You can use a Windows (TM) command line interpreter to start and interact with a GPL programm that in turn call the Windows (TM) operating system services without the need to relicense the Windows (TM) operating system under the GPL. I would expect that you can use any freely available (freely available does not mean non-commercial) product and combine it with GPL components as long as you license *your* integration code under GPL and you do not distribute the non-GPL components in the same package as the GPL components. Another example: You build a complex system consisting of GPL components and a commercial database (say Oracle). I do not expect RMS to require Oracle to become GPL in order for GPL components to interact with it. Not yet, at least. Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:02:34AM -0600, Casey Duncan wrote: > > To me this is the key point. If you GPL license a product (or other > > software) for Zope, you cannot subclass ZPL coded classes in your > > product without violating the GPL. This makes a strict GPL license > > nearly useless for Zope development and incompatible (license-wise) with > > Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the > > "problem", it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO. > > But that's a little bit like standing in front of a mountain and saying "Go > away", isn't it ? > > >From the viewpoint of the GPL, the ZPL is the limiting factor, since it > employs restrictions (does it really ???) regarding the distribution of > binaries, and since it has a advertisement clause that restricts your right > to distribute Zope. > > On the other side, from the viewpoint of the ZPL, these requirements of the > GPL are the limiting factor. > > But I'm afraid the discussion on who's guilty won't solve the problem, which > indeed is perceived by all of us (is it ?). > > Gregor > You are correct my friend. And both sides (DC and FSF) are unwilling to change their licenses for compatibility with the other. So, the incompatibility stands and there is little we can do about it; except understand that it exists and make informed choices that are acceptable to ourselves as developers. That may mean if you are a staunch GPL advocate, adding a "Zope" clause to you license. -- | Casey Duncan | Kaivo, Inc. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `--> ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 21 Jun 2001 12:07:36 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote: [snip] > > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long > > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your > > No, No, no, NO! > > The License of PYTHON only applies to modifications, derivations, etc. > of _PYTHON_, NOT anything _written_ in it. you stand right here. i was thinking about psycopg that actually is C code that gets linked to python. but the border is not that clear. the question, as always, is: what if i subclass python core classes (released under the python license)? but that's a purely academical question, i think... federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] All programmers are optimists. -- Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 21 Jun 2001 17:18:40 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote: > [snip] > > OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating > > system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system? > > May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software? > > May I invoke/run the GPL software? > > > > My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes. > > yes. only if it is free. only if it is free. yes, but only because gpl > allows for gpl code linking with the major components of the os even if > they are proprietary. > > > May I modify the GPL software and distribute it without giving > > downstream the same opportunity. Clearly no. > > > > Now, s/operating system/zope/g > > > > Do the answers to the questions change? And, if so, why? > > > > >From my perspective, and I think from fog's the answer is that > > it should not change the answers. > > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your No, No, no, NO! The License of PYTHON only applies to modifications, derivations, etc. of _PYTHON_, NOT anything _written_ in it. (BTW, according to the gnu site, Python 2.0.1 and 2.1.1 (and later) ARE GPL-compatible :) Bill ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
>> as i said before, writing gpl code subclassing zope is a non-sense. even
>> the author cannot, imho, redistribute its work with a plain gpl attached
>> to it. the gpl says that if you link with gpl code *all* the code should
>> be gpl or gpl-compatible (major os components like clibs, compilers, etc
>> are an exception). so even the author cannot do that without licensing
>> under gpl plus some exception ("as a special exception you're allowed to
>> link this code with zope or any other zope product distributed under the
>> zpl".) see the (in)famous gpl vs. qt thread in the debian mailing lists
>> for an in-depth analisys of this problem.
> To me this is the key point. If you GPL license a product (or other
> software) for Zope, you cannot subclass ZPL coded classes in your
> product without violating the GPL. This makes a strict GPL license
> nearly useless for Zope development and incompatible (license-wise) with
> Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the
> "problem", it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO.
> --
> | Casey Duncan
> | Kaivo, Inc.
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> `-->
Either this is wrong, or I don't get it.
The GPL talks just about _distribution_ of a product,
or more precisely, about the rights of _others_
for distribution.
I can distribute my products with any license I want,
who should have a problem with that and what license
may be violated?
To cite the GPL:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from
the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a
whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License."
and
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim
rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;
rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control
the distribution of derivative or collective works
based on the Program. "
and (from the GPL-FAQ):
"Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL?
Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for
others to use, distribute and change the program.
The developer itself is not bound by it,
so no matter what the developer does,
this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the
GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely
lose moral standing in the community. "
I.e. I also can publish internet explorer specific
javascript under the gpl (or vb-macros for that
matter).
and (also from the GPL-FAQ)
"I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++
and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically
linking my program with the Visual C++ run-time library
permitted under the GPL?
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies
the compiler you are using."
The only problem I see is when someone (DC) wants
to incorporate someone else's GPLed product
together with zope, or when someone wants to modify
someone elses GPLed zope product and distribute it.
But I think even the second part isn't a problem,
because the GPL says (under section 2, the "viral"
part):
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves, then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute
them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program,
the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License,
whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole,
and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
For me that means that as long as I distribute someone elses
GPL'ed zope product without zope, it's ok. I guess that we
all are in agreement that zope "can be reasonably considered
independent and separate work in themselves".
cheers,
oliver
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:02:34AM -0600, Casey Duncan wrote: > To me this is the key point. If you GPL license a product (or other > software) for Zope, you cannot subclass ZPL coded classes in your > product without violating the GPL. This makes a strict GPL license > nearly useless for Zope development and incompatible (license-wise) with > Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the > "problem", it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO. But that's a little bit like standing in front of a mountain and saying "Go away", isn't it ? >From the viewpoint of the GPL, the ZPL is the limiting factor, since it employs restrictions (does it really ???) regarding the distribution of binaries, and since it has a advertisement clause that restricts your right to distribute Zope. On the other side, from the viewpoint of the ZPL, these requirements of the GPL are the limiting factor. But I'm afraid the discussion on who's guilty won't solve the problem, which indeed is perceived by all of us (is it ?). Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2001 11:39:37 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 05:18:40PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > > On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating
> > > > system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system?
> > > > May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software?
> > > > May I invoke/run the GPL software?
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes.
> > >
> > > yes. only if it is free. only if it is free. yes, but only because gpl
> > > allows for gpl code linking with the major components of the os even if
> > > they are proprietary.
> >
> > Uh, you might want to reconsider the "only if it is free" parts. After
> > all Interix had a business of selling GPL software for a non-free
> > OS. Now Microsoft has that business (NT Services for Unix Pack).
> > IBM distributes gcc and perl. Cygwin sells GPL software for non-free
> > OS's.
>
> ops. ok, poorly worded. third parties can distribute only if the os is
> free, vendor can do as he please, obviously...
>
> [snip]
> > > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long
> > > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your
> > > external code from zope. if you write a product suclassing dc code,
> > > you're effectively 'linking' and gpl limitations apply.
> >
> > GPL limitations apply to whom: To you, the developer? To a
> > downstream user invoking the product via dtml-call or dtml-var or their
> > pythonish equivalents? To a downstream developer who modifies your
> > product and redistibutes the modified product? To a downstream
> > developer who writes a component that invokes the GPL component?
> >
> > In my mind the only sensible answers are developer - no,
> > user - no (but see Jerome Alet's codacil), downstream modifier - yes,
> > downstream developer who uses - no.
> >
> > The only other sensible option is that, indeed, no one may distribute
> > GPL components for Zope, including the original developer.
>
> as i said before, writing gpl code subclassing zope is a non-sense. even
> the author cannot, imho, redistribute its work with a plain gpl attached
> to it. the gpl says that if you link with gpl code *all* the code should
> be gpl or gpl-compatible (major os components like clibs, compilers, etc
> are an exception). so even the author cannot do that without licensing
> under gpl plus some exception ("as a special exception you're allowed to
> link this code with zope or any other zope product distributed under the
> zpl".) see the (in)famous gpl vs. qt thread in the debian mailing lists
> for an in-depth analisys of this problem.
>
To me this is the key point. If you GPL license a product (or other
software) for Zope, you cannot subclass ZPL coded classes in your
product without violating the GPL. This makes a strict GPL license
nearly useless for Zope development and incompatible (license-wise) with
Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the
"problem", it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO.
--
| Casey Duncan
| Kaivo, Inc.
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`-->
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
> > > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long
> > > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your
> > > external code from zope. if you write a product suclassing dc code,
> > > you're effectively 'linking' and gpl limitations apply.
> >
> > GPL limitations apply to whom: To you, the developer? To a
> > downstream user invoking the product via dtml-call or dtml-var or their
> > pythonish equivalents? To a downstream developer who modifies your
> > product and redistibutes the modified product? To a downstream
> > developer who writes a component that invokes the GPL component?
> >
> > In my mind the only sensible answers are developer - no,
> > user - no (but see Jerome Alet's codacil), downstream modifier - yes,
> > downstream developer who uses - no.
> >
> > The only other sensible option is that, indeed, no one may distribute
> > GPL components for Zope, including the original developer.
>
> as i said before, writing gpl code subclassing zope is a non-sense. even
> the author cannot, imho, redistribute its work with a plain gpl attached
> to it. the gpl says that if you link with gpl code *all* the code should
> be gpl or gpl-compatible (major os components like clibs, compilers, etc
> are an exception). so even the author cannot do that without licensing
> under gpl plus some exception ("as a special exception you're allowed to
> link this code with zope or any other zope product distributed under the
> zpl".) see the (in)famous gpl vs. qt thread in the debian mailing lists
> for an in-depth analisys of this problem.
>
> ciao,
> federico
OK, this is essentially what I wanted. Now the problem is completely
distilled.
DC and FSF somehow have to come to some understandings of the following
questions.
Can a GPL (unmodified) component be distributed for Zope (at all)?
Can a GPL (modified per fog) component be distributed for Zope?
If yes to either, may the component be invoked (dtml-var, dtml-call,
or equivalent) from a non-GPL component?
If yes to either, may the component be subclassed by a non-GPL component?
Jim
>
> --
> Federico Di Gregorio
> MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The number of the beast: vi vi vi. -- Delexa Jones
>
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 21 Jun 2001 11:39:37 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 05:18:40PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating
> > > system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system?
> > > May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software?
> > > May I invoke/run the GPL software?
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes.
> >
> > yes. only if it is free. only if it is free. yes, but only because gpl
> > allows for gpl code linking with the major components of the os even if
> > they are proprietary.
>
> Uh, you might want to reconsider the "only if it is free" parts. After
> all Interix had a business of selling GPL software for a non-free
> OS. Now Microsoft has that business (NT Services for Unix Pack).
> IBM distributes gcc and perl. Cygwin sells GPL software for non-free
> OS's.
ops. ok, poorly worded. third parties can distribute only if the os is
free, vendor can do as he please, obviously...
[snip]
> > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long
> > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your
> > external code from zope. if you write a product suclassing dc code,
> > you're effectively 'linking' and gpl limitations apply.
>
> GPL limitations apply to whom: To you, the developer? To a
> downstream user invoking the product via dtml-call or dtml-var or their
> pythonish equivalents? To a downstream developer who modifies your
> product and redistibutes the modified product? To a downstream
> developer who writes a component that invokes the GPL component?
>
> In my mind the only sensible answers are developer - no,
> user - no (but see Jerome Alet's codacil), downstream modifier - yes,
> downstream developer who uses - no.
>
> The only other sensible option is that, indeed, no one may distribute
> GPL components for Zope, including the original developer.
as i said before, writing gpl code subclassing zope is a non-sense. even
the author cannot, imho, redistribute its work with a plain gpl attached
to it. the gpl says that if you link with gpl code *all* the code should
be gpl or gpl-compatible (major os components like clibs, compilers, etc
are an exception). so even the author cannot do that without licensing
under gpl plus some exception ("as a special exception you're allowed to
link this code with zope or any other zope product distributed under the
zpl".) see the (in)famous gpl vs. qt thread in the debian mailing lists
for an in-depth analisys of this problem.
ciao,
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The number of the beast: vi vi vi. -- Delexa Jones
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 05:18:40PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote: > [snip] > > OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating > > system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system? > > May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software? > > May I invoke/run the GPL software? > > > > My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes. > > yes. only if it is free. only if it is free. yes, but only because gpl > allows for gpl code linking with the major components of the os even if > they are proprietary. Uh, you might want to reconsider the "only if it is free" parts. After all Interix had a business of selling GPL software for a non-free OS. Now Microsoft has that business (NT Services for Unix Pack). IBM distributes gcc and perl. Cygwin sells GPL software for non-free OS's. > > > May I modify the GPL software and distribute it without giving > > downstream the same opportunity. Clearly no. > > > > Now, s/operating system/zope/g > > > > Do the answers to the questions change? And, if so, why? > > > > >From my perspective, and I think from fog's the answer is that > > it should not change the answers. > > err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long > as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your > external code from zope. if you write a product suclassing dc code, > you're effectively 'linking' and gpl limitations apply. GPL limitations apply to whom: To you, the developer? To a downstream user invoking the product via dtml-call or dtml-var or their pythonish equivalents? To a downstream developer who modifies your product and redistibutes the modified product? To a downstream developer who writes a component that invokes the GPL component? In my mind the only sensible answers are developer - no, user - no (but see Jerome Alet's codacil), downstream modifier - yes, downstream developer who uses - no. The only other sensible option is that, indeed, no one may distribute GPL components for Zope, including the original developer. > > > Maybe the easy way out of this is to simply declare zope an > > "operating system" rather than an "application". Snippy > > thoughts cut here. > > eheh. nice try... :) > > -- > Federico Di Gregorio > MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:08:30AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote: > OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating > system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system? > May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software? > May I invoke/run the GPL software? > > My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes. > > May I modify the GPL software and distribute it without giving > downstream the same opportunity. Clearly no. > > Now, s/operating system/zope/g > > Do the answers to the questions change? And, if so, why? > > >From my perspective, and I think from fog's the answer is that > it should not change the answers. > > Maybe the easy way out of this is to simply declare zope an > "operating system" rather than an "application". Snippy > thoughts cut here. The specific exception in the GPL reads: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I.e. if you declared Zope an operating system on its own (which is certainly arguable), then you could link GPL components with Zope (be it scripts, Zope products, or C libraries) without worrying about the license of Zope. Still, this would not include add-ons to Zope that are not distributed with the main Zope distribution. I.e. you would not be allowed to use ZPL add-on products alongside with GPL components (the add-ons didn't come with the OS, therefore the exception doesn't cover them). Strange, isn't it ? Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote: [snip] > OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating > system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system? > May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software? > May I invoke/run the GPL software? > > My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes. yes. only if it is free. only if it is free. yes, but only because gpl allows for gpl code linking with the major components of the os even if they are proprietary. > May I modify the GPL software and distribute it without giving > downstream the same opportunity. Clearly no. > > Now, s/operating system/zope/g > > Do the answers to the questions change? And, if so, why? > > >From my perspective, and I think from fog's the answer is that > it should not change the answers. err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your external code from zope. if you write a product suclassing dc code, you're effectively 'linking' and gpl limitations apply. > Maybe the easy way out of this is to simply declare zope an > "operating system" rather than an "application". Snippy > thoughts cut here. eheh. nice try... :) -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: > * Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-06-20 19:12]: > > > As far as I can tell you are wrong, but there are certainly gray > > areas. The last time this came up I wrote such a scenario up and > > tried to get FSF clarification. Nothing ever came back. > > I got a clarification from the FSF. It's in the mailing list > archives at > > http://lists.zope.org/pipermail/zope/2000-September/118024.html > > Some topics never die :-) I went and reread the "clarification". OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating system may I install a piece of GPL software on the operating system? May I redistribute the operating system? With the GPL software? May I invoke/run the GPL software? My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes. May I modify the GPL software and distribute it without giving downstream the same opportunity. Clearly no. Now, s/operating system/zope/g Do the answers to the questions change? And, if so, why? >From my perspective, and I think from fog's the answer is that it should not change the answers. Maybe the easy way out of this is to simply declare zope an "operating system" rather than an "application". Snippy thoughts cut here. > > Cheers, > Nils > > ___ > Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev > ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** > (Related lists - > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:50:03PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote: > > Please, don't try to critize the FSF just for the fun of it. > > I did not intend any fun, nor criticism. > > > Have you read the FSF's comment about the original 'obnoxious > > advertising > > clause' ? The problem is a practical one, and a real one: The old BSD > > license said that, if you incorporated their code in your > > product, every > > advertisement for your product had to carry this line: > > > > This product includes software developed by the University of > > California, Berkeley and its contributors. > > Yes, but thats *not* what the ZPL clause 4 says. > > ZPL says you only need to include the acknowledgement in an > advertisement "mentioning features derived from or use of > this software". > > As I read this you need not include the acknowlegement if > your advertisement: > a. does not mention features derived from Zope > b. does not mention that it uses Zope Ooops, sorry, yes, you're right. I misread your posting. The original BSD license indeed can be obnoxious (I hope you agree). The ZPL has a few precautions against this (additionally to a. and b., there's also the exception that the clause is waived when the product includes an 'intact Zope distribution'), so this is certainly much better than the original BSD clause. Point taken. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
> > >and the 'obnoxious advertising clause' > > >seemingly puts a stop to it.. > > > > I understand that 'obnoxious advertising clause' is the > phrase used by > > the FSF to describe this type of license clause, however I wonder > > whether you (personally, or as an organisation) really find it to be > > 'obnoxious'? > > > > Personally, I am *happy* to respect clause 4. > > Please, don't try to critize the FSF just for the fun of it. I did not intend any fun, nor criticism. > Have you read the FSF's comment about the original 'obnoxious > advertising > clause' ? The problem is a practical one, and a real one: The old BSD > license said that, if you incorporated their code in your > product, every > advertisement for your product had to carry this line: > > This product includes software developed by the University of > California, Berkeley and its contributors. Yes, but thats *not* what the ZPL clause 4 says. ZPL says you only need to include the acknowledgement in an advertisement "mentioning features derived from or use of this software". As I read this you need not include the acknowlegement if your advertisement: a. does not mention features derived from Zope b. does not mention that it uses Zope ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Nils Kassube wrote: > * Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-06-20 19:12]: > > > As far as I can tell you are wrong, but there are certainly gray > > areas. The last time this came up I wrote such a scenario up and > > tried to get FSF clarification. Nothing ever came back. > > I got a clarification from the FSF. It's in the mailing list archives > at [...] So, the outcome is that one cannot use GPL Zope Python Products and distribute the system. That sounds logical, since ZPL is not GPL compatible. What then, is to "distribute the system"? If I install GUM (GPL) on a clients Zope instance, have I distributed anything? Is it putting it on the same website, same tarball, under the same invoice of consultant services or what? Help. Can I raise I question without getting flamed (since the question isn't rethorical but a sincear one): was the "advertisement"-clauses in the ZPL meant to secure Zope's progress to become a big and respected piece of software? Has it not secured that now? My real question is: what good will the advertisement-clauses do us now? What harm would it do to remove them? (No, that last one isn't rethorical :-) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:47:49AM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:50:33 +0200 (CEST), "Morten W. Petersen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >and the 'obnoxious advertising clause' > >seemingly puts a stop to it.. > > I understand that 'obnoxious advertising clause' is the phrase used by > the FSF to describe this type of license clause, however I wonder > whether you (personally, or as an organisation) really find it to be > 'obnoxious'? > > Personally, I am *happy* to respect clause 4. Please, don't try to critize the FSF just for the fun of it. Have you read the FSF's comment about the original 'obnoxious advertising clause' ? The problem is a practical one, and a real one: The old BSD license said that, if you incorporated their code in your product, every advertisement for your product had to carry this line: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. As long as there was only this UCB license, this was no real problem. But imagine you're preparing a *BSD distribution, and you're using material from a dozen different sources. Would you like to include something like this in every advertisement for a *BSD CD-ROM ? This product includes software developed by the University of Clifornia, Berkeley and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Dalifornia, Derkeley and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Edinburgh, UK and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Frankfurt, Germany, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Gimian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Himian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Kimian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Limian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Nimian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Ximian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Ximian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Timian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Red, NY, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Brown, OH, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Green, IL, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Blue, IL, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Taipeh, Taiwan and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Greenland and its contributors. This is why the FSF calls this clause obnoxious (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html). I don't know about you, but IMHO they're right at this point. Gregor PS: Please also note that the University of California, where this clause originated, has removed it from their licenses. I don't think they did it without a reason. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:50:33 +0200 (CEST), "Morten W. Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >and the 'obnoxious advertising clause' >seemingly puts a stop to it.. I understand that 'obnoxious advertising clause' is the phrase used by the FSF to describe this type of license clause, however I wonder whether you (personally, or as an organisation) really find it to be 'obnoxious'? Personally, I am *happy* to respect clause 4. Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
* Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-06-20 19:12]: > As far as I can tell you are wrong, but there are certainly gray > areas. The last time this came up I wrote such a scenario up and > tried to get FSF clarification. Nothing ever came back. I got a clarification from the FSF. It's in the mailing list archives at http://lists.zope.org/pipermail/zope/2000-September/118024.html Some topics never die :-) Cheers, Nils ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 21 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > if your product derives from GUM or uses internal interfaces, no, you > can't. if your product uses only well the defined external api or > access gum through zope, then, imho, yes. Ok, that's good. Then it means we can potentially use GPL Zope Python Products with non-copyleft ones. > good question. imho, licensing a zope product under gpl is a non-sense > because you won't be able to use it (usually products inherit on zope > classes) and respect the gpl at the same time. that's why i always > release under a double license. i really hope dc will release zope > under a gpl compatible license soon or later. Because if you have a gpl-compatible license you dont have to relicense to redistribute, right? > yes. terrible, terrible problem. but, please don't see that as a > "license war". different people like different licenses for different > reasons and that's Right (TM). this "war" is just all of us trying to > cooperate to put free software to a better use. Amen to that :-) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
i'll try to answer as clearly as possible but remeber that what follows are *my* oppinions, not mixad live's nor debian's. On 21 Jun 2001 10:52:28 +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: [snip] > If I have the proprietory program P (that is the clients business-process > workflow application *phew*) as a Zope Python Product and then we have > Morten's GUM under the GPL, which also is a Zope Python Product, can P > application utilise GUM without having to be relicensed as GPL? (And I > realise that the word "utilise" is ambigous, that was intentional.) if your product derives from GUM or uses internal interfaces, no, you can't. if your product uses only well the defined external api or access gum through zope, then, imho, yes. > Another question which I feel is very related, and to which I cannot get > any real clarification: Can Zope run GPL Zope Python Products without > being relicensed as GPL? good question. imho, licensing a zope product under gpl is a non-sense because you won't be able to use it (usually products inherit on zope classes) and respect the gpl at the same time. that's why i always release under a double license. i really hope dc will release zope under a gpl compatible license soon or later. > "use [...] in your work", what does that mean? Subclassing? Interaction > between the products in a management-interface? i personally consider subclassing as linking. > Hm. What about a ZPL Zope Python Product and a GPL Zope Python > Product? Isn't the problem exactly the same? yes. terrible, terrible problem. but, please don't see that as a "license war". different people like different licenses for different reasons and that's Right (TM). this "war" is just all of us trying to cooperate to put free software to a better use. federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] The number of the beast: vi vi vi. -- Delexa Jones ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > You're not allowed to distribute a derived work of GPL code with proprietary > code incorporated. Ok, this is the situation. We in Thingamy usually create all our products under the GPL. Then we give the whole shebang to the client we have been working for and they have all the lovely rights that they should have. If they want to redistribute, they can. Then, we have the other clients, that's the clients that are scared shitless from the GPL because if someone gets ahold of the code, that is their business-processes, it could be devastating for their business. It is a semi-legitimate fear, but only if they have the intention of actually redistributing the code (eg. becomming software-vendors, which some actually want to do...). If I have the proprietory program P (that is the clients business-process workflow application *phew*) as a Zope Python Product and then we have Morten's GUM under the GPL, which also is a Zope Python Product, can P application utilise GUM without having to be relicensed as GPL? (And I realise that the word "utilise" is ambigous, that was intentional.) To ask again, if it was unclear: can I use GPL Zope Python Products with non-copylefted Zope Python Products without relicensing? It is imperative for me as a professional Zope-developer (ie, I charge for my services) to know the answer to that question, and I should think it is vital to other developers as well. Surely someone from DC already as the answer? Another question which I feel is very related, and to which I cannot get any real clarification: Can Zope run GPL Zope Python Products without being relicensed as GPL? All the GPL Zope Python Products I've writted as subclassed from Persistent, for example. > I. e. if you want to use that GPL code in your work, you'll have to > make the proprietary code available under a GPL-compatible license as > well (not necessarily the GPL itself). "use [...] in your work", what does that mean? Subclassing? Interaction between the products in a management-interface? > The Zope license doesn't even get into the play here. It's all between > the GPL and your proprietary license. Hm. What about a ZPL Zope Python Product and a GPL Zope Python Product? Isn't the problem exactly the same? ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Hmm, I think this discussion doesn't belong to zope-dev. It's very informitive to me so far. I have no problem with discussing it here. -Michel ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 20 Jun 2001 13:12:20 -0400, Jim Penny wrote: > Also, as an aside, if this really concerns you, you might wish to > consider contacting the author of the GPL product. There is nothing > to prevent him from giving you different licensing terms. For > most GPL authors, this comes down to a simple question: "Are > you trying to be excellent unto them", or are you trying to > "use slash and burn agriculture". If you are using, improving, > giving feedback, writing documentation, helping publicise, or > otherwise aiding them, they are likely to cut you a bit of slack. > If you see the author as someone you can simply take advantage of, > he is not so likely to cooperate with you. i think this express extremely what i (we?) feel. as long as you give back *something* you're wellcome. ciao, federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] The reverse side also has a reverse side. -- Japanese proverb ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:05:43PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote: > > It appears to me, that, if you want to play it safe, you would > > not distribute the code under license G and license T on the same > > medium. It is certainly acceptable to call code released under > > license G from code released under license T; but it is not clear > > that you can do subclassing and such. > > I think this is wrong. Providing things on the same media is "mere > aggregation" and therefore not a problem on its own. BTW, I was responding to a question implicit in the original message, but not explicitly asked. The question is "How do I minimize risk of inadvertant 'GPL Contamination'?". In this view, if you never distribute GPL and non-GPL code on the same medium, you have made a small step in making sure that they are considered as separate entities. After all, one of the more ambiguous part of the GPL is what is "mere aggregation" and what is a "combined work". It is somewhat easier to consider something a combined work if it is always distributed with GPL code. Jim > > It's not acceptable, though, to distribute a proprietary program that has to > be linked with a GPL component by the customer--even if you distribute this > on separate medias! > > If you're interested in this, feel free to come over to debian-legal and > read the ongoing discussion. > > Gregor > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Hmm, I think this discussion doesn't belong to zope-dev.
Still, for those interested in that topic: I raised a similar question on
the debian-legal mailing list just yesterday ("Q: Combining proprietary code
and GPL for in-house use"). The discussion is still ongoing, and it
certainly gives you some insight in the topic:
http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/Debian-Linux/208/25/5997636/
Just a few points: It looks that from the viewpoint of the FSF, when you're
using the header files of a GPL library, you already have to accept the
license.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> It appears to me, that, if you want to play it safe, you would
> not distribute the code under license G and license T on the same
> medium. It is certainly acceptable to call code released under
> license G from code released under license T; but it is not clear
> that you can do subclassing and such.
I think this is wrong. Providing things on the same media is "mere
aggregation" and therefore not a problem on its own.
It's not acceptable, though, to distribute a proprietary program that has to
be linked with a GPL component by the customer--even if you distribute this
on separate medias!
If you're interested in this, feel free to come over to debian-legal and
read the ongoing discussion.
Gregor
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:38:03AM -0500, Steve Drees wrote: > Here comes the liscence wars again. > > Still haven't figured out how GPL became the holy grail. The license dicussion takes place elsewhere as all of you surely know. License wars tend to come up at various places but are usually not competent discussions. Thus I recommend not to start a thread on licensing basics here at this place. Jan -- Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/ Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/ FreeGIShttp://freegis.org/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:27:08PM +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On 20 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > > i am sure that the QPL and the ZPL are completely incompatible but > > nobody cares because nobody really thinks that one is better than the > > other... > > I might be misunderstanding here, if that's the case I appologies. > > Just to clarify, for us at Thingamy (and I'm quite sure this is the real > case behind the license issues) it comes down to business-issues. I do > very much care whether or not I can use a GPL Zope Python Product with my > ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product. If I can't, and someone tells me I need to > relicense my product as GPL it would be very bad. > > An example could be if I had application G, Z, P. G is a GPL'ed Zope > Python Product, Z is a ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product and P is some > proprietory stuff I developed for my client. Now, if the proprietory > application P interacts with my Z application and Z needs to become GPL, > then that would/could require the proprietary stuff I did for the client > to become GPL as well. > > Then, I get hell. If the client has to disclose their business > trade-secrets, the stuff that really makes them them, I'd be sued so hard > I'd see stars for another three decades :) > > Or am I wrong (I'd absolutely love to be!)? As far as I can tell you are wrong, but there are certainly gray areas. The last time this came up I wrote such a scenario up and tried to get FSF clarification. Nothing ever came back. The questions arise from the sections around the "mere aggregation" paragraph. Quoting: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. ... In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. It appears to me, that, if you want to play it safe, you would not distribute the code under license G and license T on the same medium. It is certainly acceptable to call code released under license G from code released under license T; but it is not clear that you can do subclassing and such. But, I think that if you clearly make sure that your programs are identifiable stand-alone objects that invoke a GPL'ed program via an API that could be (in principle) be reimplemented in by a non-GPL program, you are fine. However, if you must modify the GPL program for your license T program to work, make sure that you keep these modifications cleanly separate. (And feed them back upstream if at all possible). But, http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html has a lot of information. Especially note the sections titled Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free program? What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"? and I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this? Something like Zope is a nightmare for GPL legalists. Zope pre-exists and is not GPL. GPL plug-ins exist, but aren't at "arms-length" to the extent of fork-and-exec. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to conceive that any author of a GPL plug-in is going to object to your _using_ it. The question is going to arise when you _extend_ it. But be careful to read licensing of each package. For example, Jerome Alet, author of ZShell has a somewhat stronger position concerning his code. See http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome/zshell/LICENSE Also, as an aside, if this really concerns you, you might wish to consider contacting the author of the GPL product. There is nothing to prevent him from giving you different licensing terms. For most GPL authors, this comes down to a simple question: "Are you trying to be excellent unto them", or are you trying to "use slash and burn agriculture". If you are using, improving, giving feedback, writing documentation, helping publicise, or otherwise aiding them, they are likely to cut you a bit of slack. If you see the author as someone you can simply take advantage of, he is not so likely to cooperate with you. Jim Penny > > > ___ > Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev > ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** > (Related lists - > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
RE: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 20 Jun 2001 18:27:08 +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On 20 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > > i am sure that the QPL and the ZPL are completely incompatible but > > nobody cares because nobody really thinks that one is better than the > > other... > > I might be misunderstanding here, if that's the case I appologies. no, you're quite right. but we have two different problems here: 1/ your problem 2/ wheter a gpl zope product can exists first some notes on 2. i don't know if python code loading other python code counts as "linking" but if that is the case, no gpl zope product can exists (same problem with python, but there is at least one gpl-compatible release of python around.) for example, that's why psycopg, for example, is released under a double license. you can use the gpl if your product is gpl'ed or the zpl when using zpsycopgda in zope (and only then: you can include psycopg in your code without respecting the gpl *only* when using zope and zpsycopgda.) to your problem now... > Just to clarify, for us at Thingamy (and I'm quite sure this is the real > case behind the license issues) it comes down to business-issues. I do > very much care whether or not I can use a GPL Zope Python Product with my > ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product. If I can't, and someone tells me I need to > relicense my product as GPL it would be very bad. > > An example could be if I had application G, Z, P. G is a GPL'ed Zope > Python Product, Z is a ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product and P is some > proprietory stuff I developed for my client. Now, if the proprietory > application P interacts with my Z application and Z needs to become GPL, > then that would/could require the proprietary stuff I did for the client > to become GPL as well. you are quite right. but here, again, we have a lexical problem. are zope products really linked? gpl forbids liking but there is no problem, for example, in piping the data froma gpl'ed program to a proprietary one. i can only say that **if** zope products count as linked, you can't in any way use gpl code without releasing *all* the code under a gpl compatible license (P included.) anyway, is much better for you to ask the author of the gpl'ed program for an alternate license. a lot of people will be happy to allow you to use the program in a proprietary software for a little (or not so little) fee... and if you have those problems is because you think you'll make some money out of it, right? other people won't and your only option is to rewrite the product or (much better!) ask the customer to release under the gpl. > Then, I get hell. If the client has to disclose their business > trade-secrets, the stuff that really makes them them, I'd be sued so hard > I'd see stars for another three decades :) i'll finish with some bad words, sorry: if the client is so worried about intellectual property and secrets why is he even thinking about free software? free software is good in a lot (in a different context i would say 'all') of cases but imposes some constraints ont your work and (unfortunately) *even* on your clients. ciao, federico -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] Qu'est ce que la folie? Juste un sentiment de liberté si fort qu'on en oublie ce qui nous rattache au monde... -- J. de Loctra ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:27:08PM +0200, Erik Enge wrote: > On 20 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > > i am sure that the QPL and the ZPL are completely incompatible but > > nobody cares because nobody really thinks that one is better than the > > other... > > I might be misunderstanding here, if that's the case I appologies. > > Just to clarify, for us at Thingamy (and I'm quite sure this is the real > case behind the license issues) it comes down to business-issues. I do > very much care whether or not I can use a GPL Zope Python Product with my > ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product. If I can't, and someone tells me I need to > relicense my product as GPL it would be very bad. > > An example could be if I had application G, Z, P. G is a GPL'ed Zope > Python Product, Z is a ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product and P is some > proprietory stuff I developed for my client. Now, if the proprietory > application P interacts with my Z application and Z needs to become GPL, > then that would/could require the proprietary stuff I did for the client > to become GPL as well. You're not allowed to distribute a derived work of GPL code with proprietary code incorporated. I. e. if you want to use that GPL code in your work, you'll have to make the proprietary code available under a GPL-compatible license as well (not necessarily the GPL itself). The Zope license doesn't even get into the play here. It's all between the GPL and your proprietary license. The crucial point is whether a work is a derived work of GPL code. The FSF says that mixing pieces of proprietary and GPL scripts in an application is a derived work indeed. Other people deny this. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 20 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > i am sure that the QPL and the ZPL are completely incompatible but > nobody cares because nobody really thinks that one is better than the > other... I might be misunderstanding here, if that's the case I appologies. Just to clarify, for us at Thingamy (and I'm quite sure this is the real case behind the license issues) it comes down to business-issues. I do very much care whether or not I can use a GPL Zope Python Product with my ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product. If I can't, and someone tells me I need to relicense my product as GPL it would be very bad. An example could be if I had application G, Z, P. G is a GPL'ed Zope Python Product, Z is a ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product and P is some proprietory stuff I developed for my client. Now, if the proprietory application P interacts with my Z application and Z needs to become GPL, then that would/could require the proprietary stuff I did for the client to become GPL as well. Then, I get hell. If the client has to disclose their business trade-secrets, the stuff that really makes them them, I'd be sued so hard I'd see stars for another three decades :) Or am I wrong (I'd absolutely love to be!)? ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On 20 Jun 2001 10:38:03 -0500, Steve Drees wrote: > Here comes the liscence wars again. > > Still haven't figured out how GPL became the holy grail. the terms on the gpl are (by choice) the strictiest (does that word even exists?) ever seen in a free software license. but a lot of people 'believe' in free software and have elected the gpl as their license of choice. because of their true faith :) they are also pickier at license compatibility. i am sure that the QPL and the ZPL are completely incompatible but nobody cares because nobody really thinks that one is better than the other... anyway, don't see it as a war. it is more like natural selection... federico (a real believer :) ) -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] Qu'est ce que la folie? Juste un sentiment de liberté si fort qu'on en oublie ce qui nous rattache au monde... -- J. de Loctra ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Hi, On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:33PM +0200, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > Anyways, I'm wondering if any of you have encountered the same issue > developing Zope products and any solutions towards it. we (Intevation) would very much welcome if Zope would be licensed with a GPL compatible license. Since Intevation never develops software with licenses incompatible with GPL we may sooner or later need to look for alternatives to Zope. So, yes we see this as a serious issue and I hope the solution will be to exchange the ZPL by a GPL-compatible one. Jan -- Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/ Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/ FreeGIShttp://freegis.org/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:33PM +0200, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > we @ thingamy are considering changing our license to a ZPL-ish one [1] to > better serve our clients' needs. However, some of the (Zope) products > we've developed may need to rely on GPL'ed code, or needs to be > incorporated within it, and the 'obnoxious advertising clause' > seemingly puts a stop to it.. > > The ZPL is listed as a license incompatible with the GPL, but it doesn't > really say clearly what the reason is, as far as we can figure, it's > because of the advertising clause. > > Anyways, I'm wondering if any of you have encountered the same issue > developing Zope products and any solutions towards it. I recently asked RMS about this exact question. He studied the license and said that another problem field is that the license is not clear whether modified versions can be distributed in binary form (paragraph 7 of the ZPL). I hope he doesn't mind me quoting the second part of his exact words: "... If the Zope developers are willing to make just one change, I hope they will clarify section 7 to clearly say that modified binaries may be distributed if labeled as unofficial. If they would like to make the license GPL-compatible as well, that would require a few more changes: * Section 4 would have to go. * The license would have to allow distribution of modified sources, not just source patches. * Instead of saying that modified versions have to be "labeled as unofficial", it would have to say they must be labeled as modified and by whom. (That is what the GPL requires.) If they don't want to make that much change, well, being incompatible with the GPL is unfortunate but not disastrous. But I hope they will clarify the issue of modified binaries, because that issue could be disastrous. Please invite them to contact me directly to talk about this. I forwarded that mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I have no idea if consultations are going on between them. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
Hi there, we @ thingamy are considering changing our license to a ZPL-ish one [1] to better serve our clients' needs. However, some of the (Zope) products we've developed may need to rely on GPL'ed code, or needs to be incorporated within it, and the 'obnoxious advertising clause' seemingly puts a stop to it.. The ZPL is listed as a license incompatible with the GPL, but it doesn't really say clearly what the reason is, as far as we can figure, it's because of the advertising clause. Anyways, I'm wondering if any of you have encountered the same issue developing Zope products and any solutions towards it. Some interesting articles, food for thought: http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2777053,00.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html [1] http://www.thingamy.com/tpl Regards, Morten ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
