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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
I'm having trouble installing Hotfix_2000-10-11 on Zope 2.1.6, although the
README says: "The hotfix will work for all versions of Zope 2.2.0 and
higher."
If installed on 2.1.6, the product shows up as broken, since it tries to run
"from OFS.ObjectManager import aq_base", which fails, since
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:34:16PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
Could somebody give me a hint if and how it's possible to backport the
Hotfix to Zope 2.1.6 ?
Surely it'd be better to move you servers forward to 2.2.5 or maybe 2.3.1 when
it's out?!
It's about
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:10:50PM +1000, Zac Stevens wrote:
Howdy,
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:28:13PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
| I'm having trouble installing Hotfix_2000-10-11 on Zope 2.1.6, although the
| README says: "The hotfix will work for all versions of Zope
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 02:34:47PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
I had read the start of the README (like you wrote: 'Zope versions up to and
including Zope 2.2.2.'), but I had quoted and paragraph that indeed implied
an answer to my question ('will work for all versions of Zope 2.2.0
Hi,
perhaps I'm too stupid, but I don't grok how the objlink method in the
HiperDOM example has to look like. Could somebody post an example ?
Gregor
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:00:52PM +0800, Sin Hang Kin wrote:
When building current zope cvs, cPickle.c want the mymath.h. Where can I get
mymath? What devel package I should install for a debian system?
To compile binary Python extensions with Debian (as Zope needs), you need
the python-dev
14 matches
Mail list logo
