Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I'm +1 too, but I'm against naming this category Zope 3. I would just
call it Zope.
+1
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archi
On 8/21/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm +1 too, but I'm against naming this category Zope 3. I would just
call it Zope. Two reasons:
I think this should be a community decision. While my own interests
are largely limited to Zope 3 these days, the increasing overlap
On Aug 19, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
- The Python Package Index (PyPI) has framework categories.
I find these a bit unclear.
I thought
Jim had requested one for Zope 3,
No, Ian Bicking requested one for Zope (or Zope 2 or Zope 3).
but I see only Paste and TurboGears
in the c
On 8/21/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Again, like Fred said, this is a misconception. Eggs support a
development mode [1]_ that registers a repository checkout as an egg. To
setuptools, it's an egg, to you it's a checkout.
Well, that still doesn't give me access to th
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'm +1 too, but I'm against naming this category Zope 3. I would just
call it Zope.
Agreed.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.
Benji York wrote:
> Fred Drake wrote:
>> - The Python Package Index (PyPI) has framework categories. I thought
>> Jim had requested one for Zope 3, but I see only Paste and TurboGears
>> in the currently published list. We can get the appropriate category
>> added to PyPI and use that for browsin
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's the problem with top level packages?
>
> Nothing. But when we have loads of empty top level packages that each
> have a couple of modules it gets confusing, since you need to keep
> track of what do
On Saturday 19 August 2006 12:52, Fred Drake wrote:
> Seems to me what we need is a way to easily find a list of what's
> available, with concise human-readable descriptions of what each does.
> There are a options to consider:
Another option is clearly the ZSCP web site. As soon as I am back in
Fred Drake wrote:
- The Python Package Index (PyPI) has framework categories. I thought
Jim had requested one for Zope 3, but I see only Paste and TurboGears
in the currently published list. We can get the appropriate category
added to PyPI and use that for browsing the available Zope 3 compone
On 8/19/06, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing. But when we have loads of empty top level packages that each
have a couple of modules it gets confusing, since you need to keep
track of what does which.
This is a perception problem, which indicates a documentation problem.
Each
On 8/19/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's the problem with top level packages?
Nothing. But when we have loads of empty top level packages that each
have a couple of modules it gets confusing, since you need to keep
track of what does which.
Eggs solves it for ins
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I'd like to throw a stick in the fire by taking up a completely
> different issue:
>
> The amount of top level modules and repositories. :-)
>
> if lovely.rating depends on schooltool.something, not only does this
> mean any usage of lovely.rating (which I imagine I would
On 19.08.2006, at 11:41, Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'd like to throw a stick in the fire by taking up a completely
different issue:
The amount of top level modules and repositories. :-)
if lovely.rating depends on schooltool.something, not only does this
mean any usage of lovely.rating (which
I'd like to throw a stick in the fire by taking up a completely different issue:
The amount of top level modules and repositories. :-)
if lovely.rating depends on schooltool.something, not only does this
mean any usage of lovely.rating (which I imagine I would like to use)
also needs one module
Tres Seaver wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
If the GPL is one of those included licenses, the whole package falls
under the provisions of the GPL, not just the dependencies. This is what
the GPL requires.
I'd prefer to have somebody at the foundation pay for advice on this: I
have consu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
> --On 17. August 2006 01:11:44 -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> The appropriate thing here would be to remove the code which depends on
>> the GPL, and then ask the foundation's permission before readding it.
>
--On 17. August 2006 01:11:44 -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The appropriate thing here would be to remove the code which depends on
the GPL, and then ask the foundation's permission before readding it.
In the meanwhile, codespeak.net might provide a reasonable place from
which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:42, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a
>>> different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mea
Gary Poster wrote:
[removed Checkins mailing list--maybe we can choose one list or the other?]
On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
And at this moment in time, Zope Corporation as far as I understand is
not bound by the same contributor's agreement we are. It's their
reposito
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. August 2006 15:42:41 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a
different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one
expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:18, Benji York wrote:
That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear
what the ZF board has to say on the issue.
The ZF board should not deal with development decisions. This was my main
concern about the ZF from the
[removed Checkins mailing list--maybe we can choose one list or the
other?]
On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
And at this moment in time, Zope Corporation as far as I understand
is not bound by the same contributor's agreement we are. It's their
repository. This will c
--On 16. August 2006 15:42:41 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a
different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one
expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the
reposito
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:34, Benji York wrote:
BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains
FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be.
The LGPL is different than the GPL.
No, it is not when talking about this reposi
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:42, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a
different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one
expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the
reposito
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
Anything you build on top of lovely.rating can be ZPL, since
schooltool.requirement is used as a library that is not extended.
I do not understand how "is used as a library that is not extended"
affects matters? Using a GPL-ed component as a library without extend
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:34, Benji York wrote:
> > BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains
> > FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be.
>
> The LGPL is different than the GPL.
No, it is not when talking about this repository. Any licens
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:42, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a
> different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one
> expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the
> repository is freely usabl
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:18, Benji York wrote:
> That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear
> what the ZF board has to say on the issue.
The ZF board should not deal with development decisions. This was my main
concern about the ZF from the first meeting on. It is
Benji York wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
In fact, the repository has many components checked in that have other
licenses including the GPL. As long as it is clearly marked and
documented, there is no problem.
That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear
what
Stephan Richter wrote:
BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains
FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be.
The LGPL is different than the GPL.
So let's stop pissing each other off and be happy that we are all sharing
code.
I was attemptin
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:58, Benji York wrote:
This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First,
because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to
people who require their projects to be ZPL.
Huh? You can build on top of lovely
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:03, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:58, Benji York wrote:
> > This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First,
> > because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to
> > people who require their projects to b
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:58, Benji York wrote:
> This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First,
> because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to
> people who require their projects to be ZPL.
Huh? You can build on top of lovely.rating without making
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:52, Andreas Jung wrote:
> >> Changed:
> >> A lovely.rating/
> >
> > This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool,
> > specifically:
> > http://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?r
> > ev=69429&view=markup)
> >
> > I'm
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. August 2006 08:36:55 -0400 Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jodok Batlogg wrote:
Log message for revision 69426:
Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Changed:
A lovely.rating/
This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool,
spe
--On 16. August 2006 08:36:55 -0400 Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jodok Batlogg wrote:
Log message for revision 69426:
Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Changed:
A lovely.rating/
This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool,
specifically:
http://sv
Jodok Batlogg wrote:
Log message for revision 69426:
Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Changed:
A lovely.rating/
This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool,
specifically:
http://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?rev=69429&vie
38 matches
Mail list logo
