-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jon Stahl wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Derek Broughton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Wichert Akkerman wrote: >> >>> If you listen to random developers, sure. I have seen so many >>> developers make so many bogus claims about licensing that I do >>> not put any trust in blog posts like that. Might I suggest that >>> you use arguments from people who have a real legal knowledge >>> instead? Places like groklaw, gpl-violations.org, the various >>> FSF and related organisations, etc. >> I so hate licensing arguments, but I still tend to agree with >> Mikko. I see no evidence that the GPL is enforceable at the >> level of an "import". If you have examples, please tell us. >> Additionally, while knowing the FSF's stance is important - as it >> can tell you what they _consider_ actionable - any statement they >> make about enforceability of the GPL is clearly self-serving and, >> without legal precedents, is about as much use as listening to >> random developers. > > The Plone Foundation's long-standing official policy on this can be > found at: http://plone.org/foundation/copyrights/license-faq > > Short version: we believe that doing a Python importing from GPL > code is sufficient to create a derived work that is subject to the > GPL.
There is always a way go get around the GPL-import-trap. Move you Plone-dependent code into a utility or a tool and make it GPL. A proprietary product could use Plone-related functionality by utility lookup or by getting hold of tool methods through acquisition. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkssjd0ACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyDFQCfebLg/wbq+vhhOW7aSLwDGwpy S6gAnRDCu9w2hW2ttu9SwI9W13o+juKe =hpe6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<attachment: lists.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
