[Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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=69429view=markup) I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
--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://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?r ev=69429view=markup) I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. huh? The contributor agreement says nothing about external dependencies. As look as the checked-in code is ZPL, your software can depend on any other external package (independent of its license). -aj pgpOGZy7r6NA3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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, specifically: http://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?r ev=69429view=markup) I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. huh? The contributor agreement says nothing about external dependencies. As look as the checked-in code is ZPL, your software can depend on any other external package (independent of its license). 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. Second, it is a departure from the status quo, such decisions should be made by the ZF. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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=69429view=markup) I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. huh? The contributor agreement says nothing about external dependencies. As look as the checked-in code is ZPL, your software can depend on any other external package (independent of its license). I totally agree with Andreas. The only thing I did wrong was not to specify the dependencies. I will do that. All of the code that I checked in is ZPL. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 the code GPL. Second, it is a departure from the status quo, such decisions should be made by the ZF. This is not true at all. The status quo is: You can only check in ZPL code. Anything you build on top of lovely.rating can be ZPL, since schooltool.requirement is used as a library that is not extended. 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. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 be ZPL. Huh? You can build on top of lovely.rating without making the code GPL. BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be. So let's stop pissing each other off and be happy that we are all sharing code. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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.rating without making the code GPL. Technically true, but doesn't seem practically feasible. Second, it is a departure from the status quo, such decisions should be made by the ZF. This is not true at all. The status quo is: You can only check in ZPL code. Anything you build on top of lovely.rating can be ZPL, since schooltool.requirement is used as a library that is not extended. 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 the ZF board has to say on the issue. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 attempting to have a discussion, not intentionally annoy anyone. This is an important issue that deserves attention. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 extending it doesn't mean I can stop worrying about the GPL when using it in a larger program, as far as I understand. What you say is true though: anything built on top of a GPL-ed package can be ZPL. There is a 'but' here though, and this has to do with expectations and the underlying reasons the ZPL is the license of the Zope repository and people tend to be careful about GPL-ed stuff. I think the provisions of the GPL state that anything that links to a GPL-ed component will need to be distributable under the terms of the GPL: 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. So, in my I'm-not-a-lawyer-thank-goodness reading, that means that if I distribute software with a GPL-ed component in it, I need to distribute all the components in this under the provision of the GPL as well. This additional stuff can indeed be ZPL, but since GPL is in there, I cannot distribute proprietary code that uses this software stack, unless I rip out the GPL dependency first. That is, if I give my code to someone, I must give them the source code of everything involved, and they can give that source code to anyone they like, under the provisions of the GPL. The expectation one may have of a ZPL-ed codebase is that it is useable even in proprietary settings without having to comply to the rules of the GPL. This is not the case for a ZPL-ed component which relies on a GPL-ed component. Whether one considers this right, proper or fair is another debate I do not want to go into. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 repository. Any license other than ZPL has the same issues, since they must be dealt with separately. I do believe the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) is special in this regard, as it puts requirements on the software it is combined with. 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 change once the ZF starts managing the repository. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
--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 repository is freely usable without having to worry about GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations when checking in a codebase. I don't see any grey area. The purpose of cvs|svn.zope.org is to be a repos for ZPLed software and the contributor agreement makes this purpose clear. But it was never the task of the repos to enforce a particular license - the ZPL - when building software with/on-top parts taken from svn|cvs.zope.org. It is up to the individual developers to take the software and use it under the terms of the ZPL. Andreas pgpX6qn1fBH4R.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
[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 change once the ZF starts managing the repository. I think you might be right about the ZC situation, Martijn. That said, I certainly did not intend to abuse the privilege, if such exists. I think ZC will be quite willing (though understandably disappointed) to remove zope.html from the zope.org repository if requested by the ZF. Gary ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 first meeting on. It is a matter to decide among the Zope developers. It would be totally wrong if the board could make decisions like that. I agree the ZF board should not deal with development decisions. This will be the purview of the Zope Management Organisation. Jim and I are in a committee to look into how this is all going to work and people are welcome to join this committee to help us flesh things out. This is up to the community to figure out and we do not want to get into the way of the community. The intent of the ZF is to support the community of developers and users of the Zope platform, after all. The intellectual property policy is somewhat separate from development decisions however, though of course it affects them. Affects in setting constraints, but does not *make*. The intent, as I understand it, of the intellectual property policy is to safeguard that the codebase managed by the ZF is usable under clear and uniform license provisions, so that users of this codebase have clarity and know this codebase has a clear copyright status and a clear licensing status. The ZF intellectual property policy (not yet operative, in my understanding), here: http://www.zope.org/foundation/ZopeFoundation_IP_Policy_v7.pdf says the following: 2.1.2. In no circumstance will the Zope Foundation accept or distribute contributions or Content under licenses or associated terms and conditions that assert “copyleft” provisions on derivative works. This includes but is not limited to the GNU General Public License (GPL). The question is whether this contribution asserts a copyleft provision on derivative works. When used with the underlying GPL dependency, my understanding is that it does, indirectly. So how to read this text? Is this is an associated term or condition? Only if the user actually installs the GPL-ed component it depends on. Perhaps this is one of those grey areas that would make me very happy if I were an intellectual property lawyer? :) What do you think? Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 code in the repository is freely usable without having to worry about GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations when checking in a codebase. I don't see any grey area. It's a grey area in the area of intent, not in the area of the currently operative rules (the rules of the ZF intellectual property agreement are different - see my other post). The purpose of cvs|svn.zope.org is to be a repos for ZPLed software and the contributor agreement makes this purpose clear. But it was never the task of the repos to enforce a particular license - the ZPL - when building software with/on-top parts taken from svn|cvs.zope.org. It is up to the individual developers to take the software and use it under the terms of the ZPL. Is that the intent of the provisions in the current contributor's agreement? We should ask the drafters of this agreement for more details. I can interpret the intent as follows (I don't know whether I'm right): * The idea is that one should be able to freely make use any software in the repository in proprietary codebases when desired, without having to worry about a GPL license provision affecting the whole. * The code in the repository can freely use *each other* without worrying about GPL licensing provisions for the whole. If those were the intent (not the rules!), then is checking in code with a GPL dependency against this intent? I can give two possible answers: * Yes, as you can't freely use that code without using this dependency which would pull in the GPL license affecting the whole. * No, as the code is ZPL and the dependency is not part of the repository. People who use the component better check the provisions of any dependencies *outside* the repository, and having to do so still means you can freely use the code in the repository without worrying about the GPL license affecting the whole. It's at least worthwhile to figure out together which answers apply to us as zope developers, now under the ZC contributor's agreement as well as later, under the ZF contributor's agreement and intellectual property policy. And yes, this is talking about intentions and not rules. We as a community should figure out what we intend first and then, if necessary and possible, adjust the rules accordingly. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
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 repository. This will change once the ZF starts managing the repository. I think you might be right about the ZC situation, Martijn. That said, I certainly did not intend to abuse the privilege, if such exists. I meant to imply no abuse of privilege. It's ZC's repository, and ZC has an extremely good track record overall. Let's not worry about that. I think ZC will be quite willing (though understandably disappointed) to remove zope.html from the zope.org repository if requested by the ZF. I hope the ZF won't be requesting this! :) I think this discussion brought to light that we should carefully consider what happens with such non-ZPL code in the repository when this codebase gets contributed to the ZF. (besides the other issue of code that is ZPL but depends on GPL-ed code) Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: SVN: Zope3/branches/3.3/ Fix issue 383.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Florent Xicluna wrote: Log message for revision 69521: Fix issue 383. Patch on zope.app.server was missing on zope.app.twisted (see rev.30448). Thanks very much for carrying this forward! Changed: U Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt U Zope3/branches/3.3/src/zope/app/twisted/schema.xml U Zope3/branches/3.3/zopeskel/etc/zope.conf.in -=- Modified: Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt === --- Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt2006-08-15 20:02:00 UTC (rev 69520) +++ Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt2006-08-15 20:02:22 UTC (rev 69521) @@ -10,11 +10,10 @@ Bugfixes - - Fixed issue 383: Change default configuration in zope.conf to -bind explicitely HTTP server to 127.0.0.1 and give information -how to bind to any network interfaces. -Note: if you omit to specify host or ip address, there's still -a discrepancy between Windows and other platforms. + - Fixed issue 383: Twisted and ZServer work the same on any platform. +Default configuration is to bind servers to all interfaces. +You find additional information in 'zope.conf' to know +how to bind to a specific address. - Fixed issue 574: Page template traversal adapters were not correctly proxied. Modified: Zope3/branches/3.3/src/zope/app/twisted/schema.xml === --- Zope3/branches/3.3/src/zope/app/twisted/schema.xml2006-08-15 20:02:00 UTC (rev 69520) +++ Zope3/branches/3.3/src/zope/app/twisted/schema.xml2006-08-15 20:02:22 UTC (rev 69521) @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ sectiontype name=server datatype=zope.app.twisted.server.ServerFactory key name=type required=yes / -key name=address datatype=inet-address / +key name=address datatype=inet-binding-address / key name=backlog datatype=integer default=50 / /sectiontype Modified: Zope3/branches/3.3/zopeskel/etc/zope.conf.in === --- Zope3/branches/3.3/zopeskel/etc/zope.conf.in 2006-08-15 20:02:00 UTC (rev 69520) +++ Zope3/branches/3.3/zopeskel/etc/zope.conf.in 2006-08-15 20:02:22 UTC (rev 69521) @@ -17,16 +17,14 @@ # Standard HTTP server for Zope 3. # -# HTTP server is explicitely bound to local loopback. -# You can keep this configuration if your server -# stays behind a dedicated web server. -# Alternatively, you can change address to 0.0.0.0:8080, -# if you need to bind to all network interfaces. -# +# HTTP server is bound to all interfaces. +# You can bind to any IP address or hostname, +# or use 127.0.0.1:8080 for local loopback. # Server: All Servers +# server type HTTP - address 127.0.0.1:8080 + address 8080 /server # Ready to go HTTPS server. You just need to make sure OpenSSL is installed. @@ -69,7 +67,7 @@ path $DATADIR/Data.fs /filestorage -# uncomment this if you want to connect to a local ZEO server +# Uncomment this if you want to connect to a local ZEO server # instead: # zeoclient #server localhost:8100 Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE4/vY+gerLs4ltQ4RAv85AKCFOnFtce9aMIdIdFtCtl14ngyMzgCfaJbv EIBuX6RSu9XaL2/YuECeRas= =asJ7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
--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 to continue development of said code. That's extremly odd. Consider the following case: I am writing a ZPLed Zope product but include some migration shell scripts that call some common GPLed unix programs for a particular task...I wouldn't be allowed to checkin this software on svn.zope.org? The advice to move the code out of the repository is not really legitimate. Neither rules as given through the contributor agreement nor unspoken rules were violated. Once again: using GPLed software does not make your own ZPLed software automatically GPLed. -aj pgpbHaCbPdq3z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
