[Zope] Re: Re: Zope Foundation Update
Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This has to be one of the more ill-informed, offensive posts that I have seen from a member of the Zope community, and that's saying a lot. It's obvious that there's a good ventriloquist pulling Chris' strings, since he's making assertions that are so easily proven incorrect that they are laughable. I'm not sure muppetism applies to the Zope community, it appears to be Zope Corporation who are coming out of this looking less than clever. Yes, of course, we are looking less than clever. We offer up a Foundation. We give all of our ZPL copyrighted code to this Foundation. We give committers free membership and an equal number of board seats to vendors who pay for those board seats. Somehow, we're bad guys in this. I agree. Trying to work with some of the people in this community make me personally feel less than clever... ZEA takes marks _directly from our website_, registers them as their own, and they are white knights. You're a genius. It's a shame, because really, they should be the ones benefitting from the community they've created, but instead they're more and more isolating themselves from a community which is finally starting to realise that Zope's continued popularity is not predicated on the survival of Zope Corporation. See above. More and more we are isolating ourselves, by joining sprints internationally, contributing our code to a Foundation that _we_ are bringing to the community, and by offering to participate completely in the ECM project as well. I can see how this is isolationist. Again, you're a genius. I hope Lois in particular reads this and understands that you can't bully an open source community, and doing so is likely going have much worse consequences for the bully in the medium to long term than it will for the people being bullied. And now, for the ultimate in idiocy. Lois has not _once_ communicated directly with the community on anything other than announcements regarding training. Certainly, she has never bullied the community on any topic, including the Foundation. So, how do I know you are being manipulated into making stupid public statements? Someone obviously had to tell you that Lois was involved in the ZEA discussions. Want to know how? Probably not, since you were stupid enough to parrot someone else's words, but for the benefit of everyone else who has a brain, and cares to really understand the truth, here goes: Rob and I had the only interactions with any ZEA members, and they were _exclusively_ with Xavier Heymans and Paul Everitt. After one exchange with Paul, he requested to be let out of the continued discussions due to potential conflicts of interest (which we respected). Lois received an email out of the clear blue from another ZEA member (who had not been on any of the emails between Rob, Paul, Xavier and myself). He reached out to Lois asking her to participate in a conference call with him, another ZEA member (also not on any previous communications) and Xavier. Rob and I were not invited to participate in this call. Lois was _not_ in the loop on our side either previous to this attempt to reach out to her. The three ZEA members discussed the issue with Lois for 70 minutes. I doubt they reached out to her because they thought she was the bully in our bunch. At the end of the conversation, Lois came to Rob and I and supported some of the requests that ZEA made in terms of compensation for the transfer. The amount that was originally requested (20,000 EUROS, plus additional transfer fees) was absurd to me, and even though Lois was willing to find a middle ground, she was the messenger that related to them that management rejected their offer. Three days later, Lois wrote back a note to Xavier (this past Friday), again playing the messenger, with a offer to pay any expenses that we otherwise would have had to pay to be the original registrars of the marks. It is my contention that if someone steals something from you, you shouldn't have to pay them a premium to get it back, should you? We have had no response to that note, and we informed them more than a week in advance that we would make this matter public if they didn't respond. Obviously, they didn't mind it being made public, or they would have found a way to work it out. Now, let's continue with the history lesson, this time concentrating on me, rather than Lois. I invested in Zope Corporation (then Digital Creations) in October 1998. I was the largest investor (using my personal money) then, and through two additional rounds of funding remain the largest single personal investor (by a long shot!). So, my money is where my mouth is in this company. It was _me_, and me alone that suggested in November of 1998 that we open source the software (before it was even called Zope). It was me that discussed the licensing issues with Bruce Perens to come up with ZPL 1.0. It was me who discussed the
[Zope] Re: Re: Zope Foundation Update
Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Florent Guillaume wrote: The current state of what ZC proposes doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything reasonable. Give them your hand, and they'll ask for your arm... Indeed. I don't have any problem with ZC keeping the trademarks, but why are they tying the creation of the foundation onto their retreival of their lost marks? The two seem totally unconnected to me... Considering that we have agreed to license our marks to the Foundation, and that the lawyers tell us that this is the first step, we have to have _clear title_ to them in order to have a valid license agreement. If there's an ongoing trademark dispute, then we can't cleanly license the marks to the Foundation. It seemed obvious to us in our post that we were explaining this, but it must not have been clear enough. Is it clear now? ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
George Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZC says: the marks were stolen ZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. I am amazed at how people pick and choose what to read and repeat, and what to ignore. I will mix in a few quotes from a few posts responding to my note yesterday to highlight this problem. After this post, unless someone makes a profound new statement, I will remain silent, as many of you have requested, and complete the trademark challenge process through the official channels that have already begun. George, others have already replied to this, but Rob has written about this as well before, so I'm surprised that this is still a question. A defensive registration of _our_ trademark should have been _explicitly_ called to our attention. In fact, any reasonable company would have alerted us to any specific danger, and asked us if _we_ intended to register our trademarks in the appropriate jurisdiction. Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_ ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had already registered). I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem going on here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what the ZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? There isn't really a communication problem here (though it would wonderful if there was). There is a backtracking and a rewriting of history going on, because ZEA got caught with their hands in our cookie jar. They could have settled this incredibly quietly and quickly. Instead, they chose a path that has led us here. We could have fought it silently too, so it's 100% true that we are the ones that brought this fight into the public. On the other hand, I can't imagine what would have happened if this private battle dragged on until January, and then we got beaten up for missing the launch date on the Foundation, and only then alerted the community as to what was going on. So, we did what we thought was the most prudent thing, and alerted the community 2 days after we initiated the challenge to their registration. I don't know how we could have been more transparent about it. ZC saying the marks were stolen seems a little over the top. What if ZEA registered them defensively? if that's possible then ZEA should be given then benefit of the doubt and not be called a thief. If there was a need to register them to protect zope, then why didn't ZC do it? Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a phone call that they believe that there were deals that they could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!? And again, read the above to see that our registration of the mark ZOPE predates theirs. Everybody needs to calm down, stop insulting each other and stop broadcasting this problem to the whole world on zope-announce (for example). Its making us all look childish. Indeed, we do look childish, and I'm perhaps _more_ to blame for that escalation than others. That's why I will try to keep this as my last communication (at least for a while) on this topic. That said, a number of people responded saying that they were not only glad to be made aware of this problem, but were surprised that they didn't know about it sooner. The rhetoric (mine as well!) is louder than it should be, but I believe the issue(s) definitely needed to be aired, as it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the facts are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register our own marks in Europe, which we did. Making either side into the bad guy is not only innacurate but also inappropriate and is not conducive to building a community around the software we all love and are grateful to ZC and non-ZC related programmers alike for, Zope. Please don't say that things are innacurate when you aren't involved, and have already repeated a number of innacuracies yourself, which were readily available for you to check before you repeated them... Matt Hamilton wrote: No, just the opposite. ZC do *not* want to transfer the marks to the ZF. I do find this position strange. Whilst they are willing to transfer all the IP, for which yes we are grateful. The issue being that
[Zope] Re: Re: Zope Foundation Update
Matt, unfrotuntately (for me), you make a number of very good points, so I will break my self-imposed silence to respond ;-) Unfortunately for everyone else, this continues the thread, but at least it feels to me like we're de-escalating and hopefully actually getting somewhere good, faster... Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hadar Pedhazur wrote: Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_ ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had already registered). I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer. A few points I want to clear up... the next two paragraphs I write are about technicalities, I am not refering to any moral right or wrong, or who did what etc. In my view the confusion is apparent. If I go to zope.org I see the same logo (admittedly with the word community added to it). If I install Zope and go to the ZMI one of the first things I see is the Zope logo. I can clearly see how people associate the logo with the software. Very few clients (and potential clients) we talk to in the UK are even aware of ZC... *in their mind* Zope is a CMS not a company. You are absolutely correct. In certain usages, we try to make the distinction obvious (like Community being part of the logo, and certainly in adding Corporation in our own logo). That said, our Logo Usage page on zope.com, which has been there for a _very_ long time, makes it clear that we own the trademark for _all_ variations of the mark, and that we _freely_ license it (without any signatures!) for certain usage, and license it under a contract for all other usages (most of those are free too!): http://www.zope.com/about_us/legal/zope_logo_usage.html The point is that even the logo in the free Zope software is owned by us. It just happens to be freely licensed, with no fee or contract. That doesn't make it available to be registered as an owned trademark by someone else. We don't care if potential clients of yours don't associate the logo with us, that's obviously fine. We _do_ care if they associate the logo with ZEA and nobody else. If they associate it with Zope the software, that's fine too, and doesn't require a license, but that still leaves us as the owners of the mark. And please please please remember that there is no such thing as 'registered the trademark in Europe'. There are many companies in Europe and the trademarks have to be registered in specific countries. Again, you are correct. I noted in my previous response to you that you were also correct that we picked countries that were economically interesting to us. Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a phone call that they believe that there were deals that they could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!? You are twisting the truth here -- I wish I had recorded the phone call now to prevent the chinese whispers :) On the call to Lois, Xavier said that there are certain possibilities of using Zope for EU projects which would be hampered by a corporation (ie ZC) owning the trademark to the OSS software. ZEA does not want the trademark. Repeat. ZEA does not want the trademark. Huh? ZEA does not represent everyone in the Zope Community (as Rob has already pointed out) and worse, does not even represent all commercial Zope companies in Europe. How does ZEA holding the trademark make an EU project less hampered than ZC holding it? You can keep repeating that ZEA doesn't want the trademark, and yet, you registered it... it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the facts are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register our own marks in Europe, which we did. Yes, you are still mis-understanding the facts. Europe consists of many countries, of which you registered the mark in just six - Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Italy. This is the third time that I am publicly agreeing that we made a choice. ZEA then went on to further protect the mark registering it in: Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyrus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine Really? We registered the base word Zope, from which all of our other marks derive (except
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation?
Andreas Jung wrote: What is the current status of the ZF? The process is proceeding swiftly, and hopefully smoothly. We have draft documents of the TM Agreement and the By-Laws, and are well along the way to drafts of the IP Policy and the remaining documents. We have formed a small committee of some representative groups in the Zope community, cutting across interests and geography, and we have IRC meetings to make sure that at the highest level, the initial documents will represent a broad community interest. Before the actual formation of the Foundation, we will post all of the relevant documents for public comment, so those that are not on the current committee will still get a chance to weigh in before the By-Laws (for example) become final. Even after that, the Membership can alter the By-Laws in the future, so this is just the starting point. It's still quite possible that everything will be wrapped up by the end of October (as originally projected), but we did have the delay in starting (more on that below) and there's still a lot to do, so it could slip a bit, but we certainly are doing everything in our power to make that date. Any progress happened on the outstanding trademark issue with ZEA? I was hoping to avoid this topic in public, given the heat it generated in the past. However, it doesn't seem fair to avoid a direct question, given some recent turns. We have had _numerous_ discussions (all in email) with two members of ZEA. We came to an agreement and all seemed perfectly on target, which is why we began all of the other ZF documents and committee meetings, etc. Unfortunately, ZEA never delivered a single draft of the proposed transfer documents, even though they said that the documents already existed for the Plone trademark transfer. We have been amazingly patient, and have waited _weeks_ between attempts to remind them, bug them, etc. Each time, we get a sorry, we don't know how much longer it will be, but it shouldn't be much longer. This week, we informed ZEA that we had restarted our original legal challenge to their TM filing, as we simply can't understand the delay and complete lack of communication. Since the legal challenge is likely to take significantly longer than a contractual transfer, it is not possible to have that completed by the time the Foundation would be ready to be launched. Our original plan (which caused the previous public ruckus) was to hold off on the Foundation until this was resolved. This week, before we restarted the legal process, Rob Page made an alternate proposal internally, which seems reasonable to me. While we haven't officially decided to do this, it is very likely that we will: In the event that we have not secured the transfer of the TM registrations from ZEA by the time the Foundation is launched, the Foundation will _not_ have an initial TM license from ZC. The Foundation will still exist, and might get a more limited TM license from ZC, or perhaps even none at all. Whenever the ZEA TM matter is resolved, we'll proceed with the correct TM license for the Foundation. I'm very sorry to be reporting the above. The people that we have worked with at ZEA have been very reasonable, and have come to an amicable solution with a minimum of hassle on either side. Unfortunately, they have simply failed to deliver even a single draft page of a document for us to review, and that is no longer an acceptable situation. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation?
Whoops. Sorry. I would have replied to the list, except that I didn't realize that you wrote to the list when I saw it in my personal email. Here it is :-) Original Message Subject: Re: Zope Foundation? Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:20:00 -0400 From: Godefroid Chapelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Hadar Pedhazur [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hadar Pedhazur wrote: Godefroid Chapelle wrote: Can the name of people that are part of this small committee be published ? I'd like to know who might be representing me, this way I can ask him or them about the direction taken and maybe actually give them my opinion. I don't think this should be a problem, but I'll have to check with Rob first, and then the people on the committee, to make sure they don't mind being contacted. After all, they are volunteering their time, and they might not want the extra burden of communicating with many individuals. Still, this is a good idea, so I will float it early next week. However, the starting point will be much more constructive if most members of the community that the Foundation claims willing to serve would have a chance to give their opinion on the bylaws as early as possible. Agreed. To repeat, we will post everything before the Foundation gets formed. Obviously, you (and everyone else) prefer to see it earlier rather than later, but there will be time to comment. This would avoid that the persons currently working in the small committee feel personally attacked when one of us dislikes or disagrees about some of the points and makes it known loudly... after a lot of hard work has already been done. Also agreed, which is why they may prefer to stay anonymous ;-) Ill finish with my usual recall that english is not my mothertongue and that it implies that I could be misusing some words without knowing about it. This was perfect, no need to apologize :-) Thanks for your quick answer. Is there a reason not sending it to the list as well ? I would appreciate if you would send it also to the mailing list. Thanks -- Godefroid Chapelle (aka __gotcha) http://bubblenet.be ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation?
Matt Hamilton wrote: Hadar, These are serious claims. I talked to Paul who looked into it and gave me the following information. Note that, since the negotiations are finished and the terms are agreed to, we can talk about this with whomever is interested. We have always been here to discuss the issues, and have continued to discuss them with numerous emails with a ZEA managing partner since my post yesterday. We have not ignored a single communication between us. Some quick points: 1) ZEA emailed ZC on Aug 29, twice on Aug 30, Sep 5, and Sep 15. True, nearly always in response to a prodding email from us, but that's not really the point. 2) The Sep 15 note reminded ZC of two points: a. We don't have the paperwork yet. We can't transfer something we don't have. (Contrary to public statements, the Plone paperwork hasn't arrived either.) I'm glad that someone finally admitted this (that the Plone paperwork hasn't been done!). As you say, it has been been claimed _publicly_ that this transfer was _complete_, and that only the WIPO database hasn't been updated. As you can imagine, if the previous public claims were taken to be true (which we did!), then it should be a matter of search/replace 'Plone Foundation' for 'Zope Corporation' and we'd already have been done. I don't think it served anyone's interest to so loudly put ZC down for pointing out that ZEA still owned the Plone TM, when in fact it turns out that this is still the case months after we pointed it out... b. We can't finish the transfer until ZC provides foreign address information for certain countries. This was discussed in the mails cited above. This has already privately been pointed out to ZEA as incorrect. That said, even if it was correct, not a single paragraph of terms has been sent to us with a blank address line. Surely, a draft of the agreement can be shared with us before this address is supplied? Also, there are _many_ countries (the ones we care most about, as we've been very honest and transparent about this fact in public) where the transfer can happen _immediately_ to our US address. To hold up the transfer in the UK (for example), because we might not qualify in Algeria (no offense to Algerians!!!), is beyond our comprehension. 3) ZEA has well over a hundred manhours over the last 18 months on this trademark. We are getting no compensation for past, present, or future work. Yet, ZEA continues to help the process, as the emails will attest. Agreed, and we appreciate that. Let's not rehash that ZEA shouldn't have ever spent one hour or one penny in this process, had they simply told us that _we_ were in danger from the subversives... 4) ZEA gave the contact info for the trademark attorney to ZC, encouraged ZC to contact her (hasn't happened), and instructed her to help. This too is bogus. She is your vendor, and you are her client. You can't get any paperwork out of her even for the Plone Foundation, where there is no contention or timing issue, but you expect us to deal with her directly, when we have no business relationship with her. Sorry, it doesn't fly. These points might not be 100% right, ZEA might have made mistakes, we're not perfect, the trademark attorney could respond faster, we could email ZC twice per day, etc. This is silly. It has dragged on for months, not days. If we don't write, we get _no updates_. Only when we ask, do we get updates. The updates always say soon, and then we get _no updates_ again until we ask again, when we again hear soon... On a personal note, ZEA is working for free to help ZC improve the value of a sharelholder asset. ZC might have legitimate complaints about ZEA's performance. However, public mudslinging does not incent our pro bono help on the transfer process. As ZEA has stated, ZC can go directly to the trademark lawyer. I don't agree that my post yesterday was public mudslinging. In fact, I went out of my way to say that we reached an agreement quickly and amicably, and that working with the ZEA people was a positive process. That simply doesn't negate the fact that no progress has been made, even though a theoretical agreement has been reached. Andreas is a recognized leader in the Zope community (being the primary release manager for Zope 2.x), and is someone I personally respect from my years of interaction with him when he was a Zope employee. He asked two legitimate questions, that deserved answers (I'm sure many more people were hoping someone else would ask). As I pointed out today to one of the ZEA managing partners, the last communication we had from ZEA _after_ we informed them that we had restarted the legal process (the communication was from this same partner) stated clearly that there was nothing that ZEA could do to move the process forward. It didn't seem so harsh to simply answer Andreas' question accurately, with no disparagement to ZEA or their
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation?
Godefroid Chapelle wrote: Hadar Pedhazur wrote: Godefroid Chapelle wrote: Can the name of people that are part of this small committee be published ? I'd like to know who might be representing me, this way I can ask him or them about the direction taken and maybe actually give them my opinion. I don't think this should be a problem, but I'll have to check with Rob first, and then the people on the committee, to make sure they don't mind being contacted. After all, they are volunteering their time, and they might not want the extra burden of communicating with many individuals. Still, this is a good idea, so I will float it early next week. Has there been any steps made about this ? Yes. We have heard from all but one person on the committee, and they have said yes. We'll try to track the last person down over the weekend, and publish the names on Monday (we'll likely publish the rest without this one person if we can't track him down). ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope-dev] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
My first attempt to post to this list bounced, because I'm not a subscriber. Jim enabled me to post, so I'm resending, without cc'ing the z3lab list again. If you hit reply-all, please add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the cc list (if you're allowed to post there as well :-) Hi all. Whew, lots of traffic, with good ideas and comments made by all. While all of us at Zope Corp appreciate the input, we can't lose sight of two points: 1) Even though lots of the Rock Stars of the Zope Community are on one or both of these lists, not all are, and certainly not the entire Zope Community (especially _customers_), so these lists cannot substitute for the entire input stream. 2) We have called for an International IRC chat to discuss this next Tuesday, and tried to pick a time that could work for people from the West Coast of the US all the way to hardy souls in Asia, but at least Eastern Europe. Until people can weigh in and get a sense of everyone's responses, this list is just fodder for that discussion. As such, it is highly unlikely that I will post again on this specific thread to these lists before the IRC, so _please_ don't be offended if you have a fantastic rebuttal to a point that I try to make here, and don't get a response. I just subscribed to the z3lab list (I'm not on dev), and will see your response, and hopefully prepare a ZC response for the IRC. OK, enough with the background, on to make some points :-) I found all of the discussion interesting, but I am also confused by some of it. Specifically, the use of the Plone Foundation as the model that we should all aspire to. If I understand my facts correctly, the Plone Foundation was kicked off (and likely funded by) Computer Associates (CA). They still have 2 board seats as far as I can see. In fact, for all the rhetoric about individuals, each board member has their company named after them, which implies to me that people looking at that list should assume that they vote the way their company would want them to, not the way they feel about specific issues. Specifically, if Norm Patriquin of CA leaves CA, will he remain a board member, or does CA have some right to appoint another director in his place? If the answer is that CA controls the board seat, then please let's stop pretending that this is all about individuals. It's obvious that companies do not vote, individuals vote. It is also obvious that individuals who represent companies are more likely to vote in a direction that is good for their company. Nothing wrong with that (IMHO) as long they can't force something on the rest of the members. Second, if we had adopted the Plone Foundation organization verbatim, just changing the word Plone to Zope, would that have been 100% satisfactory to everyone in the Zope world? If so, that would surprise me, but more importantly, it would still have been a unilateral move on our part, not to even allow potential dissenters a say. In other words, there is no one model that will work for everyone, and we are being careful not to set _anything_ in stone until we hear everyone's thoughts. If we intended to act unilaterally, and in only our interests, we would have announced a completed Foundation with a take it or leave it attitude, or we would have put a very short date on getting it done. Instead, we announced that it would be done by the end of October 2005, so that _this_ process could have a real chance to succeed in an open manner. No one has a gun to our head to do this, and in fact, no one has the slightest leverage on us to do this. We are doing it because we _want_ to, because we think it's the _right thing do_, and because we think the timing is right with Zope 3 ready for prime time, and ready to explode. If we wanted to try and retain the maximum benefit from that explosion, we would probably just keep it all to ourselves. We are not, and we would like at least the benefit of the doubt as to our motives, if not an actual Thank You :-) Like Stefane, we too are slightly leaning towards an Eclipse model. In that model, committers are first-class members, and do _not_ pay dues! Companies and Customers (in their term Consumers) are first-class members too, but not only pay dues (don't worry, we won't charge what they do ;-), but also _have to commit development resources_. No one vendor has _any_ control of _anything_ in the Eclipse Foundation, but they don't apologize for the fact that the underlying software is _strategic_ to the Vendor organizations in their attempt to make a profit. Stefane Fermigier wrote: IMHO, vendor-neutral means, in this context, that the Foundation must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as vendor-free. I agreed, and would add that vendor-neutral can also (and IMHO should) be vendor-friendly. Let's not forget that ZPL is not GPL. We chose a commercially friendly license 7 years ago, and have only made it friendlier to
[Zope-dev] FW: [Zope-Annce] Zope Foundation ideas
FYI, for the few of you who may not actually listen to the bigger lists ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Page Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:54 PM To: zope@zope.org; zope-announce@zope.org Subject: [Zope-Annce] Zope Foundation ideas In preparation for tomorrow's IRC session (reminder/details below) we have prepared some initial ideas about the Zope Foundation. These are available online at: o http://tinyurl.com/74pd3 Note -- the document is written with phrases like the Foundation will, Contributors shall, etc. This is NOT to be interpreted as though these terms/conditions are predetermined. It is written to close in on specific language that avoids misinterpretation. Zope Foundation IRC Session --- IRC Session Summary: - Who: Zope Corp and Zope Community - What: IRC session to discuss the Zope Foundation - When: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10a - 12p (US EDT) - Where: irc.freenode.net #zope Please send specific questions to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hope to see you there. Regards, Rob -- Rob PageV: 540.361.1710 Zope CorporationF: 703.995.0412 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
