Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-dev]ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 party gpl products. would a petition be useful? As much as I would appreciate it if DC was able (from an economic viewpoint, this it) to release Zope under the GPL, I think that it's much more important that they release Zope under a GPL compatible license (which is definitely a very different thing). If this is what you meant, I agree with all of you ;-) Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 by the FSF to describe this type of license clause, however I wonder whether you (personally, or as an organisation) really find it to be 'obnoxious'? Personally, I am *happy* to respect clause 4. Please, don't try to critize the FSF just for the fun of it. Have you read the FSF's comment about the original 'obnoxious advertising clause' ? The problem is a practical one, and a real one: The old BSD license said that, if you incorporated their code in your product, every advertisement for your product had to carry this line: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. As long as there was only this UCB license, this was no real problem. But imagine you're preparing a *BSD distribution, and you're using material from a dozen different sources. Would you like to include something like this in every advertisement for a *BSD CD-ROM ? This product includes software developed by the University of Clifornia, Berkeley and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Dalifornia, Derkeley and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Edinburgh, UK and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Frankfurt, Germany, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Gimian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Himian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Kimian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Limian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Nimian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Ximian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Ximian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Timian Inc., MA, and its contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Red, NY, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Brown, OH, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Green, IL, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by Mark Blue, IL, and other contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Taipeh, Taiwan and its contributors. This product includes software developed by the University of Greenland and its contributors. This is why the FSF calls this clause obnoxious (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html). I don't know about you, but IMHO they're right at this point. Gregor PS: Please also note that the University of California, where this clause originated, has removed it from their licenses. I don't think they did it without a reason. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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, and a real one: The old BSD license said that, if you incorporated their code in your product, every advertisement for your product had to carry this line: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Yes, but thats *not* what the ZPL clause 4 says. ZPL says you only need to include the acknowledgement in an advertisement mentioning features derived from or use of this software. As I read this you need not include the acknowlegement if your advertisement: a. does not mention features derived from Zope b. does not mention that it uses Zope Ooops, sorry, yes, you're right. I misread your posting. The original BSD license indeed can be obnoxious (I hope you agree). The ZPL has a few precautions against this (additionally to a. and b., there's also the exception that the clause is waived when the product includes an 'intact Zope distribution'), so this is certainly much better than the original BSD clause. Point taken. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 software? My understanding is that the answer to every one of these is yes. May I modify the GPL software and distribute it without giving downstream the same opportunity. Clearly no. Now, s/operating system/zope/g Do the answers to the questions change? And, if so, why? From my perspective, and I think from fog's the answer is that it should not change the answers. Maybe the easy way out of this is to simply declare zope an operating system rather than an application. Snippy thoughts cut here. The specific exception in the GPL reads: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I.e. if you declared Zope an operating system on its own (which is certainly arguable), then you could link GPL components with Zope (be it scripts, Zope products, or C libraries) without worrying about the license of Zope. Still, this would not include add-ons to Zope that are not distributed with the main Zope distribution. I.e. you would not be allowed to use ZPL add-on products alongside with GPL components (the add-ons didn't come with the OS, therefore the exception doesn't cover them). Strange, isn't it ? Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 development and incompatible (license-wise) with Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the problem, it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO. But that's a little bit like standing in front of a mountain and saying Go away, isn't it ? From the viewpoint of the GPL, the ZPL is the limiting factor, since it employs restrictions (does it really ???) regarding the distribution of binaries, and since it has a advertisement clause that restricts your right to distribute Zope. On the other side, from the viewpoint of the ZPL, these requirements of the GPL are the limiting factor. But I'm afraid the discussion on who's guilty won't solve the problem, which indeed is perceived by all of us (is it ?). Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 within it, and the 'obnoxious advertising clause' seemingly puts a stop to it.. The ZPL is listed as a license incompatible with the GPL, but it doesn't really say clearly what the reason is, as far as we can figure, it's because of the advertising clause. Anyways, I'm wondering if any of you have encountered the same issue developing Zope products and any solutions towards it. I recently asked RMS about this exact question. He studied the license and said that another problem field is that the license is not clear whether modified versions can be distributed in binary form (paragraph 7 of the ZPL). I hope he doesn't mind me quoting the second part of his exact words: ... If the Zope developers are willing to make just one change, I hope they will clarify section 7 to clearly say that modified binaries may be distributed if labeled as unofficial. If they would like to make the license GPL-compatible as well, that would require a few more changes: * Section 4 would have to go. * The license would have to allow distribution of modified sources, not just source patches. * Instead of saying that modified versions have to be labeled as unofficial, it would have to say they must be labeled as modified and by whom. (That is what the GPL requires.) If they don't want to make that much change, well, being incompatible with the GPL is unfortunate but not disastrous. But I hope they will clarify the issue of modified binaries, because that issue could be disastrous. Please invite them to contact me directly to talk about this. I forwarded that mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I have no idea if consultations are going on between them. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 that's the case I appologies. Just to clarify, for us at Thingamy (and I'm quite sure this is the real case behind the license issues) it comes down to business-issues. I do very much care whether or not I can use a GPL Zope Python Product with my ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product. If I can't, and someone tells me I need to relicense my product as GPL it would be very bad. An example could be if I had application G, Z, P. G is a GPL'ed Zope Python Product, Z is a ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product and P is some proprietory stuff I developed for my client. Now, if the proprietory application P interacts with my Z application and Z needs to become GPL, then that would/could require the proprietary stuff I did for the client to become GPL as well. You're not allowed to distribute a derived work of GPL code with proprietary code incorporated. I. e. if you want to use that GPL code in your work, you'll have to make the proprietary code available under a GPL-compatible license as well (not necessarily the GPL itself). The Zope license doesn't even get into the play here. It's all between the GPL and your proprietary license. The crucial point is whether a work is a derived work of GPL code. The FSF says that mixing pieces of proprietary and GPL scripts in an application is a derived work indeed. Other people deny this. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL licensing issues
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 some insight in the topic: http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/Debian-Linux/208/25/5997636/ Just a few points: It looks that from the viewpoint of the FSF, when you're using the header files of a GPL library, you already have to accept the license. On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote: It appears to me, that, if you want to play it safe, you would not distribute the code under license G and license T on the same medium. It is certainly acceptable to call code released under license G from code released under license T; but it is not clear that you can do subclassing and such. I think this is wrong. Providing things on the same media is mere aggregation and therefore not a problem on its own. It's not acceptable, though, to distribute a proprietary program that has to be linked with a GPL component by the customer--even if you distribute this on separate medias! If you're interested in this, feel free to come over to debian-legal and read the ongoing discussion. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Problem with Hotfix 2000-10-11 on 2.1.6
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 aq_base wasn't available in ObjectManager before 2.2.1 (!). Therefore I guess the Hotfix won't work for any versions prior to 2.2.1. According to the README, those versions are still vulnerable. Could somebody give me a hint if and how it's possible to backport the Hotfix to Zope 2.1.6 ? Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Problem with Hotfix 2000-10-11 on 2.1.6
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 backwards compatibility. Debian's last release had a 2.1.6 package in it, and our release managers simply won't accept a new upstream version (i.e. 2.2.5 or 2.3) as security fix. Therefore, I have to try to backport security fixes to 2.1.6, silly as it might be, for those of our users that prefer stability over featurism ;-) Rest assured, though, that the next Debian *release* will feature 2.3.x. At this point, it simply stroke me as odd that the README is quite inaccurate, and it sounds as if there should be a simple for for this hole in 2.1.6, too. Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Problem with Hotfix 2000-10-11 on 2.1.6
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 2.2.0 and
| higher."
I think you're just making a minor braino here - 2.1.6 isn't higher than
2.2.0
The Readme is somewhat ambiguous though - it starts off stating that "all
versions up to and including 2.2.2" are affected, but then recommends "Zope
2.2.x" sites upgrade. Perhaps it isn't even a genuine issue for 2.1.6?
(I don't know)
Ooops, sorry, sorry, sorry.
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 and
higher.').
So 2.1.6 ought to be vulnerable as well, but that Hotfix won't work for it.
Gregor
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
'All Hotfixes' page (was Re: [Zope-dev] Problem with Hotfix 2000-10-11 on 2.1.6)
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 and
higher.').
A last word on this: http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/hotfixes is really a
mess and very hard to read. Would it be possible to redesign that page so
that it's more obvious which Hotfixes apply to which version. Currently the
page is so flat that it's even hard to tell which paragraph applies to which
Hotfix.
Gregor
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope] License
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:58:35PM +, Chris Withers wrote: And the reason I asked is 'cos, as I understand it, if I use a GPL-licensed product in a product/solution I provide, then I have to do that for free and open source it too, which often isn't an option :-( Nope, that's wrong. If you extend a GPL-licensed product by your own work, and if you want to distribute this to somebody else, then you have to give this "somebody" the right to re-distribute the complete product (including your own work) under the terms of the GPL. Therefore it's no problem to sell such a product... The important thing is, though, that your customer could give away the result to everybody else for free (and could do everything else with it that the GPL allows). And in fact, yes, you'll have to make available the sources of your work, too, for your customer--if he demands to see them. So it's perfectly fine to use GPL software in a consulting work, and let the customer pay for it--if you give him all the other rights granted in the GPL. A very crucial point is the exact definition of "extending a GPL-licensed product" (that's my own words for "derived work"). According to the FSF, typical things of "deriving a work" from a GPL-licensed product are probably modifying or extending the code, reusing portions of the code, but also linking with it (be it statically or shared). In the field of interpreted languages, it gets even more complicated. It's completely clear on the other hand, that a mere aggregetion of the product (e.g. distribution GNU emacs on a CD with proprietary software) is no problem, and it's also no problem to use GNU tools to produce proprietary output (e.g. using GCC to compile a proprietary program). The GPL definitely is not contra selling software or services (one could even argue that it's the perfect solution for specialized consulting products, since it gives the customer a security that he'll be able to buy support for a product even if the original author has lost interest). Have a look at www.gnu.org, e.g. "Selling Free Software" by RMS (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) is especially interesting. Gregor ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] ActiveState on Zope.org
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:32:29AM +0100, Martijn Pieters wrote: And if you browse the ActiveState site some more, you'll see what they do for OSS. Who says that an OSS shop needs to run exclusively on OSS or has no right to sell software solutions? We at Digital Creations also use Windows NT and other commercial software, and our services also come with a price tag. Just for the record: The "right to sell software solutions" and the right to do "services with a price tag" are even very crucial and important points in the world of free software (read about RMS position in "Selling Free Software" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html). What the free software community dislikes is selling *proprietary* software solutions. In my own words: Money flow is no problem at all, as long as it doesn't take away any crucial freedoms ;-). Gregor PS: The crucial point about selling free software is certainly that you get paid for the solution and for the work being done, not for the license to use the software. ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: [Zope-Annce] ANNOUNCE: Zope security alert and hotfix release
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 02:02:08PM -0500, Brian Lloyd wrote: A security issue has recently come to our attention (thanks to Erik Enge for identifying this) that affects Zope versions up to and including Zope 2.2.4. ... The hotfix will work for all versions of Zope 2.2.0 and higher. A future version of Zope will contain the fix for this issue, and you will be able to uninstall the hot fix after upgrading. This seems to imply that 2.1.6 is vulnerable as well, but that this Hotfix won't work, and that no fix exists. Is that correct, or is the fix simply not tested with 2.1.6 ? Gregor ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: ANNOUNCE: Zope security alert and hotfix release
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:30:56AM -0500, Brian Lloyd wrote: The hotfix will work for all versions of Zope 2.2.0 and higher. A future version of Zope will contain the fix for this issue, and you will be able to uninstall the hot fix after upgrading. This seems to imply that 2.1.6 is vulnerable as well, but that this Hotfix won't work, and that no fix exists. Is that correct, or is the fix simply not tested with 2.1.6 ? Gregor Sorry - 2.1.6 _is_ vulnerable, and the Hotfix will work for 2.1.6. I'll update that README. Thanks! Gregor ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: [Zope-Annce] November 8th Zope Weekly News
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:56:28PM -0500, emf wrote: How Many Zopatistas? Zope gets downloaded from zope.org 12-15,000 times a month. It has risen steadily over the last year and a half. Zope has been downloaded roughly 200,000 times since version 2.0. Zope is distributed on all major linux distributions, but there's no way of tracking those. Netcraft asserts that there are 937 servers "reporting themselves as zope", http://www.netcraft.com/survey/Reports/0010/byserver/Zope/index.html A quick supplement: Debian provides an optional package popularity-contest, that, if installed and configured, sends a list of the packages installed on a machine to a central instance. If you look at the results of this sample of Debian installations, in the section `web packages' (http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr//popcon/results.web.html), the top 20 are like this: Package Vote Old Recent Unknown apache-common 4618735 0 apache 4573620 0 wget 434 33488 0 lynx 407 16921 0 junkbuster 16329 3 0 mozilla143 14589 0 squid 139 2 3 0 htdig 8416 2 0 wwwoffle66 1 1 0 weblint 60 26625 0 analog 58 10551 0 webalizer 5048 9 0 zope4915 9 0 imp 40 1 1 0 apache-dev 38 12629 0 php3377552 0 tidy31 12715 0 boa 29 1 6 0 konqueror 28 050 0 apache-perl 28 4 1 0 (About 924 individual computers submitted results this week. - Vote: Number of people that use this package regularly. - Old: Number of people who installed but have not used the package recently. - Recent: Upgraded the package too recently for stats to be valid. - Unknown: No files in the package were used in the statistics calculation.) For sure this is by no way a representative sample of all Debian installations. FWIW, if it was representative, it would suggest that Apache was installed on half of all Debian installation, and that Zope was installed on 5 % of all Debian installations. You could start and multiply that with an estimate of the number of Debian installations (no idea, something in between 5e4 and 5e6, I'd guess ;-) to end up with some 2000 up to 20 installed Zope Debian packages. What exactly did Churchill have to say about statistics ? Gregor ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope-dev] HiperDOM example (objlink, that is) ?
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 ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] build Zope on linux
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 package: apt-get install python-dev Gregor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope] Re: [Zope] Buying Zope for 139 German Marks - It´s cheapp
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 05:01:38PM +0200, Harald Koschinski wrote: maybe its old new´s - maybe not: Zope is part of "SuSE Linux 7.0 Profesional Edititon" and this is printed on the box in the categorie "Features and Highlights". It is indeed a Highlight. Got a better buy: www.lob.de sells Debian 2.2 for 39,90 DM: The description in the online shop also mentions that Zope is included. IIRC, the LinuxLand Debian box also featured Zope. Just to be fair: Zope is also included since a while in Redhat's PowerTools add-on package. I guess SuSE had no choice anymore ;-) Gregor ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Zope security alert and 2.1.7 update [*important*]
Brian, from the announcement, it sounded like the only change from 2.1.6 to 2.1.7 was the fix to DT_String. Zope-2.1.7-src/doc/CHANGES.txt only lists: Bugs Fixed - An inadequately protected base class method made DTMLDocuments and DTMLMethods vulnerable to having their contents changed by unauthorized users. But when I diff 2.1.6 and 2.1.7, I get modifications in 29 files, ranging from MailHost to ZLogger and so on. I haven't yet groked the patches to 2.1.7 suggested by Adam, but some of them look like fixes to things that were broken from 2.1.6 to 2.1.7. Judging from the announcement, I would not have expected that 2.1.7 could break anything. Therefore a little plea: Please try to keep the CHANGES.txt accurate and comprehensive; that's most urgent for security releases like this IMHO: Most people will install them without much preparation. thanks, Gregor On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 05:26:18PM -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote: A Zope 2.1.7 release has been made that resolves this issue for Zope 2.1.x users. This release is available from Zope.org: http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.1.7/ A patch is also available if it is not feasible to update your Zope installation at this time (the patch is based on 2.1.6): http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.1.7/DT_String.diff ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] [ANN] Zope at Linuxtag 2000 in Stuttgart
I'll try very hard to be able to show up at least one day at the LinuxTag; I'm going to try to help out at the Debian booth as well. How about I18N as a topic for one of the discussions ? I guess many European sites and developers struggle with problems of I18N. Another topic I'm very interested in is packaging and distribution of Zope extensions: keywords are Distutils, packages, zexp's, a package/dependency tool like Debian's APT, distribution etc. pp., cf. Simon Michael's recent rant about ZWiki/ZWikiWeb. Looking forward to meet you, Gregor On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:51:33PM -0700, Stephan Richter wrote: The Linuxtag will be from June 29th (Thursday) to July 2nd (Sunday). It will be in the Exhibition Center (Messegelaende) in Stuttgart, Germany. I know we have little time to organize the conference (26 days). We have one day to fill with speeches and discussions, so please let me know if there are people willing to give some talks or want to have "Special Interest Group" discussions, like E-commerce, XML or Portals in Zope. I would also like to know, who would be able to come, so I can give the Linuxtag staff some feedback. PGP signature
