Ross Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Now I've gotta run out of here before a licensing discussion breaks
out. ;-)
I suppose this topic is just too volatile, but it would be great to
have
--On 26. Dezember 2007 18:56:43 -0800 Ross Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The amusing thing is much of the most useful information I've gotten has
been off list. :)
It seems as though a creating an informative resource on licensing in
the Zope and/or Plone communities is not possible
I would also agree the different license has caused this issue. I don't
think that it is beneficial to rehash past decisions but better to offer
up solutions that are reasonably considered.
The problem posed is that that GPL'd code will normally have only GPL
consumers. To this end, there is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Turner wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 7:56 PM, Ross Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Unfortunately, the comment by Chris McDonough mentioned in the
Tres Seaver wrote:
Rehashing GPL vs ZPL is off topic here, because the ZPL is the
*mandated* license for any code contributed into the zope.org
repository: that choice is not subject to debate.
And similarly, Plone core (at the very least, the CMFPlone package and
the plone.app.* namespace,
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Unfortunately, the comment by Chris McDonough mentioned in the latter
doesn't seem to be accessible any more. I'd love to read it.
It said:
I don't think Plone is bad because it uses the GPL. I
David Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In relation to Chris's post, my understanding of the Zope repository
is that a committer is required to sign an agreement with Zope Corp or
ZF. This requires the code to be licensed as ZPL with 50% of
intellectual rights to Zope Corp or ZF. Hope this
On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
[snip some stuff about GPL versus ZPL]
Guys... please don't crosspost. It's hard to follow a thread like
this when it gets fragmented across different lists. If you feel the
need to solicit advice from multiple communities then IMHO
On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:48 PM, Alex Turner wrote:
au contraire - it is the ZPL which is anti-sharing in my
estimation. You do not have to contribute changes back to a
project which you extend in a BSD style license, so you can take a
BSD style licensed product, extend it, and sell it
