Re: [Zope] And now for a good laugh (Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill)
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:23:21AM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lalo Martins) wrote: > > > Renderable wasn't even GPL'ed to begin with. And this isn't a > > mistake; now that I think if it, I clearly remember having > > chosen the ZPL so that DC folks could easily take the changes > > and merge them into Zope if they wished. > > My copy of Renderable ZClass 0.2 says: > > # Copyright (C) 1999 by Lalo Martins > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later Ah, thanks. Now _that_ is a mistake. Habit is a powerful thing :-) I'll make a new release (it's been stable for almost an year, so I'll add some documentation and call it a beta), but in the meanwhile consider it ZPL'ed; the license in the site is the correct one. []s, |alo + -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar ___ 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] And now for a good laugh (Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lalo Martins) wrote: > Renderable wasn't even GPL'ed to begin with. And this isn't a > mistake; now that I think if it, I clearly remember having > chosen the ZPL so that DC folks could easily take the changes > and merge them into Zope if they wished. My copy of Renderable ZClass 0.2 says: # Renderable superclass for ZClasses # overrides the __str__ method to return the results of a "render" DTML method # if it exists and objname if it doesn't # Copyright (C) 1999 by Lalo Martins # Distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] And now for a good laugh (Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill)
I replied to the message below promising to edit Renderable's README to explicitly declare that I don't consider ZClass subclassing to be a derivative work for the purposes of the GPL. Somehow, I didn't get my reply from the list. But never mind. I went to my folder on Zope.org to edit the README and, surprise! License: ZPL Renderable wasn't even GPL'ed to begin with. And this isn't a mistake; now that I think if it, I clearly remember having chosen the ZPL so that DC folks could easily take the changes and merge them into Zope if they wished. I don't know about you, but after this thread has degenerated into a wholesale flamewar, I find this fact rather amusing. On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:30:16PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: > > but the use of GPL'ed source code like e.g. Renderable ZClass > in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish > every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module -- > including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible > if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used > in a project. []s, |alo + -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar ___ 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] OT: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
+---[ Bill Anderson ]-- | Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: | > | > +---[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]-- | > | | > | >From: "Toby Dickenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back | > | > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on | > | > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have | > | > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. | > | > | > | | > | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for | > | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, | > | could you please elaborate? | > | > There are a variety of reasons. | > | > First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means | > that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form. | | An unproven assertion. I have personally witnessed a very large corporation prefer |GPL to other licenses, such as BSDish | ones. Even after legal was through with it (a few times because legal recommended |it). Bottom of the GPL This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. It's not an unproven assertion it's a stated fact. | > The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. | | As Does BSD. Just look at the BSD zealots that go to GPL forums with flame throwers |on their back. Nearly everything | attracts fanatics. I haven't heard anyone complain about getting death threats from people promoting the BSD license... | Not true. I have personally had more calm conversations, including honest | disagreement, than not. This one has been quite calm, although I have noticed a somewhat irrational sub-thread has just started. | > I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a | > company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others | > was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL. | ... | > Mozilla -- MPL license. | | Dual license with GPL. | Sun relicensing StarOffice under a dual license with the GPL. StarOffice doesn't count, it's not even released yet :-) | One thing to note, and it is important, is that multiple distributions of Linux OS |is irrelevant to the matter of the | GPL. The Linux Kernel is under GPL, but that does not require the entire OS built on |top of it to be. Linux is just the kernel. | Technically speaking, a Linux OS Distribution is a compilation. To say | that more than one linux distribution consittutes a fork is false, and | rather misleading. RedHat I believe have their own mods to the kernel, which make it different. I really don't even know what the 150 are, I'd be struggling to name more than 5 or 6. | It is also interesting to note you left out all the GPL work being done | by corporations. Corporations such as HP, SUN, and Phillips. Because i was unaware of it. | In any event, the original question at the top of this post was not | answered. As demonstrated, it is a matter of personal preference. | It is even more likley, that in this particular case, the contributons | wuld not fall under GPL or ZPL. Well I couldn't answer for Dario, and the part of the two part question I was trying to answer was "Why would you get *more* back" Toby wasn't clear as to which part of the question he wanted answered d8) -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
+---[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- | On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: | > I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a | > GPL'ed component in a Zope site. | > | > My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex | > object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole | > work is now subject to the GPL? | > | > work = Zope-based web site/web application | | GPL and non-GPL code. Again, installing gcc on a computer | does not automatically force every other piece of software on the | computer to be GPL (containment on a hard disk is not what this is gcc is also a special case. Any and all programs compiled with gcc contain GPL'd code, and therefore should also be GPL. This requirement would obviously kill gcc stone dead. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: > I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a > GPL'ed component in a Zope site. > > My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex > object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole > work is now subject to the GPL? > > work = Zope-based web site/web application No, GPL does not affect non-program parts of the work. Nor does it affect work that "uses" GPL code, i.e. that makes function calls or that makes method calls. > use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc. Yes, it would feel to me that subclassing is a derived program. You are taking a preexisting program and modifying it; your work cannot stand on its own. In spirit, this appears to be not very different from patching a program (except that the patch is done on-the-fly, rather than statically). And no, using a GPL program does not magically create a derived program. For example, using gcc as a compiler does not require that any code thus compiled be GPL. Similarly, using a method does not require that every object/method which calls/invokes to be GPL. I think you are getting hung up on "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it" Notice that it talks about the _work_ containing the Program, not the _system_ containing the program. The system may contain GPL and non-GPL code. Again, installing gcc on a computer does not automatically force every other piece of software on the computer to be GPL (containment on a hard disk is not what this is about!). A single tar file may contain both GPL and non-GPL components (containment in a bundle is not what this clause is about!). Simile, containment in Zope is not what this clause is about. As long as what you write does not modify the GPL'ed program, either by removing, adding, or altering the GPL program itself, the license does not put any restrictions on you. Jim Penny ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a > GPL'ed component in a Zope site. > My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex > object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole > work is now subject to the GPL? Asked and answered. No. Incidentally, perhaps you meant to mention something about distribution in this question. Pre-emptively, the answer is still "No, if you are smart and careful." Which was what my previous post was alluding to. > Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace. > I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the > GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of Indeed, that became clear to me when you wrote: > [...] I do not > want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote > because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything > else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. I salute you for your expertise demonstrated in avoiding discussing the merits of the GPL, the GNU project or its members, and for your laser-like ability to focus your commentary on the practical issues. I flame too, but at least I'm not a hypocrite about it. =) I give up. I don't really see how continuing to reply to a series of hypocritical alternations between personal attack and pleas to return to the topic could be productive, so this is my last post in the thread. Flame away, you can have the last word and everything. jim ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Jim Hebert wrote: > Third, again, you're responding as though the discussion is about > re-licensing all of Zope under the, which simply isn't what anyone has I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a GPL'ed component in a Zope site. My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole work is now subject to the GPL? work = Zope-based web site/web application use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc. > proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product > under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license, Who did this? A strawman. > Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who > wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of > their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys > other peoples'. Sorry, but all I wrote was this: | I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL. I don't dictate anything. No one here does. Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace. I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of using GPL'ed Zope components. I'm sure there are people working on components who would like to share their software and don't realize that by using the GPL they make it impossible or difficult to use their code for commercial development. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] OT: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: > > +---[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]-- > | > | >From: "Toby Dickenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back > | > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on > | > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have > | > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. > | > > | > | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for > | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, > | could you please elaborate? > > There are a variety of reasons. > > First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means > that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form. An unproven assertion. I have personally witnessed a very large corporation prefer GPL to other licenses, such as BSDish ones. Even after legal was through with it (a few times because legal recommended it). > Unlikely does not mean impossible, but until the NASDAQ picks up again, I > would say most people will be wary of non-commercial friendly products. > > So if you have something useful, then what will probably happen is > said corporation will likely throw money at it and reimplement it, > market it better, and make proprietary changes and move on. This has > already happened with a BSD licensed product (the license was incidental, > but, it did happen). This can happen to any Open Source product. > > The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. As Does BSD. Just look at the BSD zealots that go to GPL forums with flame throwers on their back. Nearly everything attracts fanatics. Just look at the subject line. ;^)= > Just look at any > discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion > and mention the GPL. Not true. I have personally had more calm conversations, including honest disagreement, than not. > I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a > company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others > was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL. ... > Mozilla -- MPL license. Dual license with GPL. Sun relicensing StarOffice under a dual license with the GPL. Two very large and notable cases of the opposite. Python MAY go the same way. > > Zope -- ZPL license. > > Perl -- Artistic License (GPL - controversial bits). > > While the GPL guarantees that other people's code will also be open > source, it doesn't guarantee that they will contribute those changes to > you (i.e. stop forks 150 Linux distros can't be wrong). > The BSD code doesn't prevent this either (OpenBSD anyone?). MPL does. One thing to note, and it is important, is that multiple distributions of Linux OS is irrelevant to the matter of the GPL. The Linux Kernel is under GPL, but that does not require the entire OS built on top of it to be. Technically speaking, a Linux OS Distribution is a compilation. To say that more than one linux distribution consittutes a fork is false, and rather misleading. It is also interesting to note you left out all the GPL work being done by corporations. Corporations such as HP, SUN, and Phillips. Now, lest anyone here presume I am a GPL zealot, visit my products page before making yourself look foolish. In any event, the original question at the top of this post was not answered. As demonstrated, it is a matter of personal preference. It is even more likley, that in this particular case, the contributons wuld not fall under GPL or ZPL. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy, and have the root password. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > To quote Dave Winer: "[The GPL is] designed to create a wall between > commercial development and free development. The world is not that > simple. There are plenty of commercial developers who participate in > open source. Python belongs in commercial products. How does that hurt > Python?" I have multiple levels of reaction to this. The first is that you might as well have quoted Steve Balmer or Jesse Berst. Second, this quote is out of context: Dave nearly immediately backpedaled from that statement, made during a visceral reaction to something Richard Stallman wrote. Read other places where Dave indicates that the problem he had wasn't with the GPL, it's with particular agendas which are sometimes conflated with the GPL: http://discuss.userland.com/msgReader$20575 [quoting Dave:] t's funny how points of view shift over time. When I was choosing an open source license for MacBird, I read the preamble to the GPL and was outraged at how it talked about commercial vendors. My takeaway was "poison pill". Then after you raised the issue, I went and took another look, thinking I would copy/paste the offensive sections to the DG to show what I meant, and I couldn't find them. I assume the GPL didn't change, clearly something about me did change. [end quote] Or his softening of his stance, written immediately after what you're quoting out of context: http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2000/09/11 [quoting Dave] Richard Stallman responds to a post on Scripting News re the controversy over Python licensing. We have different philosophies. I'm learning his now and working on mine, and it's true that there are things I don't agree with him on. I'd like to see commercial and open source developers work together more fluidly. He seems to agree. Reading his piece I think we could have an interesting discussion. I think we're on the same side on the important issues, believe it or not. (The big issue is patents, for now.) [end quote] Third, again, you're responding as though the discussion is about re-licensing all of Zope under the, which simply isn't what anyone has proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license, and the other side simply says that each author should have the right to choose their own distribution terms. > > I _do_ want to give something back to the community, but I do not > want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote > because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything > else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. Right. There's different viewpoints. You can write code and release it under your choice of licenses, and so can others. Further, this is inflamatory, it conflates RMS's agenda with the terms of the license. Remember that someone else's choice of that license may not be because they agree with the agenda: witness the ESR/RMS split: they both seem happy with the operational effect of the license, but aren't exactly on the same page about this issue of morals. Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys other peoples'. jim ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Hey, Nils, I've got news for you. I've written 3 separate posts now which were long and thoughtful, which quoted from the GPL, and which explained to you and the rest of the community how you could deliver a proprietary solution to a client which relied on a GPL'd object in zope. But, I've deleted all three rather than send them. Why? Because, first, I don't want to be the person who posted a cook-book recipie for circumventing the intent of someone's license. Other people on this list have alluded to how to do it, that's already plenty. Second, I find the people who stand to benefit the most from such an explanation to be overwhelmingly rude and hostile towards any suggestion that each developer have the right to select their own distribution terms, and when given the choice between pissing off some developers who release GPL'd code to help some ingrates figure out workarounds OR letting the ingrates continue to believe their utterly outrageous misinterpretations of the GPL, I'll choose the second. But to answer your post specifically, fine, Guido wants you to take his code and turn it into commercial products. So do a number of other people. Now, you need to come up with a reason for me why that means EVERYONE should conduct themselves that way. That's what's being proposed here: that no one ever write zope products and release them under the GPL. Remember, no one is saying Zope should be GPL'd. Some are saying they'd like to distribute their modules and add-ons under the GPL. So, one side of the debate says "no, no one should use the GPL for any code that will run on a zope machine" and the other says "everyone should be free to select the license that they like best for the code that they distribute." Why does this debate even occupy anyone's time? It seems such a simple question. If someone posts a module that is GPL'd either a) use it and accept that that entails or b) don't use it, re-write it, whatever. I can't understand why there's a c) adopt as some sort of Zope-Community-Law that Thy Shalt Not Copyleft Things. Again, it only makes sense if you think people will STILL write the code but just release it under the more liberal license. I submit that that's not true. If I was advocating the complete and total re-licensing of everything on zope.org under the GPL, yes, you'd have a point, Guido and others clearly are happy to let their code become parts of commercial products. But what I advocate respects their wishes, and further respects other peoples' wishes too: people with a different viewpoint. Each consultant out there can pick and choose among the code available and if they want to shun GPL'd modules, great. That's a far better way to go then telling people not to write them in the first place, thank you very much. jim On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > Jim Hebert wrote: > > > Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the > > one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments > > in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that > > setting. > > From: > > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW > > --cut-- > LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses > and the GPL attract or deter developers? > > GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of > these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the > proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary" > companies are major contributors to Python and other open source > products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression > engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were > contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software > --cut-- > > > But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a > > solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money > > from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help > > them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on > > distributing that solution to any additional people. > > Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and > ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open > source products are important to Guido van Rossum. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:33:05 +0200, "Dario Lopez-Kästen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>From: "Toby Dickenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back >> by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on >> company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have >> happened if Zope was under a GPL license. >or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, >could you please elaborate? I am using Zope as a component of a closed source product. GPL components are not an option simply because we are not willing to open source *all* of this product. I am developing the one type of software product that the GPL is designed to work against. The difference between GPL and more flexible licenses such as Python's or the ZPL is that *we* get to draw the line between what we contribute to the community, and what we keep to ourselves. GPL advocates are wrong to assume that means we contribute nothing - there are strong technical and commercial reasons to contribute significant amounts of code and experience back to the community. Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: > The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. Just look at any > discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion > and mention the GPL. Sorry, but until I've received your previous message, and the one about napalm, I've found this discussion very calm and interesting, now IMHO all we have to do is to wait for something from DC and the FSF. Jerome ALET - GPL Fanatic, and proud of it. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
+---[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]-- | | >From: "Toby Dickenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back | > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on | > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have | > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. | > | | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, | could you please elaborate? There are a variety of reasons. First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form. Unlikely does not mean impossible, but until the NASDAQ picks up again, I would say most people will be wary of non-commercial friendly products. So if you have something useful, then what will probably happen is said corporation will likely throw money at it and reimplement it, market it better, and make proprietary changes and move on. This has already happened with a BSD licensed product (the license was incidental, but, it did happen). This can happen to any Open Source product. The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. Just look at any discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion and mention the GPL. I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL. The oft-quoted reason for GPLing code is to protect code from being 'made proprietary.' Well noone can do that anyway, because you own it. Mainly people GPL their code to stop other people making money from it (that's why RMS invented it in the first place d8) It should be noted that large projects are effectively proprietary anyway because of their size, (see Mozilla, and how long it's taken for any serious action). Here are some large, non-GPL products that are thriving. Apache -- BSD licence, several commercial versions around. It's hurt apache how? Well it hasn't, they in fact have received funding from IBM and others, and actually have bleeding edge Java support provided by corporations. X11 -- BSD license, several commercial versions around. Same deal, they get funding from large vendors to provide features etc. *BSD -- BSD license, Apple took Net/FreeBSD code for Darwin, and has contributed changes back to the relevant codebases, and have released Darwin as an open source Operating System (not required by BSD license). BSDI acquired Walnut Creek and FreeBSD, changes are being merged across from BSDI to FreeBSD. Mozilla -- MPL license. Zope -- ZPL license. Perl -- Artistic License (GPL - controversial bits). While the GPL guarantees that other people's code will also be open source, it doesn't guarantee that they will contribute those changes to you (i.e. stop forks 150 Linux distros can't be wrong). The BSD code doesn't prevent this either (OpenBSD anyone?). MPL does. It always amuses me that the GPL zealots who deride any and all licenses that are not GPL, continue to use the TCP/IP code pilferred from *BSD, use Apache, and use openssh which doesn't seem to have any license d8) They also proudly use Netscape which doesn't come with source at all. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Jim Hebert wrote: > Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the > one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments > in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that > setting. From: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW --cut-- LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses and the GPL attract or deter developers? GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary" companies are major contributors to Python and other open source products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software --cut-- > But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a > solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money > from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help > them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on > distributing that solution to any additional people. Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open source products are important to Guido van Rossum. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Dario Lopez-Ksten wrote: > and then, when you want to distribute your modifications, you find yourself > in a bad position, because it will mean that you would have to give > everybody else the same rights that allowed you to distribute a modification > of someone elses work, in the first place? What if I can't distribute the modifications or a web site built using GPL'ed components because I also use a commercial library in it? To quote Dave Winer: "[The GPL is] designed to create a wall between commercial development and free development. The world is not that simple. There are plenty of commercial developers who participate in open source. Python belongs in commercial products. How does that hurt Python?" I _do_ want to give something back to the community, but I do not want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
>From: "Toby Dickenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. > but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, could you please elaborate? /dario ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:53:34 -0700, Kapil Thangavelu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I want to give my code to the community. i don't want people taking my >code from the community and distributing it without giving back. If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have happened if Zope was under a GPL license. Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Well put! terry Jerome Alet wrote: > On 13 Sep 2000, Erik Enge wrote: > > > And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this > > mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I > > can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them > > separately? > > Maybe this is stupid, but I'm sure it would clarify the situation for all > of us if DC and the FSF could get in touch, talk about all this, and give > us a final explanation, agreed by both, explaining exactly what we can and > can't do regarding this licensing problem. > > bye, > > Jerome ALET - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome > Faculte de Medecine de Nice - http://noe.unice.fr - Tel: 04 93 37 76 30 > 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE > > ___ > 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 ) -- Terry Kerr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Adroit Internet Solutions Pty Ltd (www.adroit.net) Phone: +613 9563 4461 Fax: +613 9563 3856 Mobile: +61 414 708 124 ICQ: 79303381 ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On 13 Sep 2000, Erik Enge wrote: > And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this > mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I > can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them > separately? Maybe this is stupid, but I'm sure it would clarify the situation for all of us if DC and the FSF could get in touch, talk about all this, and give us a final explanation, agreed by both, explaining exactly what we can and can't do regarding this licensing problem. bye, Jerome ALET - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome Faculte de Medecine de Nice - http://noe.unice.fr - Tel: 04 93 37 76 30 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
[Karl Anderson] | In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to | distribute the entire work under the GPL. : | Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be | distributed as part of a Zope solution. : | Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the | license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a «module». Is a module an extension to the Zope application, or is it a Product that resides in lib/python/Products? I'm a bit confused, you use «component», «product» and «module». Which is what? And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them separately? ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Hi, I think the direction of this discussion has been lost. The main concern is with the distribution of GPL'd zope products as a part of other products, commercial, proprietary, freeware, or not. In this case, does the GPL enforce that the product as a whole must be distributed under the GPL? The GPL states that it only applies to "work based on the Program" defined as "means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications..." So from my understanding of this, and what others in this discussion have said, this means that if you create a product that uses a GPL'd product either by sub classing it or through other means, and you distribute this GPL'd product with your own, with the GPL'd product being modified or not, then your own product must also be GPL'd. If however you only provide a pointer in your distribution to the GPL'd product, and it is up to the software installer to go and fetch the GPL'd product, then you can distribute under any license that you wish. On another note...I am not clear on the meaning of the terms in the ZPL. Is it possible to distribute your own product with its own license (possibly the GPL) as a part of a standard un-modified zope distribution with its terms and conditions intact (i.e., your product is in lib/python/Products/ ), or in this case would your product automatically fall under the ZPL? Would you need to package your own product completely separately for to to have its own license? What do Digital Creations people have to say about this? You have been quiet so far ;-) terry -- Terry Kerr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Adroit Internet Solutions Pty Ltd (www.adroit.net) Phone: +613 9563 4461 Fax: +613 9563 3856 Mobile: +61 414 708 124 ICQ: 79303381 ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Karl Anderson wrote: > > Correct me if I'm wrong (and don't bother with the discussion on the > merits or non- of the GPL, I don't care in this context), but: > > In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to > distribute the entire work under the GPL. > > RMS says that the ZPL isn't compatible with the GPL; either you can't > get something via rights given by the ZPL, then distribute it under > the more restrictive rights of the GPL (the copyleft virus). Or vice > versa. > > Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be > distributed as part of a Zope solution. You can link & use them, or > distribute one and provide a pointer to the other for the other party > to install, just not distribute them together to anyone else. > > Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the > license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare. While i'm not a GPL expert, I believe your interpretation is correct, in that the distribution has to be separate. As far as packaging nightmare goes, it might be an extra download link or cd in a distribution. Not exactly a nightmare. I think a minor inconvience is worth giving freedom to authors to make they're creations available as they wish. and because you're a DC employee advocating against the GPL (for specific reasons which amount to inconvience), i feel its important to give a reason why you want to go through the inconvience: I want to give my code to the community. i don't want people taking my code from the community and distributing it without giving back. the last thing i want to see is someone taking code from the community, making changes to it and making it propertiary, and then selling it in restricted form. if they sold it with source, thats fine. its not about money, or code, its about freedom and enpowerment of the community. Kapil ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Correct me if I'm wrong (and don't bother with the discussion on the merits or non- of the GPL, I don't care in this context), but: In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to distribute the entire work under the GPL. RMS says that the ZPL isn't compatible with the GPL; either you can't get something via rights given by the ZPL, then distribute it under the more restrictive rights of the GPL (the copyleft virus). Or vice versa. Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be distributed as part of a Zope solution. You can link & use them, or distribute one and provide a pointer to the other for the other party to install, just not distribute them together to anyone else. Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare. -- Karl Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Magnus Alvestad wrote: > > [Danny William Adair] > > | Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. > > There are several issues here. > > First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope > site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any > further source code. Only if you (embrace and) extend that specific > product would the GPL hit you. That's LGPL, GPL affects anything _linked_ to it ;( > Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always > includes source anyway. I guess the exception would be if you have > binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something > like that. But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were > 'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed. LGPL would be fine, but GPL directly affects anything "linked" to/with it. As GPL has never (AFAIK) been tested in court the whole discussion may be moot, but otherways you are in muddy waters if you use GPL'd modules and don't make all your source available. It _may_ be possible to separate your site into code, content and docs, but still at least whole source code is affected, perhaps contents too, depending on how you/RMS/judge sees it. > Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have > already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a > customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' > anyway. I can see only two reasons (except extortion) for not providing the code - 1. extremely bad code and 2. some really nifty invention (here a patent would serve you better anyway) -- Hannu ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
> "TC" == Tim Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TC> Danny William Adair wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. Is it not possible >> to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of >> configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even >> documenting the outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? >> Maybe not only to _one_ customer, but burn a CD and sell it to >> _a couple_ of customers? >> TC> Yes, you can. BUT, you must make the source code available. And before we get too far -- Source code available to the recipient means just that. They (the recipient) have it available to them. That doesn't necessarily mean that you ship it, but that it is available to them. And that definitely doesn't mean "available to the world". Though, this whole argument is sort of silly, given that we are talking about extensions to an "open source platform" to begin with, so that sales based on services make more sense than shrinkwarp'd (sic) EULA-code.. best, -tony -- A.J. RossiniRsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics BlindGlobe Networks (home/default) [EMAIL PROTECTED] UW Biostat/Center for AIDS Research [EMAIL PROTECTED] FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] FHCRC: M/Tu: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812) | Voicemail is pretty sketchy CFAR: W/F: 206-731-3647 (fax=3694) | Email is far better than phone UW:Th/F: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286) | Change last 4 digits of phone for fax ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
- Original Message - From: "Nils Kassube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Magnus Alvestad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill > Magnus Alvestad wrote: > > > Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have > > already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a > > customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' > > anyway. > > The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development > will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the > source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff > built with it) for everyone else, too. so, your main problem here is that you take someone elses work, modify it to suit your needs under a license that *specifically* grants you those rights, and then, when you want to distribute your modifications, you find yourself in a bad position, because it will mean that you would have to give everybody else the same rights that allowed you to distribute a modification of someone elses work, in the first place? In other words, you don't mind being the "sharee", but do not wish to be the "sharer", particularely when it somes to work that others have "shared" to you? To shout bloody murder because of this is to REALLY expose one self, don't you think? To me, this is the ultimately reason to have the GPL around. It helps us ensure that all that want to profit from our work but have no interest in returning the favor will have to turn elsewhere or actually do some of the grundwork themsleves. Mind you that my english is not too good, so there might be som parts of this thread that I have not fully understood or that I may have got completely wrong; if so, fell free to enlighten me. Sincerely, /dario - Dario Lopez-Kästen Systems Developer Chalmers Univ. of Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ will yield no hitsIT Systems & Services ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Just to state my position, I have worked as a professional commercial software developer since 1994. I think the GPL is appropriate for work I do outside customer contracts. [Nils Kassube] | The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development | will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the | source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff | built with it) for everyone else, too. (complete version at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) -- from the GPL 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, -- These are the most relevant sections. It's pretty clear that you are only obligated to distribute source to the parties you've distributed object code / executable form to. | Another issue is that in a complex object oriented environment | like Zope it's difficult to determine if you only used a GPL'ed | component or "embraced and extended" it. Actually the embrace and extension was a silly Microsoft-joke, the definition in the license text is more verbose: .. a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. .. I don't think a zope site could be defined as a 'work'. -Magnus ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development > will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the > source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff > built with it) for everyone else, too. *gasp* Your client will have *RIGHTS*, and won't be beholden to you? Like the right to post a code snippet of yours to this list and say "the original developer wants $ to debug this problem, can someone else help me?" Perish the thought! How will you ever become rich if you can't get on the "pay me to fix it, or pay someone else to start from scratch" train? Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that setting. But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on distributing that solution to any additional people. What utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude. You are actually bemoaning the fact, on a public list, that you'll have to write things from scratch if you want to have the right set the terms of distribution on those things. You're begrudging others the right to set the terms of distribution on their things, because it impinges on your ability to make a profit. You're simply pointing out that you'll have to do more work to make your money this way. What exactly about all of that is supposed to tug at the heartstrings of people who routinely give you free code whose real dollar value easily exceeds what either of us makes in a year? Unbelievable. jim Not speaking for Cosource.com or Vistasource.com. PS I am *very* grateful for all of the amazing free software that the Zope community produces under ALL of its licenses. Thank you all, so much! The size of the gift you give is already mind boggling, so to those of you who choose the GPL, please ignore the ingrates who would ask you to make the gift even "larger" by giving up your copyleft. PPS Next time you think about comparing a world in which you had Product X, GPL'd and Product X, non-copylefted, try comparing a world in which you had Product X, GPL'd and had nothing because they won't distribute it under any terms whatsoever. It's easy to ask for even more generosity from someone when you take what you already have for granted. Try respecting the size of the gift you've already received for a bit of perspective. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:02:15PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote: > > >No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if > > you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code). > > Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I have to publish > source code to the whole world (not only clients) then? No. If you give binaries to someone, you have to also give sources. You're not obliged to give the binaries to anyone. You can charge big bucks for the binaries, but if someone has them they're free to redistribute it. []s, |alo + -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Nils Kassube wrote: > > Oleg Broytmann wrote: > > > LICENSE > >GPL > > I've seen several Zope products using the GPL. In my not so > humble opinion, this could develop into a serious problem > for Zope deployment. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), > but the use of GPL'ed source code like e.g. Renderable ZClass > in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish > every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module -- No. This is clearly incorrect. The GPL only applies to the code, and modifications to said code. If you are in doubt as to the licensaes of various systems, ask a lawyer. Many of the rest of us have. > including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible > if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used > in a project. > > I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL. > The GPL license is not about sharing like e.g. the BSD license, > it's about enforcing the political agenda of people who think > that commercial ("proprietary") software w/o source code is evil. Please, take license religous wars elsewhere. This is not an appropriate forum. This last paragraph sounds very troll-like, or flame-baiting to me. This list is about using Zope. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy, and have the root password. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Danny William Adair wrote: > > Hi all! > > Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. > Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of > configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the > outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? Maybe not only to _one_ > customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers? > Yes, you can. BUT, you must make the source code available. > In my opinion (yes, opinion has nothing to do with lawyers and courts ;-)), > in this case you wouldn't be selling other people's products, no you would > have created something new, which ___you___ can put a copyright on. It's a > compilation, and with enough value-adding effort put in to this compilation, > none of the respective GPL authors could claim to be co-author of your > production. Since you don't want to (only) sell your service of deploying, > but also your new product. (product in its conventional meaning, I would > call a Zope product a "module" in this respect) This is exactly why I decided to GPL my FreePM project. A company with deeper pockets for marketing and more presence in the marketplace could take my work (under some of the other licenses ) and use it to their own gain. Under the GPL, they must make their source available too. The GPL is not a cure all. But it certainly has it's place. >But as one of the people who respect your freedom, I will do all my best > to protect your freedom (in the way that do not limit my freedom). You are > free to use my code, to read it and patch it, to send me your patches or to > fork the code. AND FINALLY YOUR ARE FREE TO *ignore* MY CODE! > >But please, please! If you respect my freedom - do not ask me to change > the license. I love GPL and found it pretty suitable for my needs. > > Oleg. Exactly! -- Tim Cook -- Cook Information Systems | Office: (901) 884-4126 8am-5pm CDT * Specializing in Open Source Business Systems * FreePM Project Coordinator http://www.freepm.org OSHCA Founding Supporter http://www.oshca.org ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Magnus Alvestad wrote: > Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have > already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a > customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' > anyway. The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff built with it) for everyone else, too. Another issue is that in a complex object oriented environment like Zope it's difficult to determine if you only used a GPL'ed component or "embraced and extended" it. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
[Danny William Adair] | Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. There are several issues here. First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any further source code. Only if you (embrace and) extend that specific product would the GPL hit you. Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always includes source anyway. I guess the exception would be if you have binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something like that. But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were 'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed. Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' anyway. -Magnus (I'm not a lawyer) ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Danny William Adair wrote: > Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of > configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the > outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? Maybe not only to _one_ > customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers? You can sell it but... AFAIK you risk that everyone else can copy your effort for free if you built software on GPL'ed code. And what's only a compilation and what's a derived work (subject to the GPL) is up to the lawyers. Personally, I try to avoid legal ambiguities. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Danny William Adair wrote: > Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. > Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of > configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the > outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? Maybe not only to _one_ > customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers? You are pretty free to sell it, but you are forced to distribute GPL'd sources along with binaries. Oleg. Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Hi all! Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? Maybe not only to _one_ customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers? In my opinion (yes, opinion has nothing to do with lawyers and courts ;-)), in this case you wouldn't be selling other people's products, no you would have created something new, which ___you___ can put a copyright on. It's a compilation, and with enough value-adding effort put in to this compilation, none of the respective GPL authors could claim to be co-author of your production. Since you don't want to (only) sell your service of deploying, but also your new product. (product in its conventional meaning, I would call a Zope product a "module" in this respect) Well I might just be dreaming... Maybe someone can wake me up if I am. tia Danny -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Oleg Broytmann Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. September 2000 18:08 An: Nils Kassube Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote: > > >No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if > > you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code). > > Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I have to publish > source code to the whole world (not only clients) then? I am not a lawyer, and certainly not authorized to interpret the License. But as one of the people who respect your freedom, I will do all my best to protect your freedom (in the way that do not limit my freedom). You are free to use my code, to read it and patch it, to send me your patches or to fork the code. AND FINALLY YOUR ARE FREE TO *ignore* MY CODE! But please, please! If you respect my freedom - do not ask me to change the license. I love GPL and found it pretty suitable for my needs. Oleg. Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ 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 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote: > > >No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if > > you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code). > > Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I have to publish > source code to the whole world (not only clients) then? I am not a lawyer, and certainly not authorized to interpret the License. But as one of the people who respect your freedom, I will do all my best to protect your freedom (in the way that do not limit my freedom). You are free to use my code, to read it and patch it, to send me your patches or to fork the code. AND FINALLY YOUR ARE FREE TO *ignore* MY CODE! But please, please! If you respect my freedom - do not ask me to change the license. I love GPL and found it pretty suitable for my needs. Oleg. Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote: >No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if > you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code). Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I have to publish source code to the whole world (not only clients) then? From: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html --cut-- Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to free software get permission to do that. These programmers often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product. When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away. To copyleft a program, first we copyright it; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. --cut-- How do I separate my work inside a Zope-based application from GPL'ed pieces to prevent this from happening? Looks like a lot of trouble. It's easy to deal with GPL'ed programs like gcc, but how do you handle GPL'ed components in a complex object oriented environment? I'm not a lawyer, I'm (want to be) a software engineer, so what are my options? Risk a lawsuit from a GPL-using author or rewrite from scratch. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Hi! On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote: > Oleg Broytmann wrote: > > > LICENSE > >GPL > > I've seen several Zope products using the GPL. In my not so > humble opinion, this could develop into a serious problem > for Zope deployment. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), > but the use of GPL'ed source code like e.g. Renderable ZClass > in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish > every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module -- > including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible > if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used > in a project. No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code). > I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL. > The GPL license is not about sharing like e.g. the BSD license, > it's about enforcing the political agenda of people who think > that commercial ("proprietary") software w/o source code is evil. Yes, exactly! You've got the point! I love GPL! :) Oleg. Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Nils Kassube wrote: > I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL. > The GPL license is not about sharing like e.g. the BSD license, > it's about enforcing the political agenda of people who think > that commercial ("proprietary") software w/o source code is evil. This is very true... I think it's made worse by the fact that a lot of people just select 'GPL' from the dropdown list on the products page without realising the implications... cheers, Chris ___ 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] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Oleg Broytmann wrote: > LICENSE >GPL I've seen several Zope products using the GPL. In my not so humble opinion, this could develop into a serious problem for Zope deployment. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but the use of GPL'ed source code like e.g. Renderable ZClass in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module -- including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used in a project. I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL. The GPL license is not about sharing like e.g. the BSD license, it's about enforcing the political agenda of people who think that commercial ("proprietary") software w/o source code is evil. Cheers, Nils -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 )