On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:39:00PM -0700, Simon Michael wrote:
reviewing the thread just now, I couldn't figure out how Jan-Oliver
first participated and then argued against it. Now I think he was
responding to Steve Drees and not saying what I thought he said.
Sorry Jan! :)
I am not sure
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
You're not allowed to distribute a derived work of GPL code with proprietary
code incorporated.
Ok, this is the situation. We in Thingamy usually create all our products
under the GPL. Then we give the whole shebang to the client we have been
i'll try to answer as clearly as possible but remeber that what follows
are *my* oppinions, not mixad live's nor debian's.
On 21 Jun 2001 10:52:28 +0200, Erik Enge wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
[snip]
If I have the proprietory program P (that is the clients
On 21 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
if your product derives from GUM or uses internal interfaces, no, you
can't. if your product uses only well the defined external api or
access gum through zope, then, imho, yes.
Ok, that's good. Then it means we can potentially use GPL Zope Python
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-06-20 19:12]:
As far as I can tell you are wrong, but there are certainly gray
areas. The last time this came up I wrote such a scenario up and
tried to get FSF clarification. Nothing ever came back.
I got a clarification from the FSF. It's in the
1. Will Unicode be supported (UTF-8 encoding) for results, posted data,
marshaled arguments, etc?
No, 2.4 will only do the minimum to support python 2.x. This means it
will not make use of new features in Python 2.x, such as Unicode
However, I have mature patches to do exactly this, linked
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
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
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,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-06-20 19:12]:
As far as I can tell you are wrong, but there are certainly gray
areas. The last time this came up I wrote such a scenario up and
tried to get FSF clarification. Nothing
I've cc:ed zope-dev in case anyone else is interested.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, David Goodger wrote:
The last time I downloaded and studied the CVS branch was in November 2000.
At the time, the code wasn't very inviting. I just downloaded the CVS branch
again, using the instructions in
On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
[snip]
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
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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 05:18:40PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
[snip]
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
On 21 Jun 2001 11:39:37 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 05:18:40PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
[snip]
OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating
system may I install a piece of GPL
err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long
as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your
external code from zope. if you write a product suclassing dc code,
you're effectively 'linking' and gpl limitations apply.
GPL limitations
Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 21 Jun 2001 11:39:37 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 05:18:40PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
[snip]
OK, consider this from another point of view. If I have an operating
system
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
as i said before, writing gpl code subclassing zope is a non-sense. even
the author cannot, imho, redistribute its work with a plain gpl attached
to it. the gpl says that if you link with gpl code *all* the code should
be gpl or gpl-compatible (major os components like clibs, compilers, etc
On 21 Jun 2001 17:18:40 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 21 Jun 2001 11:08:30 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
[snip]
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
On 21 Jun 2001 12:07:36 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote:
[snip]
err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long
as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your
No, No, no, NO!
The License of PYTHON only applies to modifications, derivations, etc.
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
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
Erik Enge writes:
Another question which I feel is very related, and to which I cannot get
any real clarification: Can Zope run GPL Zope Python Products without
being relicensed as GPL?
I think, we can answer this with a clear yes:
As an analogy:
You can use a Windows (TM) command
Transparent Folders are used very often at iuveno. And we would like to do
so in the future because they really provide an easy way to structure
objects in folders. But with Zope 2.3.3 we get errors like that when we
start an instance that uses Transparent Folders:
Traceback (innermost last):
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Joachim Werner wrote:
Transparent Folders are used very often at iuveno. And we would like to do
so in the future because they really provide an easy way to structure
objects in folders. But with Zope 2.3.3 we get errors like that when we
start an instance that uses
Is there any good reason why a Product inside the ControlPanel is the only
place a ZClass can exist? Why can't I have one in any folder?
Dylan Jay mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Avaya Communication Tel: +61 2 9886-8961
Level 3, 123 Epping Road
On 21 Jun 2001 21:18:16 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 21 Jun 2001 12:07:36 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote:
[snip]
err, no. if you write an external module using only python code, as long
as you use a gpl-compatible python to run zope, you can call your
No, No, no, NO!
The
Tomorrow I hope to release a version of TransparentFolders that works
around the problem, so you can wait for that instead if you like.
Cool! Could you maybe put the patch that currently is applied in
OFS/__init.py__ into a Hotfix? This would make it easier to use Transparent
Folders together
Is there any good reason why a Product inside the ControlPanel is the only
place a ZClass can exist? Why can't I have one in any folder?
I think it is perfectly logical that ZClasses are located in the Products
area. A folder is for instances of classes, and a ZClass is a class, not an
dtml-tree made me look good today :). Thanks DC!
But still it urgently needs a rewrite ;-)
Some issues:
- Only one tree per page (it should be an option to use core session or
unique cookies to enable more than one tree per page)
- The open/close icons are hard-coded
- A general one that
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Joachim Werner wrote:
Tomorrow I hope to release a version of TransparentFolders that works
around the problem, so you can wait for that instead if you like.
Cool! Could you maybe put the patch that currently is applied in
OFS/__init.py__ into a Hotfix? This would
Jim Penny wrote:
DC and FSF somehow have to come to some understandings of the following
questions.
Here is my own view (not DC's offical word!)
Can a GPL (unmodified) component be distributed for Zope (at all)?
I think the message by Bradley Kuhn is a little misleading.
If you are the
Now is there a technical reason why I can't have a ZClass inside any
folder?
No. There is not code to allow this to happen in Zope, however. I think at
some point, Lalo came up with a local factory product that did something
like this.
___
Note: I'm still using Zope 2.2.5, which is why I'm forced to use
__ac_permissions__ and not the new security code in 2.3.x.
In the documentation I've found on how __ac_permissions__ works you are
supposed to be able to set default roles for a permission in a 3rd tuple.
I've tried various things
-Original Message-
From: Chris McDonough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2001 2:42 PM
To: Jay, Dylan; 'Joachim Werner'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] ZClass not in a Product
Now is there a technical reason why I can't have a ZClass inside any
35 matches
Mail list logo
