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
[Simon Michael]
| Now you're talking. Seconded.
Me too!
And if the management team really needs alot of serious breakdowns as
to why this is a problem (GPL-incompatability, that is) let me know
and I'll drum up a nice little mail of my own. :)
___
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Now, if the ZPL were GPL compatible, the GPL would be in full effect
for products. Digital Creations would automatically have the rights
to redistribute derivatives of ZWiki. I believe DC would even be able
to distribute ZWiki with Zope as long as
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote:
Now I think I have two different answers to one of my fundamental
questions in this discussion: if I have a GPL-compatible licensed product
and I distribute it with a GPL product, do I need to relicense the former
one to GPL? Because that is what I
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Morten W. Petersen wrote:
Yes, you can distribute a GPL-compatible licensed code with GPL
licensed code without licencing the former under GPL. Take a look in
the Linux-kernel source tree for example.
Ok, good. Then Thingamy's intermediate solution will be to create a
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote:
Ok, good. Then Thingamy's intermediate solution will be to create a TPL
which is basically the ZPL with the incompatible-clauses ripped out
(number 4 and 7, I think). That way we are compatible with both the ZPL
and the GPL.
Something like that.
On Friday 22 June 2001 04:24, Erik Enge wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Now, if the ZPL were GPL compatible, the GPL would be in full effect
for products. Digital Creations would automatically have the rights
to redistribute derivatives of ZWiki. I believe DC would even
Simon Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I'm guessing there was a shout of joy around the world - it made
my day. I think many of us then said well thank god for some sanity
PS, and in case that wasn't clear -
I want to say a BIG THANK YOU to all who put so much hard work into
solving
Now you're talking. Seconded.
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 20 Jun 2001 10:38:03 -0500, Steve Drees wrote:
Here comes the liscence wars again.
Still haven't figured out how GPL became the holy grail.
the terms on the gpl are (by choice) the strictiest (does that word even
exists?) ever seen in a free software license. but a lot of people
'believe'
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
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
On 20 Jun 2001 18:27:08 +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
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:38:03AM -0500, Steve Drees wrote:
Here comes the liscence wars again.
Still haven't figured out how GPL became the holy grail.
The license dicussion takes place elsewhere as all of you
surely know. License wars tend to come up at various places
but are usually not
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
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:05:43PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
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
On 20 Jun 2001 13:12:20 -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
Also, as an aside, if this really concerns you, you might wish to
consider contacting the author of the GPL product. There is nothing
to prevent him from giving you different licensing terms. For
most GPL authors, this comes down to a simple
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
Hmm, I think this discussion doesn't belong to zope-dev.
It's very informitive to me so far. I have no problem with discussing it
here.
-Michel
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
41 matches
Mail list logo
