Simon Michael wrote:
Doing nothing means that we are stuck with a broken and unmaintained
Plone
1 site as our public face for awhile longer. I don't think any of us
really want that.
I piggyback on Geoff's insightful post and say the same thing about
Zwiki. It's bad marketing for the
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:21:02 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
May i suggest you have a look at
http://codespeak.net/svn/z3/zopeweb/trunk/project.txt ?
I'd like to invite you to join the effort - but I don't want to think
about forking zope.org and i immediately loose interest when you
Jens Vagelpohl jens at dataflake.org writes:
This isn't as easy as it seems, and simple provisioning of manpower
is only one small part.
snip red tape
That's so incredibly stupid I can't believe no-one's ever done anything about
it. Considering that Zope is largely community-maintained,
On 1 Mar 2006, at 23:45, Geoff Davis wrote:
The issues I am more concerned about are the social / political
ones. The
signature issue is interesting, but probably surmountable -- all Plone
contributors are required to sign a contributor agreement.
But don't forget - this agreement is with
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:07:38 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Thanks for your response. If we set something up and make it live for
testing / feedback, is there a good way to avoid copyright / trademark
headaches?
I suppose. What sort of copyright / trademark headaches?
Zope Corp owns the Zope
