Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote: --On 17. August 2006 01:11:44 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The appropriate thing here would be to remove the code which depends on the GPL, and then ask the foundation's permission before readding it. In the meanwhile, codespeak.net might provide a reasonable place from which to continue development of said code. That's extremly odd. Consider the following case: I am writing a ZPLed Zope product but include some migration shell scripts that call some common GPLed unix programs for a particular task...I wouldn't be allowed to checkin this software on svn.zope.org? The advice to move the code out of the repository is not really legitimate. Neither rules as given through the contributor agreement nor unspoken rules were violated. Once again: using GPLed software does not make your own ZPLed software automatically GPLed. Some folks (many of those who release Python software under the GPL) believe that 'from foo import bar' triggers the provisions of the GPL, arguing by similarity with the somewhat-equivalent operation which occurs when including / linking code in a C / C++ application. These same folks would *not* argue that invoking a separately-compiled GPL application, and then consuming its output (or relying on its side effects) triggers the GPL on the invoking application. In the realm of copyright law, such authors' intent about the use of their code might actually be pertinent if the issue is ever tried in court. In the meanwhile, the code in question exposes others beyond the author (those who incorporate the ZPL-but-dependent-on-a-GPL-module code in their own applications) to a risk of being the guinea pig who gets to pay to prove the point in court. I consider such needle^h^h^h^h^h^hrisk sharing to be inappropriate within the Zope repository. I say this as a Zope developer / ZF member, who is *not* a ZF board member; the foundation's IP policy is more easily construed to support such a position, as well. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE5Abx+gerLs4ltQ4RAu28AJ43Z0E7Qmu5fAEoebtY/tvcx0S0fgCgitCf l8H27Qu3bxh6gMuuxn5RDy8= =0cMb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Tres Seaver wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] If the GPL is one of those included licenses, the whole package falls under the provisions of the GPL, not just the dependencies. This is what the GPL requires. I'd prefer to have somebody at the foundation pay for advice on this: I have consulted to one very Zope-and-Python savvy IP lawyer (Ron Chichester) who has subsequently made his analysis of the interaction of GPL and Python's import public (at the Plone Symposium in New Orleans last March). [one lawyer's interpretation of GPL's interaction with Python] Not disrepecting Ron Chichester's opinion, but I have the suspicion that each lawyer we talk to will have a different one... I'm obviously not a lawyer so what I'm saying is not legal advice, let that be understood for all time. I do think that my interpretation is the interpretation more commonly made, and more in line with the original intent of the GPL. Whether that's correct legally I cannot say. I bring this up not to argue for Ron'd analysis, but only to say that assuming that you know what the GPL means in the context of Python might need to wait until the issue has been adjudicated. Agreed: this would become more clear once there's jurisprudence in the courts, and it may very well be this jurisprudence will also turn out differently in different countries... In the meanwhile, it is probably *not* going to be within the ZF's IP policy to allow checking in code which forces users of the repostiory to deal with the GPL at all; Agreed again: we could save the hassle and just sidestep the issue (instead of asking for legal council): avoid the GPL and thus we won't have to worry about it. :) I would consider such a checkin now, in the interregnum period, to be particularly ill-advised. My reading of the ZF's IP policy is that it tries to avoid the provisions of the GPL. Whether it *strictly* forbids the checking in of code that depends on GPL-ed code elsewhere I have a hard time saying, but I'm more confident of my understanding of the intent of it. [Stephan] Remember, we are talking only about a dependency here, not even an inclusion. This case is much weaker than a lot of others. [me again] I know we're talking about a dependency here. I'm not saying what you did was wrong, but I do also think Benji brought up a good point that should be carefully considered. The Zope repository as managed by ZC has had a clear anti-GPL policy; I don't think that the foundation's policy is likely to be more favorable to code which might, in theory, trigger the provisions of the GPL. I think that this is correct: it's more explicit in the ZF's policy than before, actually. This is why I was talking about the intent of the rules as opposed to the exact letter. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7081 Blamelist: regebro BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 FreeBSD tmiddleton
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 FreeBSD tmiddleton. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7081 Blamelist: regebro BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7081 Blamelist: regebro BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 branches 3.3 2.4 FreeBSD tmiddleton
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 branches 3.3 2.4 FreeBSD tmiddleton. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7082 Blamelist: baijum,philikon,regebro BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 branches 3.3 2.4 Linux remy
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 branches 3.3 2.4 Linux remy. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7082 Blamelist: baijum,philikon,regebro BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] error reporting utility and SiteError log
Hey, Replying to myself: if people feel like digging into things, there are some issues that contain some context: http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/686/collector_issue_contents I also ran into this independenly in this issue, so it contains lots of contents on this: http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/558 Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] error reporting utility and SiteError log
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I was making the assumption that any error that shows up in the error reporting utility in the ZMI is also copied to the SiteError log (typically STDOUT in a standard Zope 3 configuration), and vice versa. This assumption is true in Zope 2, where in the error_log object you can actually request the error to be logged to the shell as well. It however does not appear to be the case in the error handling logic in Zope 3. Instead, all errors appear to be logged to the error reporting utility, but only errors that: * have views * have this view provide the ISystemErrorView interface * and have a method on this view isSystemError() returning True appear to get logged to the SiteError log (and thus STDOUT). In certain circumstances this leads to errors that do not appear on STDOUT that do get logged into the error reporting utility. This is, at least to me, rather surprising. What's the motivation for the differences? Could we unify this approach so that the error reporting utility is responsible for logging to the SiteError log as well? +1 for unification a) it's easier to understand b) in general favor of unification with Z2 Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
