Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [snip] I'm +1 too, but I'm against naming this category Zope 3. I would just call it Zope. +1 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
On 8/21/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm +1 too, but I'm against naming this category Zope 3. I would just call it Zope. Two reasons: I think this should be a community decision. While my own interests are largely limited to Zope 3 these days, the increasing overlap makes the distinction less meaningful. I don't expect to spend my time arguing which is best. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "Every sin is the result of a collaboration." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca ___ 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
On Aug 19, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Fred Drake wrote: - The Python Package Index (PyPI) has framework categories. I find these a bit unclear. I thought Jim had requested one for Zope 3, No, Ian Bicking requested one for Zope (or Zope 2 or Zope 3). but I see only Paste and TurboGears in the currently published list. We can get the appropriate category added to PyPI and use that for browsing the available Zope 3 component offerings. This would also make Zope 3 activity visible to the rest of the Python community. Yes. There should definitely be a Zope 2 category. I'm not sure about Zope 3, is less a Framework than a collection of frameworks, although I suppose the collection could be viewed as a framework. Still, for some reason, I'm squeemish about saying there is a Zope 3 framework. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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
On Saturday 19 August 2006 12:52, Fred Drake wrote: > Seems to me what we need is a way to easily find a list of what's > available, with concise human-readable descriptions of what each does. > There are a options to consider: Another option is clearly the ZSCP web site. As soon as I am back in the US, I'll bring this up with the ZF board for approval or to get the process of approval going. Note that I do not see ZSCP replacing PyPI or Wikis or whatever, but rather integrate them all and to provide a central point of entry for Zope related packages. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
Fred Drake wrote: - The Python Package Index (PyPI) has framework categories. I thought Jim had requested one for Zope 3, but I see only Paste and TurboGears in the currently published list. We can get the appropriate category added to PyPI and use that for browsing the available Zope 3 component offerings. This would also make Zope 3 activity visible to the rest of the Python community. +1 -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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
On 8/19/06, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nothing. But when we have loads of empty top level packages that each have a couple of modules it gets confusing, since you need to keep track of what does which. This is a perception problem, which indicates a documentation problem. Each of the separate packages is in a top-level project in Subversion, so worry about the top-level namespace a red herring. The issue is that there are a lot of individual packages, and it's hard to keep track of so many in your head at once if you haven't really used them. An I'm guess no one has used *all* of the Zope 3 packages on svn.zope.org at this point. I would much more prefer if we could keep all small useful packages in some sort of kommon namespace, which we know holds loads of small useful packages. If this in unfeasible, then fine, I'll just have to live with it. I guess what I'm getting at is that it's not the top-level packages we need to worry about, but the packages themselves. Those are what offer interesting functionality that we want to consider for re-use in applications. Seems to me what we need is a way to easily find a list of what's available, with concise human-readable descriptions of what each does. There are a options to consider: - The Python Package Index (PyPI) has framework categories. I thought Jim had requested one for Zope 3, but I see only Paste and TurboGears in the currently published list. We can get the appropriate category added to PyPI and use that for browsing the available Zope 3 component offerings. This would also make Zope 3 activity visible to the rest of the Python community. - There's a mostly-ignored Zope 3 wiki on dev.zope.org that could be used more effectively. Adding a page to act as a catalog of what's available is straightforward and keeps the barrier to entry low. This doesn't offer the visibility or other features that PyPI offers, however. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "Every sin is the result of a collaboration." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca ___ 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
On 19.08.2006, at 11:41, Lennart Regebro wrote: I'd like to throw a stick in the fire by taking up a completely different issue: The amount of top level modules and repositories. :-) if lovely.rating depends on schooltool.something, not only does this mean any usage of lovely.rating (which I imagine I would like to use) also needs one module form schooltool. In addition, we have whatever top level module I choose to use. That involves three different repositories, mine, zopes and schooltools, and three new toplevel modules. If I then throw in more modules that have more external dependencies, this will quickly mushroom. For example, I'd like to use ratings and tags with zblog. That means I need to involve the codespeak repository as well, and zblog has it's own top level module. And then I want a discussion forum (I don't think one of those exists) which presumably would have another top level module, and maybe another repository, and maybe more dependencies. The only problem i see here is that there are currently no releases (e.g. eggs) for most of the packages and therefore everybody has to use svn. We should really start to create releases. So, what I'm saying is, that I would like to minimize the amount of top level domains, and external repository dependecies in the zope repo. That said, I think lovely is a lovely name, and don't at all mind having that as a common name for useable little modules like the tag and ratings module. :-) the lovely namespace is from a company called lovelysystems ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/zope- mailinglist%40mopa.at ___ 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
I'd like to throw a stick in the fire by taking up a completely different issue: The amount of top level modules and repositories. :-) if lovely.rating depends on schooltool.something, not only does this mean any usage of lovely.rating (which I imagine I would like to use) also needs one module form schooltool. In addition, we have whatever top level module I choose to use. That involves three different repositories, mine, zopes and schooltools, and three new toplevel modules. If I then throw in more modules that have more external dependencies, this will quickly mushroom. For example, I'd like to use ratings and tags with zblog. That means I need to involve the codespeak repository as well, and zblog has it's own top level module. And then I want a discussion forum (I don't think one of those exists) which presumably would have another top level module, and maybe another repository, and maybe more dependencies. So, what I'm saying is, that I would like to minimize the amount of top level domains, and external repository dependecies in the zope repo. That said, I think lovely is a lovely name, and don't at all mind having that as a common name for useable little modules like the tag and ratings module. :-) ___ 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
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 Design"http://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
--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. -aj pgpbHaCbPdq3z.pgp Description: 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
Gary Poster wrote: [removed Checkins mailing list--maybe we can choose one list or the other?] On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: And at this moment in time, Zope Corporation as far as I understand is not bound by the same contributor's agreement we are. It's their repository. This will change once the ZF starts managing the repository. I think you might be right about the ZC situation, Martijn. That said, I certainly did not intend to abuse the privilege, if such exists. I meant to imply no abuse of privilege. It's ZC's repository, and ZC has an extremely good track record overall. Let's not worry about that. I think ZC will be quite willing (though understandably disappointed) to remove zope.html from the zope.org repository if requested by the ZF. I hope the ZF won't be requesting this! :) I think this discussion brought to light that we should carefully consider what happens with such non-ZPL code in the repository when this codebase gets contributed to the ZF. (besides the other issue of code that is ZPL but depends on GPL-ed code) 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 16. August 2006 15:42:41 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the repository is freely usable without having to worry about GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations when checking in a codebase. I don't see any grey area. It's a grey area in the area of intent, not in the area of the currently operative rules (the rules of the ZF intellectual property agreement are different - see my other post). The purpose of cvs|svn.zope.org is to be a repos for ZPLed software and the contributor agreement makes this purpose clear. But it was never the task of the repos to enforce a particular license - the ZPL - when building software with/on-top parts taken from svn|cvs.zope.org. It is up to the individual developers to take the software and use it under the terms of the ZPL. Is that the intent of the provisions in the current contributor's agreement? We should ask the drafters of this agreement for more details. I can interpret the intent as follows (I don't know whether I'm right): * The idea is that one should be able to freely make use any software in the repository in proprietary codebases when desired, without having to worry about a GPL license provision affecting the whole. * The code in the repository can freely use *each other* without worrying about GPL licensing provisions for the whole. If those were the intent (not the rules!), then is checking in code with a GPL dependency against this intent? I can give two possible answers: * Yes, as you can't freely use that code without using this dependency which would pull in the GPL license affecting the whole. * No, as the code is ZPL and the dependency is not part of the repository. People who use the component better check the provisions of any dependencies *outside* the repository, and having to do so still means you can freely use the code in the repository without worrying about the GPL license affecting the whole. It's at least worthwhile to figure out together which answers apply to us as zope developers, now under the ZC contributor's agreement as well as later, under the ZF contributor's agreement and intellectual property policy. And yes, this is talking about intentions and not rules. We as a community should figure out what we intend first and then, if necessary and possible, adjust the rules accordingly. 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:18, Benji York wrote: That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear what the ZF board has to say on the issue. The ZF board should not deal with development decisions. This was my main concern about the ZF from the first meeting on. It is a matter to decide among the Zope developers. It would be totally wrong if the board could make decisions like that. I agree the ZF board should not deal with development decisions. This will be the purview of the Zope Management Organisation. Jim and I are in a committee to look into how this is all going to work and people are welcome to join this committee to help us flesh things out. This is up to the community to figure out and we do not want to get into the way of the community. The intent of the ZF is to support the community of developers and users of the Zope platform, after all. The intellectual property policy is somewhat separate from development decisions however, though of course it affects them. Affects in setting constraints, but does not *make*. The intent, as I understand it, of the intellectual property policy is to safeguard that the codebase managed by the ZF is usable under clear and uniform license provisions, so that users of this codebase have clarity and know this codebase has a clear copyright status and a clear licensing status. The ZF intellectual property policy (not yet operative, in my understanding), here: http://www.zope.org/foundation/ZopeFoundation_IP_Policy_v7.pdf says the following: "2.1.2. In no circumstance will the Zope Foundation accept or distribute contributions or Content under licenses or associated terms and conditions that assert “copyleft” provisions on derivative works. This includes but is not limited to the GNU General Public License (GPL)." The question is whether this contribution "asserts a "copyleft" provision on derivative works". When used with the underlying GPL dependency, my understanding is that it does, indirectly. So how to read this text? Is this is an "associated term or condition"? Only if the user actually installs the GPL-ed component it depends on. Perhaps this is one of those grey areas that would make me very happy if I were an intellectual property lawyer? :) What do you think? 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
[removed Checkins mailing list--maybe we can choose one list or the other?] On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: And at this moment in time, Zope Corporation as far as I understand is not bound by the same contributor's agreement we are. It's their repository. This will change once the ZF starts managing the repository. I think you might be right about the ZC situation, Martijn. That said, I certainly did not intend to abuse the privilege, if such exists. I think ZC will be quite willing (though understandably disappointed) to remove zope.html from the zope.org repository if requested by the ZF. Gary ___ 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
--On 16. August 2006 15:42:41 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the repository is freely usable without having to worry about GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations when checking in a codebase. I don't see any grey area. The purpose of cvs|svn.zope.org is to be a repos for ZPLed software and the contributor agreement makes this purpose clear. But it was never the task of the repos to enforce a particular license - the ZPL - when building software with/on-top parts taken from svn|cvs.zope.org. It is up to the individual developers to take the software and use it under the terms of the ZPL. Andreas pgpX6qn1fBH4R.pgp Description: 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
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:34, Benji York wrote: BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be. The LGPL is different than the GPL. No, it is not when talking about this repository. Any license other than ZPL has the same issues, since they must be dealt with separately. I do believe the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) is special in this regard, as it puts requirements on the software it is combined with. And at this moment in time, Zope Corporation as far as I understand is not bound by the same contributor's agreement we are. It's their repository. This will change once the ZF starts managing the repository. 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:42, Martijn Faassen wrote: Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the repository is freely usable without having to worry about GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations when checking in a codebase. My expectation is that I have to read all included license files and the licenses of the dependencies. 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. Remember, we are talking only about a dependency here, not even an inclusion. This case is much weaker than a lot of others. 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. 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Stephan Richter wrote: [snip] Anything you build on top of lovely.rating can be ZPL, since schooltool.requirement is used as a library that is not extended. I do not understand how "is used as a library that is not extended" affects matters? Using a GPL-ed component as a library without extending it doesn't mean I can stop worrying about the GPL when using it in a larger program, as far as I understand. What you say is true though: anything built on top of a GPL-ed package can be ZPL. There is a 'but' here though, and this has to do with expectations and the underlying reasons the ZPL is the license of the Zope repository and people tend to be careful about GPL-ed stuff. I think the provisions of the GPL state that anything that links to a GPL-ed component will need to be distributable under the terms of the GPL: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." So, in my I'm-not-a-lawyer-thank-goodness reading, that means that if I distribute software with a GPL-ed component in it, I need to distribute all the components in this under the provision of the GPL as well. This additional stuff can indeed be ZPL, but since GPL is in there, I cannot distribute proprietary code that uses this software stack, unless I rip out the GPL dependency first. That is, if I give my code to someone, I must give them the source code of everything involved, and they can give that source code to anyone they like, under the provisions of the GPL. The expectation one may have of a ZPL-ed codebase is that it is useable even in proprietary settings without having to comply to the rules of the GPL. This is not the case for a ZPL-ed component which relies on a GPL-ed component. Whether one considers this right, proper or fair is another debate I do not want to go into. 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:34, Benji York wrote: > > BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains > > FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be. > > The LGPL is different than the GPL. No, it is not when talking about this repository. Any license other than ZPL has the same issues, since they must be dealt with separately. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:42, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a > different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one > expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the > repository is freely usable without having to worry about > GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed > code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it > still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations > when checking in a codebase. My expectation is that I have to read all included license files and the licenses of the dependencies. Remember, we are talking only about a dependency here, not even an inclusion. This case is much weaker than a lot of others. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:18, Benji York wrote: > That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear > what the ZF board has to say on the issue. The ZF board should not deal with development decisions. This was my main concern about the ZF from the first meeting on. It is a matter to decide among the Zope developers. It would be totally wrong if the board could make decisions like that. But I am going to rest my case. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
Benji York wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: [snip] In fact, the repository has many components checked in that have other licenses including the GPL. As long as it is clearly marked and documented, there is no problem. That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear what the ZF board has to say on the issue. [not an official board decision or anything, just an opinion] The ZF board may not have anything directly to say about this issue right now, as the code strictly speaking is still governed by the previous contributor's agreement until the repository is explicitly transferred to the governance of the ZF (we're actively working on making this transfer happen). It's definitely not that case that it's okay to check in GPL-ed code as long as it's clearly marked and documented, if that is what Stephan means. Zope Corporation has been doing so, but that's because they got "special dispensation" (from themselves :). The current (non-Zope Foundation) contributor's agreement says: """ License Terms. Code committed to the Zope source repository ( Committed Code ) must be governed by the Zope Public License (ZPL) or another license acceptable to both Zope Corporation and the Open Source Initiative. Committer will verify that Committed Code contains the text of another license acceptable to both Zope Corporation and the Open Source Initiative. Until Zope Corporation declares in writing a license other than the ZPL, only the ZPL shall be used. """ To me that looks like only ZPL-ed code is currently allowed. The ZF's contributor agreement is more strict and explicitly disallows code with licenses with a copyleft provision such as the GPL. Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the repository is freely usable without having to worry about GPL-provisions. This is not the case for code that depends on GPL-ed code. Even though this may be already a grey area for other reasons, it still makes sense to think about the intent and people's expectations when checking in a codebase. 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] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Stephan Richter wrote: BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be. The LGPL is different than the GPL. So let's stop pissing each other off and be happy that we are all sharing code. I was attempting to have a discussion, not intentionally annoy anyone. This is an important issue that deserves attention. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:58, Benji York wrote: This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First, because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to people who require their projects to be ZPL. Huh? You can build on top of lovely.rating without making the code GPL. Technically true, but doesn't seem practically feasible. Second, it is a departure from the status quo, such decisions should be made by the ZF. This is not true at all. The status quo is: You can only check in ZPL code. Anything you build on top of lovely.rating can be ZPL, since schooltool.requirement is used as a library that is not extended. In fact, the repository has many components checked in that have other licenses including the GPL. As long as it is clearly marked and documented, there is no problem. That's seems to me to be an over-simplification, but I'd like to hear what the ZF board has to say on the issue. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 09:03, Stephan Richter wrote: > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:58, Benji York wrote: > > This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First, > > because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to > > people who require their projects to be ZPL. > > Huh? You can build on top of lovely.rating without making the code GPL. BTW, zope.html, which as checked in by Gary yesterday, also contains FCKEditor, which is LGPL. By your criteria this also should not be. So let's stop pissing each other off and be happy that we are all sharing code. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:58, Benji York wrote: > This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First, > because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to > people who require their projects to be ZPL. Huh? You can build on top of lovely.rating without making the code GPL. > Second, it is a departure > from the status quo, such decisions should be made by the ZF. This is not true at all. The status quo is: You can only check in ZPL code. Anything you build on top of lovely.rating can be ZPL, since schooltool.requirement is used as a library that is not extended. In fact, the repository has many components checked in that have other licenses including the GPL. As long as it is clearly marked and documented, there is no problem. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 08:52, Andreas Jung wrote: > >> Changed: > >> A lovely.rating/ > > > > This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool, > > specifically: > > http://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?r > > ev=69429&view=markup) > > > > I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. > > huh? The contributor agreement says nothing about external dependencies. As > look as the checked-in code is ZPL, your software can depend on any other > external package (independent of its license). I totally agree with Andreas. The only thing I did wrong was not to specify the dependencies. I will do that. All of the code that I checked in is ZPL. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 16. August 2006 08:36:55 -0400 Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jodok Batlogg wrote: Log message for revision 69426: Initial import from Lovely Systems repository Changed: A lovely.rating/ This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool, specifically: http://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?r ev=69429&view=markup) I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. huh? The contributor agreement says nothing about external dependencies. As look as the checked-in code is ZPL, your software can depend on any other external package (independent of its license). This is technically true, but there are a couple of issues. First, because this code depends on a GPLed component, so it not useful to people who require their projects to be ZPL. Second, it is a departure from the status quo, such decisions should be made by the ZF. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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
--On 16. August 2006 08:36:55 -0400 Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jodok Batlogg wrote: Log message for revision 69426: Initial import from Lovely Systems repository Changed: A lovely.rating/ This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool, specifically: http://svn.zope.org/lovely.rating/trunk/src/lovely/rating/interfaces.py?r ev=69429&view=markup) I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it in the zope.org repo. huh? The contributor agreement says nothing about external dependencies. As look as the checked-in code is ZPL, your software can depend on any other external package (independent of its license). -aj pgpOGZy7r6NA3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
