[Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
Andrew Milton wrote: +---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]-- | Andrew Milton wrote: | +---[ Stephan Richter ]-- | | Hello everyone, | | | | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new | | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the adoption | | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also start | | using the process for third party package development. | | | | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope | | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements | | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments | | about it! | | So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign over | the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), and then | check it into the svn respository. | | Is this is correct? | | No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* | repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example | the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc. block quote The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating everything in the wider Zope community. It is merely a place for high-quality packages that are supported by the Zope development team. ^^^ Code in the Common Repository *must* also use the license stated in section 3.5 and developers *must* sign the contributor agreement. The ^ agreement is necessary to ensure that contributions originated from the contributing developer. /end quote a) Supported by Zope development team b) Must sign contributor agreement. I don't see why a 'repository' of 3rd party packages needs any agreement signed, unless some kind of indemnity is required which it wouldn't need if it's just a repository. Any 'infringement' would simply result in the offending code being removed from the repository (which would have to happen anyway in case someone 'lied' about owning it). After all the repository is not claiming ownership of the code is it (unless you have to sign it over) The license for the code should also be irrelevant, since it's just a repository right? Just a convenient one stop shop for packages. So each package should be able to have its own license, no need for a common license. Having to sign the agreement serves no purpose unless there's some other IP issue involved other than simply storing the code. Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just like that code is to be made ZPL. These are the rules of the repository, even today (except for s/ZF/ZC). If you're not happy with that, then use your another repository. Nobody is forcing you to put your stuff there. Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages: * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into a Zope distribution. * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term IP protection * code in svn.zope.org will be under the common control of the Zope developers which makes long-term maintenance easier to ensure. * the common license (ZPL) and the common ownership of the ZF do away with some legal headaches... Perhaps there are others. Philipp ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
[Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
Andrew Milton wrote: +---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]-- | | Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a | Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just | like that code is to be made ZPL. The license part is irrelevant after you've signed over the IP. | These are the rules of the repository, even today (except for s/ZF/ZC). This is for the core product. This is not add-on code. It makes sense for the core product. | If you're not happy with that, then use | your another repository. Nobody is forcing you to put your stuff there. Indeed. Anyone that wants to try is welcome to come around and have a go d8) FWIW, Martijn and I did this with the z3base (http://codespeak.net/z3). | Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages: | | * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into | a Zope distribution. Putting into svn isn't the same as requiring IP handover. You can still put things into the repository without IP handover. | * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term | IP protection How? I think my death + 70 years is further away than the death of ZF, or in fact the death of Zope. But the end of your commitment to this particular software and/or Zope might not be so far. Hunting developers down for getting their approval of a license change or something like that after 5 years or so would be a considerable pain. | * code in svn.zope.org will be under the common control of the Zope | developers which makes long-term maintenance easier to ensure. This has nothing to do with handing over IP either. Noone disputes that the Zope Developers lives will be easier if things are in a central svn. Why this should require someone to hand over their IP to ZF is a mystery. I never said the advantages of putting stuff into svn.zope.org necessarily have to have anything to do with handing over IP (actually, it's joint-ownership so it's sharing IP). | * the common license (ZPL) and the common ownership of the ZF do away | with some legal headaches... The ONLY legal headache common ownership does away with, is that ZC or ZF (or future owners) are free to change the license without asking permission of the original author. The license itself is irrelevant, it doesn't apply to the copyright holder. IP sharing certainly has no advantages to the original author. Any lawsuit arising from some problem with the code would almost certainly name all stakeholders. Repository of 3rd party code? Great Idea. Packaging standards? Great Idea. Compliance Rating? Great Idea. Requiring IP Handover? Makes a mockery of the Open Source movement. Plone does it, ASF does it, FSF does it. Seems to work. Note that with ZC (and I presume this will continue with the ZF) it's joint-ownership, not a total handover. Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for (parts of) SchoolTool? Good question. Why would Zope Corporation hand over IP of Zope to the Zope Foundation? Why would we contribute code to the Plone Foundation or anyone else? In order to put the code under public govenance. Anyways, you're welcome to contribute code to the z3base if you'd prefer a public repository that doesn't require IP handover/sharing. Who knows, perhaps we'll even manage to implement the ZSCP for some packages there :). Philipp ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
[Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:55, Andrew Milton wrote: Wow, you took the following two quotes out of context. block quote The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating everything in the wider Zope community. It is merely a place for high-quality packages that are supported by the Zope development team. ^^^ This is from section 2, which defines the ZSCP. Code in the Common Repository *must* also use the license stated in section 3.5 and developers *must* sign the contributor agreement. The ^ agreement is necessary to ensure that contributions originated from the contributing developer. /end quote This is from section 3, which defines *one possible implementation* of the ZSCP. But I see where your confusion stems from and I have added a paragraph to section 3.1 stating that the Common Repository is one implementation of the ZSCP but not the only one: The Common Repository is only *one* implementation of the ZSCP. While the Common Repository implements the ZSCP guidelines and suggested automation tools, the ZSCP process itself does *not* require the Common Repository. The license for the code should also be irrelevant, since it's just a repository right? Just a convenient one stop shop for packages. So each package should be able to have its own license, no need for a common license. For the ZSCP, the license is irrelevant. For the Common repository it is not. Having to sign the agreement serves no purpose unless there's some other IP issue involved other than simply storing the code. The following does *not* concern the ZSCP, but the code and repository: Right, the other issue is upstream movement. Let's say you have a package that has many contributors, like zope.interface, and the Python developers would like to put the interface package into the Python standard library. Since zope.interface is ZPL and Python has its license, you need to change that. If you do not have a contributor agreement that assigns half of the rights to an organization, then you have to ask *all* developers whether the license change is okay. If you cannot find a developer anymore you can never change that license. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
[Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 03:57, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages: * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into a Zope distribution. * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term IP protection * code in svn.zope.org will be under the common control of the Zope developers which makes long-term maintenance easier to ensure. * the common license (ZPL) and the common ownership of the ZF do away with some legal headaches... Very good summary. Better than mine. :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
[Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:15, Andrew Milton wrote: The proposal currently requires 3rd party code to be handed over to Zope Foundation[1] AND checked into the ZF svn repository in order to be 'certified'. You indicated this was indeed the case. That's not true. Phillip and I both negated this assertion. Where did you read this? The quotes you had earlier were totally out of context. Nothing in Section 2 requires anything of section 3. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
