On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:23:21AM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lalo Martins) wrote:
Renderable wasn't even GPL'ed to begin with. And this isn't a
mistake; now that I think if it, I clearly remember having
chosen the ZPL so that DC folks could easily take the changes
[Karl Anderson]
| In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to
| distribute the entire work under the GPL.
:
| Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be
| distributed as part of a Zope solution.
:
| Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very
On 13 Sep 2000, Erik Enge wrote:
And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this
mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I
can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them
separately?
Maybe this is stupid, but I'm sure it would
Well put!
terry
Jerome Alet wrote:
On 13 Sep 2000, Erik Enge wrote:
And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this
mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I
can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them
separately?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:53:34 -0700, Kapil Thangavelu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to give my code to the community. i don't want people taking my
code from the community and distributing it without giving back.
If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back
by not
From: "Toby Dickenson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back
by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on
company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have
happened if Zope was under a GPL license.
Dario Lopez-Ksten wrote:
and then, when you want to distribute your modifications, you find yourself
in a bad position, because it will mean that you would have to give
everybody else the same rights that allowed you to distribute a modification
of someone elses work, in the first place?
Jim Hebert wrote:
Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the
one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments
in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that
setting.
From:
+---[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]--
|
| From: "Toby Dickenson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back
| by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on
| company time) are fairly significant in total, and
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. Just look at any
discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion
and mention the GPL.
Sorry, but until I've received your previous message, and the one about
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:33:05 +0200, "Dario Lopez-Kästen"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Toby Dickenson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back
by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on
company time) are fairly
Hey, Nils, I've got news for you. I've written 3 separate posts now which
were long and thoughtful, which quoted from the GPL, and which explained
to you and the rest of the community how you could deliver a proprietary
solution to a client which relied on a GPL'd object in zope.
But, I've
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
To quote Dave Winer: "[The GPL is] designed to create a wall between
commercial development and free development. The world is not that
simple. There are plenty of commercial developers who participate in
open source. Python belongs in commercial
Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
+---[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]--
|
| From: "Toby Dickenson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back
| by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on
| company time)
Jim Hebert wrote:
Third, again, you're responding as though the discussion is about
re-licensing all of Zope under the, which simply isn't what anyone has
I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a
GPL'ed component in a Zope site.
My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a
GPL'ed component in a Zope site.
My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex
object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole
work is now
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a
GPL'ed component in a Zope site.
My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex
object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the
+---[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]--
| On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
| I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a
| GPL'ed component in a Zope site.
|
| My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex
|
I replied to the message below promising to edit Renderable's
README to explicitly declare that I don't consider ZClass
subclassing to be a derivative work for the purposes of the
GPL.
Somehow, I didn't get my reply from the list. But never mind.
I went to my folder on Zope.org to edit the
Nils Kassube wrote:
I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL.
The GPL license is not about sharing like e.g. the BSD license,
it's about enforcing the political agenda of people who think
that commercial ("proprietary") software w/o source code is evil.
This is very
Hi!
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
LICENSE
GPL
I've seen several Zope products using the GPL. In my not so
humble opinion, this could develop into a serious problem
for Zope deployment. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV),
but the use of
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote:
No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if
you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code).
Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I have to publish
PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote:
No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only
if
you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code).
L
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Danny William Adair wrote:
Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps.
Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of
configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the
outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this?
Danny William Adair wrote:
Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of
configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the
outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? Maybe not only to _one_
customer, but burn a CD and sell it to
[Danny William Adair]
| Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps.
There are several issues here.
First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope
site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any
further source code. Only if you (embrace and) extend that
Magnus Alvestad wrote:
Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have
already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a
customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source'
anyway.
The problem is not that a client who paid for custom
Danny William Adair wrote:
Hi all!
Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps.
Is it not possible to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of
configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even documenting the
outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? Maybe
Nils Kassube wrote:
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
LICENSE
GPL
I've seen several Zope products using the GPL. In my not so
humble opinion, this could develop into a serious problem
for Zope deployment. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV),
but the use of GPL'ed source code like
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:02:15PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oleg Broytmann) wrote:
No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if
you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code).
Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development
will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the
source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff
built with it) for everyone else, too.
*gasp* Your
Just to state my position, I have worked as a professional commercial
software developer since 1994. I think the GPL is appropriate for
work I do outside customer contracts.
[Nils Kassube]
| The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development
| will get the source. It's the fact
- Original Message -
From: "Nils Kassube" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Magnus Alvestad" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Magnus Alvestad wrote:
Third, you are only obligated
"TC" == Tim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TC Danny William Adair wrote:
Hi all!
Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. Is it not possible
to take a few GPLed Zope products, add your own effort of
configuring, integrating, building, (re-)designing, and even
Magnus Alvestad wrote:
[Danny William Adair]
| Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps.
There are several issues here.
First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope
site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any
further source code.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and don't bother with the discussion on the
merits or non- of the GPL, I don't care in this context), but:
In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to
distribute the entire work under the GPL.
RMS says that the ZPL isn't compatible with the GPL;
Karl Anderson wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and don't bother with the discussion on the
merits or non- of the GPL, I don't care in this context), but:
In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to
distribute the entire work under the GPL.
RMS says that the ZPL
Hi,
I think the direction of this discussion has been lost. The main
concern is with the distribution of GPL'd zope products as a part of
other products, commercial, proprietary, freeware, or not. In this
case, does the GPL enforce that the product as a whole must be
distributed under the GPL?
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
--
Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton
The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 |
ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon
PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068
39 matches
Mail list logo