Re: [Zope] And now for a good laugh (Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill)

2000-09-14 Thread Lalo Martins

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
  and merge them into Zope if they wished.
 
 My copy of Renderable ZClass 0.2 says:
 
 # Copyright (C) 1999 by Lalo Martins
 # Distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later

Ah, thanks. Now _that_ is a mistake. Habit is a powerful thing
:-)

I'll make a new release (it's been stable for almost an year,
so I'll add some documentation and call it a beta), but in the
meanwhile consider it ZPL'ed; the license in the site is the
correct one.

[]s,
   |alo
   +
--
  Hack and Roll  ( http://www.hackandroll.org )
News for, uh, whatever it is that we are.


http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp

Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Erik Enge

[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 appropriate for the
| license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a «module».  Is a module an
extension to the Zope application, or is it a Product that resides in
lib/python/Products?  I'm a bit confused, you use «component»,
«product» and «module».  Which is what?

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?

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Jerome Alet

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 clarify the situation for all
of us if DC and the FSF could get in touch, talk about all this, and give
us a final explanation, agreed by both, explaining exactly what we can and
can't do regarding this licensing problem.

bye,

Jerome ALET - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome
Faculte de Medecine de Nice - http://noe.unice.fr - Tel: 04 93 37 76 30 
28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Terry Kerr

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?

 Maybe this is stupid, but I'm sure it would clarify the situation for all
 of us if DC and the FSF could get in touch, talk about all this, and give
 us a final explanation, agreed by both, explaining exactly what we can and
 can't do regarding this licensing problem.

 bye,

 Jerome ALET - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome
 Faculte de Medecine de Nice - http://noe.unice.fr - Tel: 04 93 37 76 30
 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE

 ___
 Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
 **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
 (Related lists -
  http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
  http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

--
Terry Kerr ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adroit Internet Solutions Pty Ltd (www.adroit.net)
Phone:   +613 9563 4461
Fax: +613 9563 3856
Mobile:  +61 414 708 124
ICQ: 79303381




___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Toby Dickenson

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 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.



Toby Dickenson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread 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 would not have
 happened if Zope was under a GPL license.


but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for
what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so,
could you please elaborate?

/dario


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Nils Kassube

Dario Lopez-K”sten 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?

What if I can't distribute the modifications or a web site built
using GPL'ed components because I also use a commercial library
in it? 

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 products. How does that hurt
Python?"

I _do_ want to give something back to the community, but I do not
want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote 
because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything 
else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. 

Cheers,
Nils
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Nils Kassube

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:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW

--cut--
LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses
and the GPL attract or deter developers? 

GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of
these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the
proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary"
companies are major contributors to Python and other open source
products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression
engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were
contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software
--cut--

 But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a
 solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money
 from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help
 them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on
 distributing that solution to any additional people.

Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and 
ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open
source products are important to Guido van Rossum. 

Cheers,
Nils
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Andrew Kenneth Milton

+---[ 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 would not have
|  happened if Zope was under a GPL license.
| 
| 
| but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for
| what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so,
| could you please elaborate?

There are a variety of reasons.

First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means
that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form.
Unlikely does not mean impossible, but until the NASDAQ picks up again, I
would say most people will be wary of non-commercial friendly products.

So if you have something useful, then what will probably happen is
said corporation will likely throw money at it and reimplement it,
market it better, and make proprietary changes and move on. This has
already happened with a BSD licensed product (the license was incidental,
but, it did happen). This can happen to any Open Source product.

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. 

I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a 
company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others
was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL.

The oft-quoted reason for GPLing code is to protect code from being
'made proprietary.' Well noone can do that anyway, because you own it.
Mainly people GPL their code to stop other people making money from it 
(that's why RMS invented it in the first place d8) It should be noted that
large projects are effectively proprietary anyway because of their size,
(see Mozilla, and how long it's taken for any serious action).

Here are some large, non-GPL products that are thriving.

Apache -- BSD licence, several commercial versions around. It's hurt
apache how? Well it hasn't, they in fact have received funding from
IBM and others, and actually have bleeding edge Java support provided
by corporations.

X11 -- BSD license, several commercial versions around. Same deal, they
get funding from large vendors to provide features etc.

*BSD -- BSD license, Apple took Net/FreeBSD code for Darwin, and has
contributed changes back to the relevant codebases, and have released
Darwin as an open source Operating System (not required by BSD license).
BSDI acquired Walnut Creek and FreeBSD, changes are being merged across
from BSDI to FreeBSD.

Mozilla -- MPL license. 

Zope -- ZPL license.

Perl -- Artistic License (GPL - controversial bits).

While the GPL guarantees that other people's code will also be open
source, it doesn't guarantee that they will contribute those changes to
you (i.e. stop forks 150 Linux distros can't be wrong). 
The BSD code doesn't prevent this either (OpenBSD anyone?). MPL does.

It always amuses me that the GPL zealots who deride any and all licenses
that are not GPL, continue to use the TCP/IP code pilferred from *BSD,
use Apache, and use openssh which doesn't seem to have any license d8)
They also proudly use Netscape which doesn't come with source at all.

-- 
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|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| 

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Jerome Alet

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
napalm, I've found this discussion very calm and interesting, now IMHO all
we have to do is to wait for something from DC and the FSF.

Jerome ALET - GPL Fanatic, and proud of it.


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Toby Dickenson

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 significant in total, and would not have
 happened if Zope was under a GPL license.


or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so,
could you please elaborate?

I am using Zope as a component of a closed source product. GPL
components are not an option simply because we are not willing to open
source *all* of this product. I am developing the one type of software
product that the GPL is designed to work against.

The difference between GPL and more flexible licenses such as Python's
or the ZPL is that *we* get to draw the line between what we
contribute to the community, and what we keep to ourselves. GPL
advocates are wrong to assume that means we contribute nothing - there
are strong technical and commercial reasons to contribute significant
amounts of code and experience back to the community.


Toby Dickenson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Jim Hebert

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 deleted all three rather than send them. Why? Because, first, I
don't want to be the person who posted a cook-book recipie for
circumventing the intent of someone's license. Other people on this list
have alluded to how to do it, that's already plenty. Second, I find the
people who stand to benefit the most from such an explanation to be
overwhelmingly rude and hostile towards any suggestion that each developer
have the right to select their own distribution terms, and when given the
choice between pissing off some developers who release GPL'd code to help
some ingrates figure out workarounds OR letting the ingrates continue to
believe their utterly outrageous misinterpretations of the GPL, I'll
choose the second.

But to answer your post specifically, fine, Guido wants you to take his
code and turn it into commercial products. So do a number of other people.

Now, you need to come up with a reason for me why that means EVERYONE
should conduct themselves that way. That's what's being proposed here:
that no one ever write zope products and release them under the GPL.

Remember, no one is saying Zope should be GPL'd. Some are saying they'd
like to distribute their modules and add-ons under the GPL. So, one side
of the debate says "no, no one should use the GPL for any code that will
run on a zope machine" and the other says "everyone should be free to
select the license that they like best for the code that they distribute."

Why does this debate even occupy anyone's time? It seems such a simple
question. If someone posts a module that is GPL'd either a) use it and
accept that that entails or b) don't use it, re-write it, whatever. I
can't understand why there's a c) adopt as some sort of Zope-Community-Law
that Thy Shalt Not Copyleft Things. Again, it only makes sense if you
think people will STILL write the code but just release it under the more
liberal license. I submit that that's not true.

If I was advocating the complete and total re-licensing of everything on
zope.org under the GPL, yes, you'd have a point, Guido and others clearly
are happy to let their code become parts of commercial products. But what
I advocate respects their wishes, and further respects other peoples'
wishes too: people with a different viewpoint. Each consultant out there
can pick and choose among the code available and if they want to shun
GPL'd modules, great. That's a far better way to go then telling people
not to write them in the first place, thank you very much.

jim

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:

 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:
 
 http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
 
 --cut--
 LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses
 and the GPL attract or deter developers? 
 
 GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of
 these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the
 proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary"
 companies are major contributors to Python and other open source
 products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression
 engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were
 contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software
 --cut--
 
  But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a
  solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money
  from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help
  them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on
  distributing that solution to any additional people.
 
 Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and 
 ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open
 source products are important to Guido van Rossum. 


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Jim Hebert

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 products. How does that hurt
 Python?"

I have multiple levels of reaction to this.

The first is that you might as well have quoted Steve Balmer or Jesse
Berst.

Second, this quote is out of context: Dave nearly immediately backpedaled
from that statement, made during a visceral reaction to something Richard
Stallman wrote. Read other places where Dave indicates that the problem
he had wasn't with the GPL, it's with particular agendas which are
sometimes conflated with the GPL:

http://discuss.userland.com/msgReader$20575

[quoting Dave:]
t's funny how points of view shift over time.

When I was choosing an open source license for MacBird, I read the
preamble to the GPL and was outraged at how it talked about commercial
vendors. My takeaway was "poison pill".

Then after you raised the issue, I went and took another look, thinking I
would copy/paste the offensive sections to the DG to show what I meant,
and I couldn't find them.

I assume the GPL didn't change, clearly something about me did change.
[end quote]

Or his softening of his stance, written immediately after what you're
quoting out of context:
http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2000/09/11

[quoting Dave]

Richard Stallman responds to a post on Scripting News re the controversy
over Python licensing. We have different philosophies. I'm learning his
now and working on mine, and it's true that there are things I don't agree
with him on. I'd like to see commercial and open source developers work
together more fluidly. He seems to agree. Reading his piece I think we
could have an interesting discussion. I think we're on the same side on
the important issues, believe it or not. (The big issue is patents, for
now.)

[end quote]

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
proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product
under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license,
and the other side simply says  that each author should have the right to
choose their own distribution terms.

 
 I _do_ want to give something back to the community, but I do not
 want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote 
 because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything 
 else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. 

Right. There's different viewpoints. You can write code and release it
under your choice of licenses, and so can others.

Further, this is inflamatory, it conflates RMS's agenda with the terms of
the license. Remember that someone else's choice of that license may not
be because they agree with the agenda: witness the ESR/RMS split: they
both seem happy with the operational effect of the license, but aren't
exactly on the same page about this issue of morals.

Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who
wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of
their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys
other peoples'.

jim


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




[Zope] OT: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Bill Anderson

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) are fairly significant in total, and would not have
 |  happened if Zope was under a GPL license.
 | 
 |
 | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for
 | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so,
 | could you please elaborate?
 
 There are a variety of reasons.
 
 First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means
 that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form.

An unproven assertion. I have personally witnessed a very large corporation prefer GPL 
to other licenses, such as BSDish
ones. Even after legal was through with it (a few times because legal recommended it).

 Unlikely does not mean impossible, but until the NASDAQ picks up again, I
 would say most people will be wary of non-commercial friendly products.
 
 So if you have something useful, then what will probably happen is
 said corporation will likely throw money at it and reimplement it,
 market it better, and make proprietary changes and move on. This has
 already happened with a BSD licensed product (the license was incidental,
 but, it did happen). This can happen to any Open Source product.
 
 The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics.

As Does BSD. Just look at the BSD zealots that go to GPL forums with flame throwers on 
their back. Nearly everything
attracts fanatics.

Just look at the subject line. ;^)=

 Just look at any
 discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion
 and mention the GPL.

Not true. I have personally had more calm conversations, including honest 
disagreement, than not.

 
 I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a
 company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others
 was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL.
...
 Mozilla -- MPL license.

Dual license with GPL.
Sun relicensing StarOffice under a dual license with the GPL.

Two very large and notable cases of the opposite. Python MAY go the same way.

 
 Zope -- ZPL license.
 
 Perl -- Artistic License (GPL - controversial bits).
 
 While the GPL guarantees that other people's code will also be open
 source, it doesn't guarantee that they will contribute those changes to
 you (i.e. stop forks 150 Linux distros can't be wrong).
 The BSD code doesn't prevent this either (OpenBSD anyone?). MPL does.

One thing to note, and it is important, is that multiple distributions of Linux OS is 
irrelevant to the matter of the
GPL. The Linux Kernel is under GPL, but that does not require the entire OS built on 
top of it to be. Technically
speaking, a Linux OS Distribution is a compilation. To say that more than one linux 
distribution consittutes a fork is
false, and rather misleading.

It is also interesting to note you left out all the GPL work being done by 
corporations. Corporations such as HP, SUN,
and Phillips.

Now, lest anyone here presume I am a GPL zealot, visit my products page before making 
yourself look foolish.

In any event, the original question at the top of this post was not answered. As 
demonstrated, it is a matter of
personal preference. It is even more likley, that in this particular case, the 
contributons wuld not fall under GPL or
ZPL.


--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy,
and have the root password.

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Nils Kassube

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 GPL'ed component in a complex
object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole
work is now subject to the GPL? 

work = Zope-based web site/web application
use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc.

 proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product
 under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license,

Who did this? A strawman. 

 Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who
 wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of
 their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys
 other peoples'.

Sorry, but all I wrote was this:

| I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL.

I don't dictate anything. No one here does. 

Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace. 

I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the 
GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of 
using GPL'ed Zope components. I'm sure there are people working 
on components who would like to share their software and don't
realize that by using the GPL they make it impossible or difficult
to use their code for commercial development. 

Cheers,
Nils
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Jim Hebert

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 subject to the GPL? 

Asked and answered. No.

Incidentally, perhaps you meant to mention something about distribution in
this question.

Pre-emptively, the answer is still "No, if you are smart and careful."
Which was what my previous post was alluding to.

 Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace. 

 I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the 
 GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of 

Indeed, that became clear to me when you wrote:

 [...] I do not
 want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote 
 because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything 
 else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. 

I salute you for your expertise demonstrated in avoiding discussing the
merits of the GPL, the GNU project or its members, and for your laser-like
ability to focus your commentary on the practical issues. I flame too, but
at least I'm not a hypocrite about it. =)

I give up. I don't really see how continuing to reply to a series of
hypocritical alternations between personal attack and pleas to return to
the topic could be productive, so this is my last post in the thread.
Flame away, you can have the last word and everything.

jim



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread jpenny

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 whole
 work is now subject to the GPL? 
 
 work = Zope-based web site/web application

No, GPL does not affect non-program parts of the work.  Nor does it
affect work that "uses" GPL code, i.e. that makes function calls or
that makes method calls.

 use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc.

Yes, it would feel to me that subclassing is a derived program. You
are taking a preexisting program and modifying it; your work cannot
stand on its own.  In spirit, this appears to be not very different 
from patching a program (except that the patch is done on-the-fly,
rather than statically). 

And no, using a GPL program does not magically create a derived program.
For example, using gcc as a compiler does not require that any code
thus compiled be GPL.  Similarly, using a method does not require that 
every object/method which calls/invokes to be GPL.

I think you are getting hung up on 
"The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it"

Notice that it talks about the _work_ containing the Program, not
the _system_ containing the program.  The system may contain
GPL and non-GPL code.  Again, installing gcc on a computer
does not automatically force every other piece of software on the
computer to be GPL (containment on a hard disk is not what this is
about!).  A single tar file may contain both GPL and non-GPL
components (containment in a bundle is not what this clause is
about!).  Simile, containment in Zope is not what this clause is
about.

As long as what you write does not modify the GPL'ed program, 
either by removing, adding, or altering the GPL program itself,
the license does not put any restrictions on you.

Jim Penny

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-13 Thread Andrew Kenneth Milton

+---[ [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
|  object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole
|  work is now subject to the GPL? 
|  
|  work = Zope-based web site/web application
|
| GPL and non-GPL code.  Again, installing gcc on a computer
| does not automatically force every other piece of software on the
| computer to be GPL (containment on a hard disk is not what this is

gcc is also a special case. Any and all programs compiled with gcc contain
GPL'd code, and therefore should also be GPL. This requirement would 
obviously kill gcc stone dead. 

-- 
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|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| 

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




[Zope] And now for a good laugh (Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill)

2000-09-13 Thread Lalo Martins

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 README and, surprise!

  License: ZPL

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
and merge them into Zope if they wished.

I don't know about you, but after this thread has degenerated
into a wholesale flamewar, I find this fact rather amusing.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:30:16PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
 
 but the use of GPL'ed source code like e.g. Renderable ZClass
 in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish
 every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module --
 including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible
 if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used
 in a project. 

[]s,
   |alo
   +
--
  Hack and Roll  ( http://www.hackandroll.org )
News for, uh, whatever it is that we are.


http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp

Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Chris Withers

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 true... I think it's made worse by the fact that a lot of
people just select 'GPL' from the dropdown list on the products page
without realising the implications...

cheers,

Chris

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Oleg Broytmann

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 GPL'ed source code like e.g. Renderable ZClass
 in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish
 every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module --
 including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible
 if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used
 in a project. 

   No, you are not forced to publish anything. GPL "virus" applied only if
you want to *distribute* combined (your code + my GPL'd code).

 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.

   Yes, exactly! You've got the point! I love GPL! :)

Oleg.
 
 Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Oleg Broytmann

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
 source code to the whole world (not only clients) then? 

   I am not a lawyer, and certainly not authorized to interpret the
License.

   But as one of the people who respect your freedom, I will do all my best
to protect your freedom (in the way that do not limit my freedom). You are
free to use my code, to read it and patch it, to send me your patches or to
fork the code. AND FINALLY YOUR ARE FREE TO *ignore* MY CODE!

   But please, please! If you respect my freedom - do not ask me to change
the license. I love GPL and found it pretty suitable for my needs.

Oleg.
 
 Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Danny William Adair

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 not only to _one_
customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers?

In my opinion (yes, opinion has nothing to do with lawyers and courts ;-)),
in this case you wouldn't be selling other people's products, no you would
have created something new, which ___you___ can put a copyright on. It's a
compilation, and with enough value-adding effort put in to this compilation,
none of the respective GPL authors could claim to be co-author of your
production. Since you don't want to (only) sell your service of deploying,
but also your new product. (product in its conventional meaning, I would
call a Zope product a "module" in this respect)

Well I might just be dreaming...
Maybe someone can wake me up if I am. tia

Danny


-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Oleg
Broytmann
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. September 2000 18:08
An: Nils Kassube
Cc: [EMAIL 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).

 Like in "distributing to clients"? So that I have to publish
 source code to the whole world (not only clients) then?

   I am not a lawyer, and certainly not authorized to interpret the
License.

   But as one of the people who respect your freedom, I will do all my best
to protect your freedom (in the way that do not limit my freedom). You are
free to use my code, to read it and patch it, to send me your patches or to
fork the code. AND FINALLY YOUR ARE FREE TO *ignore* MY CODE!

   But please, please! If you respect my freedom - do not ask me to change
the license. I love GPL and found it pretty suitable for my needs.

Oleg.

 Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Oleg Broytmann

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? Maybe not only to _one_
 customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers?

   You are pretty free to sell it, but you are forced to distribute GPL'd
sources along with binaries.

Oleg.
 
 Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Nils Kassube

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 _a couple_ of customers?

You can sell it but...

AFAIK you risk that everyone else can copy your effort for free
if you built software on GPL'ed code.

And what's only a compilation and what's a derived work (subject
to the GPL) is up to the lawyers. Personally, I try to avoid
legal ambiguities. 

Cheers,
Nils
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Magnus Alvestad

[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 specific
product would the GPL hit you.

Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always
includes source anyway.  I guess the exception would be if you have
binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something
like that.  But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were
'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed.

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.

-Magnus (I'm not a lawyer)



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Nils Kassube

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 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. 

Another issue is that in a complex object oriented environment
like Zope it's difficult to determine if you only used a GPL'ed 
component or "embraced and extended" it. 
  
Cheers,
Nils 
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Tim Cook

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 not only to _one_
 customer, but burn a CD and sell it to _a couple_ of customers?


Yes, you can. BUT, you must make the source code available.
 
 In my opinion (yes, opinion has nothing to do with lawyers and courts ;-)),
 in this case you wouldn't be selling other people's products, no you would
 have created something new, which ___you___ can put a copyright on. It's a
 compilation, and with enough value-adding effort put in to this compilation,
 none of the respective GPL authors could claim to be co-author of your
 production. Since you don't want to (only) sell your service of deploying,
 but also your new product. (product in its conventional meaning, I would
 call a Zope product a "module" in this respect)


This is exactly why I decided to GPL my FreePM project.  A
company with deeper pockets for marketing and more presence in
the marketplace could take my work (under some of the other
licenses ) and use it to their own gain. Under the GPL, they must
make their source available too.
 
The GPL is not a cure all. But it certainly has it's place.

But as one of the people who respect your freedom, I will do all my best
 to protect your freedom (in the way that do not limit my freedom). You are
 free to use my code, to read it and patch it, to send me your patches or to
 fork the code. AND FINALLY YOUR ARE FREE TO *ignore* MY CODE!
 
But please, please! If you respect my freedom - do not ask me to change
 the license. I love GPL and found it pretty suitable for my needs.
 
 Oleg.

Exactly! g


-- Tim Cook --
Cook Information Systems | Office: (901) 884-4126 8am-5pm CDT
* Specializing in Open Source Business Systems *
FreePM Project Coordinator http://www.freepm.org
OSHCA Founding Supporter http://www.oshca.org

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Bill Anderson

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 e.g. Renderable ZClass
 in your web site probably means that you're now forced to publish
 every single bit of source built using the GPL'ed module --

No. This is clearly incorrect. The GPL only applies to the code, and modifications to 
said code. If you are in doubt as
to the licensaes of various systems, ask a lawyer. Many of the rest of us have.

 including commercial intranet projects. This can be impossible
 if you don't own the rights to every single piece of code used
 in a project.
 
 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.

Please, take license religous wars elsewhere. This is not an appropriate forum. This 
last paragraph sounds very
troll-like, or flame-baiting to me. This list is about using Zope.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy,
and have the root password.

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Lalo Martins

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 have to publish
 source code to the whole world (not only clients) then? 

No. If you give binaries to someone, you have to also give
sources. You're not obliged to give the binaries to anyone. You
can charge big bucks for the binaries, but if someone has them
they're free to redistribute it.

[]s,
   |alo
   +
--
  Hack and Roll  ( http://www.hackandroll.org )
News for, uh, whatever it is that we are.


http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp

Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Jim Hebert

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 client will have *RIGHTS*, and won't be beholden to you?
Like the right to post a code snippet of yours to this list and say "the
original developer wants $ to debug this problem, can someone else
help me?" Perish the thought! How will you ever become rich if you can't
get on the "pay me to fix it, or pay someone else to start from scratch"
train?

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.

But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a
solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money
from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help
them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on
distributing that solution to any additional people.

What utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude. You are actually bemoaning
the fact, on a public list, that you'll have to write things from scratch
if you want to have the right set the terms of distribution on those
things. You're begrudging others the right to set the terms of
distribution on their things, because it impinges on your ability to make
a profit. You're simply pointing out that you'll have to do more work to
make your money this way.

What exactly about all of that is supposed to tug at the heartstrings of
people who routinely give you free code whose real dollar value easily
exceeds what either of us makes in a year?

Unbelievable.

jim
Not speaking for Cosource.com or Vistasource.com.

PS I am *very* grateful for all of the amazing free software that the Zope
community produces under ALL of its licenses. Thank you all, so much! The
size of the gift you give is already mind boggling, so to those of you who
choose the GPL, please ignore the ingrates who would ask you to make the
gift even "larger" by giving up your copyleft.

PPS Next time you think about comparing a world in which you had Product
X, GPL'd and Product X, non-copylefted, try comparing a world in which you
had Product X, GPL'd and had nothing because they won't distribute it
under any terms whatsoever. It's easy to ask for even more generosity from
someone when you take what you already have for granted. Try respecting
the size of the gift you've already received for a bit of perspective.



___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Magnus Alvestad

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 that you have to release the
| source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff
| built with it) for everyone else, too. 

(complete version at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

-- from the GPL 

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

 a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
 source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
 Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
 interchange; or,

 b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
 years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
 cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
 machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
 distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
 customarily used for software interchange; or,

--

These are the most relevant sections.  It's pretty clear that you are
only obligated to distribute source to the parties you've distributed
object code / executable form to.

| Another issue is that in a complex object oriented environment
| like Zope it's difficult to determine if you only used a GPL'ed 
| component or "embraced and extended" it. 

Actually the embrace and extension was a silly Microsoft-joke, the
definition in the license text is more verbose:

.. a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
and/or translated into another language. ..

I don't think a zope site could be defined as a 'work'.

-Magnus


___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Dario Lopez-Kästen

- 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 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 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.


so, your main problem here is that you take someone elses work, modify it to
suit your needs under a license that *specifically* grants you those rights,
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?

In other words, you don't mind being the "sharee", but do not wish to be the
"sharer", particularely when it somes to work that others have "shared" to
you? To shout bloody murder because of this is to REALLY expose one self,
don't you think?

To me, this is the ultimately reason to have the GPL around. It helps us
ensure that all that want to profit from our work but have no interest in
returning the favor will have to turn elsewhere or actually do some of the
grundwork themsleves.

Mind you that my english is not too good, so there might be som parts of
this thread that I have not fully understood or that I may have got
completely wrong; if so, fell free to enlighten me.

Sincerely,

/dario

- 
Dario Lopez-Kästen Systems Developer  Chalmers Univ. of Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  ICQ will yield no hitsIT Systems  Services




___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread A.J. Rossini

 "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
 documenting the outcome of your efforts and - ___sell___ this? 
 Maybe not only to _one_ customer, but burn a CD and sell it to
 _a couple_ of customers?
 

TC Yes, you can. BUT, you must make the source code available.

And before we get too far -- 

Source code available to the recipient means just that.   They (the
recipient) have it available to them.  That doesn't necessarily mean
that you ship it, but that it is available to them.  And that
definitely doesn't mean "available to the world".

Though, this whole argument is sort of silly, given that we are
talking about extensions to an "open source platform" to begin with,
so that sales based on services make more sense than shrinkwarp'd
(sic) EULA-code..

best,
-tony

-- 
A.J. RossiniRsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics
BlindGlobe Networks (home/default)  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
UW Biostat/Center for AIDS Research [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net [EMAIL PROTECTED]

FHCRC: M/Tu: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812) | Voicemail is pretty sketchy
CFAR:   W/F: 206-731-3647 (fax=3694) | Email is far better than phone
UW:Th/F: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286) | Change last 4 digits of phone for fax

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Hannu Krosing

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.  Only if you (embrace and) extend that specific
 product would the GPL hit you.

That's LGPL, GPL affects anything _linked_ to it ;(

 Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always
 includes source anyway.  I guess the exception would be if you have
 binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something
 like that.  But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were
 'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed.

LGPL would be fine, but GPL directly affects anything "linked" to/with
it.

As GPL has never (AFAIK) been tested in court the whole discussion may
be 
moot, but otherways you are in muddy waters if you use GPL'd modules and 
don't make all your source available. It _may_ be possible to separate 
your site into code, content and docs, but still at least whole source
code 
is affected, perhaps contents too, depending on how you/RMS/judge sees
it.


 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.

I can see only two reasons (except extortion) for not providing the code
- 
1. extremely bad code and 2. some really nifty invention (here a patent 
would serve you better anyway)


--
Hannu

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Karl Anderson


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; either you can't
get something via rights given by the ZPL, then distribute it under
the more restrictive rights of the GPL (the copyleft virus).  Or vice
versa.

Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be
distributed as part of a Zope solution.  You can link  use them, or
distribute one and provide a pointer to the other for the other party
to install, just not distribute them together to anyone else.

Is this correct?  If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the
license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare.

-- 
Karl Anderson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Kapil Thangavelu

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 isn't compatible with the GPL; either you can't
 get something via rights given by the ZPL, then distribute it under
 the more restrictive rights of the GPL (the copyleft virus).  Or vice
 versa.
 
 Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be
 distributed as part of a Zope solution.  You can link  use them, or
 distribute one and provide a pointer to the other for the other party
 to install, just not distribute them together to anyone else.
 
 Is this correct?  If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the
 license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare.

While i'm not a GPL expert, I believe your interpretation is correct, in
that the distribution has to be separate. As far as packaging nightmare
goes, it might be an extra download link or cd in a distribution. Not
exactly a nightmare. I think a minor inconvience is worth giving freedom
to authors to make they're creations available as they wish.

and because you're a DC employee advocating against the GPL (for
specific reasons which amount to inconvience), i feel its important to
give a reason why you want to go through the inconvience:

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. the
last thing i want to see is someone taking code from the community,
making changes to it and making it propertiary, and then selling it in
restricted form. if they sold it with source, thats fine. its not about
money, or code, its about freedom and enpowerment of the community.


Kapil

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Terry Kerr

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?  The GPL states that it only applies to
"work based on the Program" defined as

"means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either
verbatim or with modifications..."

So from my understanding of this, and what others in this discussion
have said, this means that if you create a product that uses a GPL'd
product either by sub classing it or through other means, and you
distribute this GPL'd product with your own, with the GPL'd product
being modified or not, then your own product must also be GPL'd.  If
however you only provide a pointer in your distribution to the GPL'd
product, and it is up to the software installer to go and fetch the
GPL'd product, then you can distribute under any license that you wish.

On another note...I am not clear on the meaning of the terms in the
ZPL.  Is it possible to distribute your own product with its own license
(possibly the GPL) as a part of a standard un-modified zope distribution
with its terms and conditions intact (i.e., your product is in
lib/python/Products/ ), or in this case would your product automatically
fall under the ZPL?  Would you need to package your own product
completely separately for to to have its own license?

What do Digital Creations people have to say about this?  You have been
quiet so far ;-)

terry

--
Terry Kerr ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adroit Internet Solutions Pty Ltd (www.adroit.net)
Phone:   +613 9563 4461
Fax: +613 9563 3856
Mobile:  +61 414 708 124
ICQ: 79303381




___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )




Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill

2000-09-12 Thread Andrew Kenneth Milton

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|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| 

___
Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )