--On 1. August 2005 12:53:20 -0400 Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:30:20 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:

It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little
more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped
reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit
everyone) in the CMF or other non-Plone core products.

Perhaps some specifics would help.

* What wheels do you think Plone has reinvented?

Without thinking to long....why isn't SecureMailHost part of Zope? I agree with Jens that ppl of the Plone community are trying to brew their own beer instead of brewing it for the whole Zope community. I have no idea why. One reason might be the ZPL and the Zope contributor agreement...but I think most Z2 contributors can and do live with the ZPL and the agreement very well. I have also a problem with putting everything under the GPL. I am fine with putting Plone as *application* under the GPL but I have problems with putting common frameworks under the GPL. Plone got CMF for free under the ZPL. But when I was trying to get PTS released under a non-GPL for a project it was nearly impossible to get this done (I would have to ask every single PTS contributor for a permission)...meanwhile I reimplemented the PTS functionality own my own (with 10% of lines of code of PTS). Plone lives from Zope and Zope lives from Plone. I see a lot of Z2 ppl contributing to Plone but I see only a minor number of Plone developers contributing back to Zope/CMF (anyone else except Stefan, Sidnei ?). As Zope 2 release manager (and Jens as CMF release manager) I would like to see a more active participation in the Z2 and CMF development. In addition being less piqued about license issues would help a lot.


Attachment: pgpjxyLPROKt0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to