Am 10.03.2009 um 09:14 schrieb Raphael Ritz:
> If there would be a strong preference from the CMF community
> here I'm sure this would be honored in our discussion.
> Opinions anyone? (ideally including a reasoning beyond
> "I want ZPL because that's what Zope itself uses") ;-)
Actually that is itself a very valid opinion - any company that is
interested in software licences prefers as few of them as possible. My
preference is always for a no-strings attached licence (ZPL, modifieid
It's nice to hear that there is some discussion within Plone about
If there is framework code in Plone that might be better placed lower
down the stack in CMF then the sooner the better. There is a heap of
stuff that could do with refactoring and reengineering along component
architecture principles. It is not a little ironic in an open source
context that the next release of Plone "requires" a new release of CMF
to which it itself has (hardly?) contributed. This may often be
unintentional as Plone developers write libraries for Plone unaware of
the problem of backwards licence incompatability - the wrapper for
z3c.forms springs to mind - but it is a problem just the same.
Concentrating on a content management framework for Zope as the basis
for Plone and other approaches is a good thing IMHO.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests