Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 09:14 , Raphael Ritz wrote:
> > Opinions anyone? (ideally including a reasoning beyond
> > "I want ZPL because that's what Zope itself uses") ;-)
> In general, commercial adoption of a software stack is made easier if
> it is not accompanied by a whole soup of different licenses. The fewer
> licenses, the better. I'm sure that issue is on your radar already.
It is, which is why the ZPL has already been rejected as an option: it
is pretty much equivalent to the BSD license, which is much more widely
accepted. The ZPL is a Zope Foundation-only license, while one goal of
this push in Plone is to encourage wider adoption of generic components,
even outside of the Zope community where possible.
The debate is currently focusing on GPL versus BSD license. Any opinions
on a choice between those two would be very welcome.
> As you know, all code you'd like pushed down the stack into the CMF or
> Zope must be licensed under the ZPL. That's also a prerequisite for
> being stored in the Zope Foundation repositories (a.k.a. svn.zope.org).
I do not think the Plone Foundation board is willing to consider
donating some of its intellectual property to the Zope Foundation. I am
already happy they are willing to consider selective relicensing.
But that does not need to be a problem: reusable packages such as
plone.indexer can be used by CMF even if they are not covered by the ZPL
or managed in svn.zope.org, as long as there is the license is
Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests