Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 10.03.2009 um 10:49 schrieb Wichert Akkerman:
>> Perhaps in the future the Plone Foundation would be willing to donate
>> code to the Zope Foundation. At this moment that is a bridge too far,
>> and I fear that as soon as I suggest that at this point in time the
>> entire relicensing movement will die in a never-ending debate. Lets
>> save that one for a later day.
> I suspect you're right on that and that we on this list can all say
> that, with hindsight, the licence debate should never have happened.
I don't think that's what Wichert said. There's a very constructive
licensing discussion going on within the Plone Foundation membership,
which is most likely going to lead to a more permissive licensing regime
for certain pages, precisely to make those packages easier to adopt in
> Let's hope it can be resolved in the future. I hope this will become
> easier as development moves to a more library-based approach -- all
> hail TurPlango!
I think it will.
> What we cannot (dual-)license for the CMF but think we need for the
> CMF we will have to reimplement.
These two statements are somewhat contradictory. You're saying that CMF
can't re-use library code written in other contexts?
Let's say CMF decided that the GS handlers would be better written with
elementtree than minidom. Should CMF demand that elementree be ZPL
licensed and move to svn.zope.org? Or should the CMF developers
The Zope and Python worlds are rapidly becoming comprised of smaller,
more re-usable packages. I don't think it's in anyone's interests to be
monolithic, nor to shun re-use of packages not built specifically under
the umbrella of this one project. I have a feeling the CMF developers
(of which, in a still-regrettable-too-limited capacity, I would consider
myself one) don't think so either.
> I have to agree with Jens that saying
> something was added to Plone rather than the CMF because of the Plone
> release cycle is disingenuous. As long as I have been following the
> list the CMF releases have been timed for Plone. It would be good to
> see this change from now on
I sincerely hope that Jens and Yuppie will be willing to continue the
much appreciated tradition of being willing to make releases in response
to the demands of the main consumers of the CMF, of which Plone is
arguably the biggest.
> as I suspect the number of core developers
> on both projects is limited and both projects would benefit from
> effectively pooled resources and clear ideas of what goes where.
I don't understand how having release cycles out of sync would make
resource allocation more efficient or give any clearer idea of what
packages would go where.
> I also have to agree with Jens that the Plone mailing lists are way
> too noisy.
Let me try to summarise a bit more succinctly:
- I think it'd be a good idea if the Plone release manager/framework
team announced their review cycles to this list and asked for input from
the CMF developers.
- I explained the rationale behind the evolution of one particular
- At no point did I suggest that the CMF release cycle was a hindrance
to pushing packages down there.
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests