I personally do not have a problem with the Zope license. However, I do
use a lot of GPLed software and appreciate it. I also am appreciative of
the ability to use Zope and to take advantage of the wonderful work that
DC has produced. When the original debate occurred I was in support of
DC maintaining some type of button crediting DC.

DC has provided us with an incredible tool and has provided the
community with tools in which to have a community and contribute toward
Zope. Whatever license is chosen I would like to see it be one which
protects everybody, especially DC.

About a year or two ago Lutris, the people who do Enhydra, were debating
about how to license their product XMLC. After researching the idea they
decided, with the communities support, to adopt the GPL. Their primary
reason was to prevent a bigger fish (with $$$) from capitalizing on
their work and possibly inhibiting their ability to compete.

The GPL would protect DC from predatory competitors. It would also allow
for Zope's adoption in certain environments. I also believe some people
would relicense their products to the GPL if it were Zope's native

The source code maintains DC's intellectual credit and investment in
Zope. Zope.org could also possibly provide a higher profile for DC
without necessarily being "obnoxious" or being overtly/overly

I've made some statements about how the GPL can help DC and the
community. What I don't see is if or what negatives would come into play
with such a change. Does anybody see any problems? Does anyone at DC
including Hadar and their new VC friends?

Jimmie Houchin

Paul Everitt wrote:
> Some quick points on this.
> First, feel free to talk on this list about ways that Zope
> developers can license their stuff.  It's a constructive
> discussion, and since I'm not a Zope developer, I can ignore
> it. :^)
> Second, regarding the licensing of Zope itself, ChrisP is
> right that I'm the guy on that.  Or more specifically, Hadar
> Pedhazur (our board chairman) and I run the zope-license
> email alias.  He and I had previously decided that, after
> the round closed, we'd take a fresh look at our licensing
> strategy.
> Basically, we'd like to get out of the business of having
> our own license, and we're open to the idea of a license
> that is more GPL-friendly, in the spirit of Apache, Python,
> etc.
> Thus, continue discussing what you need to do your jobs and
> give us some time to hash out a proposal.  Thanks!
> --Paul
> On 14 Nov 2000 09:29:11 -0800
>  Simon Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Juan, thanks for shining some light towards this murky
> > area. Maybe
> > ZWiki and other zope products need to be LGPL or
> > dual-licensed, maybe
> > the zope license can use some refinement. I for one won't
> > know without
> > seeing some enlightened discussion of the issue.
> >
> > This stuff is unsexy but important.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > -Simon

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

Reply via email to