On 20 Jun 2001 18:27:08 +0200, Erik Enge wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > i am sure that the QPL and the ZPL are completely incompatible but
> > nobody cares because nobody really thinks that one is better than the
> > other...
> I might be misunderstanding here, if that's the case I appologies.
no, you're quite right. but we have two different problems here:
1/ your problem
2/ wheter a gpl zope product can exists
first some notes on 2. i don't know if python code loading other python
code counts as "linking" but if that is the case, no gpl zope product
can exists (same problem with python, but there is at least one
gpl-compatible release of python around.)
for example, that's why psycopg, for example, is released under a double
license. you can use the gpl if your product is gpl'ed or the zpl when
using zpsycopgda in zope (and only then: you can include psycopg in your
code without respecting the gpl *only* when using zope and zpsycopgda.)
to your problem now...
> Just to clarify, for us at Thingamy (and I'm quite sure this is the real
> case behind the license issues) it comes down to business-issues. I do
> very much care whether or not I can use a GPL Zope Python Product with my
> ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product. If I can't, and someone tells me I need to
> relicense my product as GPL it would be very bad.
> An example could be if I had application G, Z, P. G is a GPL'ed Zope
> Python Product, Z is a ZPL/TPL Zope Python Product and P is some
> proprietory stuff I developed for my client. Now, if the proprietory
> application P interacts with my Z application and Z needs to become GPL,
> then that would/could require the proprietary stuff I did for the client
> to become GPL as well.
you are quite right. but here, again, we have a lexical problem. are
zope products really linked? gpl forbids liking but there is no problem,
for example, in piping the data froma gpl'ed program to a proprietary
one. i can only say that **if** zope products count as linked, you can't
in any way use gpl code without releasing *all* the code under a gpl
compatible license (P included.)
anyway, is much better for you to ask the author of the gpl'ed program
for an alternate license. a lot of people will be happy to allow you to
use the program in a proprietary software for a little (or not so
little) fee... and if you have those problems is because you think
you'll make some money out of it, right?
other people won't and your only option is to rewrite the product or
(much better!) ask the customer to release under the gpl.
> Then, I get hell. If the client has to disclose their business
> trade-secrets, the stuff that really makes them them, I'd be sued so hard
> I'd see stars for another three decades :)
i'll finish with some bad words, sorry: if the client is so worried
about intellectual property and secrets why is he even thinking about
free software? free software is good in a lot (in a different context i
would say 'all') of cases but imposes some constraints ont your work and
(unfortunately) *even* on your clients.
Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qu'est ce que la folie? Juste un sentiment de liberté si
fort qu'on en oublie ce qui nous rattache au monde... -- J. de Loctra
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -