Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:02:34AM -0600, Casey Duncan wrote:
> > To me this is the key point. If you GPL license a product (or other
> > software) for Zope, you cannot subclass ZPL coded classes in your
> > product without violating the GPL. This makes a strict GPL license
> > nearly useless for Zope development and incompatible (license-wise) with
> > Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the
> > "problem", it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO.
> But that's a little bit like standing in front of a mountain and saying "Go
> away", isn't it ?
> >From the viewpoint of the GPL, the ZPL is the limiting factor, since it
> employs restrictions (does it really ???) regarding the distribution of
> binaries, and since it has a advertisement clause that restricts your right
> to distribute Zope.
> On the other side, from the viewpoint of the ZPL, these requirements of the
> GPL are the limiting factor.
> But I'm afraid the discussion on who's guilty won't solve the problem, which
> indeed is perceived by all of us (is it ?).
>     Gregor

You are correct my friend. And both sides (DC and FSF) are unwilling to
change their licenses for compatibility with the other. So, the
incompatibility stands and there is little we can do about it; except
understand that it exists and make informed choices that are acceptable
to ourselves as developers. That may mean if you are a staunch GPL
advocate, adding a "Zope" clause to you license.

| Casey Duncan
| Kaivo, Inc.

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to