On Friday 22 June 2001 12:33, Simon Michael wrote:
> Thanks for a most illuminating thread. Slight clarification to a
> comment of yours Shane -
> Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > GPL code together. ZWiki is just in a strange position because the
> > GPL is not actually in effect.
> I'm not sure I'd use those words - the license is certainly fully "in
> effect", I'd say, if not exactly "enforced by a battalion of lawyers".
Agreed. The GPL tends to make it difficult to nail down precise words.
I think that's one reason people get into GPL shouting matches.
> One of the consequences being that someone re-distributing zope &
> zwiki together, under their default licenses, is technically in
> violation right now, I think we are all agreeing.
Technically yes, although I like to think that the product developers
implicitly grant redistribution permission by attempting to apply the
> Does this serve as an example of a problem with the current situation
> for DC management ?
I've forwarded your message and Federico's. Thanks!
> Probably better to update the ZPL to solve this problem in one sweep,
> ensure that zope is participating fully within the preeminent sphere
> of software creativity, and earn a whole bunch of new support from the
> world developer community.
I think you're right. The reaction to the Python license becoming GPL
compatible wasn't as enthusiastic as I expected, though.
> Thanks Shane, please forward. DC management, please consider yourself
> lobbied - I'd like to encourage you to review the situation and
> consider making some adjustments to zope's license, or join our
> discussion here.
I'll let you know when they reply. Or maybe they will.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -