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 - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to