On 26 Jun 2001 00:29:05 +0200, Erik Enge wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
> > Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any
> > other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL?
> Yes.  A commercial one; an imperative one.  If I make a Zope Python
> Product, I must license it as GPL to be able to redistribute.  That's
> unacceptable in my eyes.

Umm. Yes, you're right. The compatibility needs to go both ways as far
as Products are concerned. The Zope license should allow GPL'd Products,
as well as proprietary ones..

> > Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible),
> > doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style
> > license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional
> > attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain.
> How do you suppose DC make their monies?  I'm quite sure they can't
> license Zope under the GPL because they would intimidate their market
> much with it (an assumption that could be wrong, naturally).

DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling
development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform.

> Let's hope they go for a GPL-compatible one.  I can't see what they
> would/could loose by using a BSD-style one, maybe you have some
> on that?

Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a
proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing. BSD style
licenses permit proprietary free-riders. Contributing anything back to
the open-source version is not required (although companies can still
choose to do so).

As DC is the copyright holder, they have the ability to do this with
their work regardless of what license they choose, since they can always
relicense or dual-license. But I have a problem allowing other players
the same privilege.

As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a
content mangement solution for the southeast asian market. They go to a
lot of trouble to internationalize Zope so it can handle CJK character
sets, and translate the management interfaces. then they distribute the
entire thing as a proprietary, binary-only, retail software package, and
don't contribute back to the existing community i8ln effort. While they
would be saddled with maintaining their proprietary fork thereafter,
they still reap a huge initial windfall. They can also continue to
incorporate improvements from the community with no repurcussions.

Now, far be it from me to say that companies that make improvements to
Zope are not entitled to a return on their investment, but I think that
the example I've given here is one of a disproportionate reward.

Michael Bernstein.

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

Reply via email to