i wanted to draw myself from this thread before annoying the whole list,
so i'll take paul mail as an excuse to write some final comments.

On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote:
> 1) I wanted to specifically address something in Michael's post here. 
> We fully expect people to profit from Zope, even if that means for-fee, 
> intact redistributions.  They simply have to provide credit.  Others may 
> have a different philosophy, but that's ours.  This is similar in some 
> regards to Perl's and Apache, I believe.

i think that nobody (ever gpl-oriented people like me) have anything
against making profit from free software. profit means more time and
resources to write even better software, profit is *good*. 

> 2) We specifically expect to produce a packaged version of Zope.  It's 
> clear that it's the only way to appeal to the mainstream market.  We 
> hope others do the same.

that's a business strategy. good or bad has nothing to do with
licensing. i wish you all possible luck with a packaged version of zope.
i'll even buy one if includes a well-written well-printed manual about
zope internals... ;-)

> 3) Regarding other posts, our license is nearly identical to Apache's 
> license, close enough legally to say it is the same.  Therefore, to say 
> Zope isn't free enough is to say Apache isn't free enough.  Anybody that 
> says that loses a fair amount of credibility, at least with me.  Apache 
> is an example of a crossover success (open and commercial) that I think 
> provides a fantastic role model.

again, i agree. apache. *is* free. zope *is* free. end of the argument.

> 4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of 
> an Apache-style license.

let me try to explain why this is bad and a gpl-compatible license will
be better. a lot of people, like me, wants other use their work, even
for making money. but we want something back. this is why the gpl is
good. if you use my work you can:

1/ release your sources under a gpl compatible license; or

2/ give me some money for an alternate license: this is good because
i'll use the money to write even more software (see it as an exchange,
you can keep your sources propietary but you finance someone for writing
free code that will be made available to the community.)

the main problem with licenses like tha apache one is that they allow
people to use public, free code without giving *anything* back.

with its current license dc is forcing *me* to release under a license
that i don't like (ZPL) because if i release my software unsed the gpl
nobody will be able to redistribute it. this will make more and more
people like me abandon zope first or later (i hope later). the current
license surely does not push away companies that don't want to open
their sources but what good come from that? nothing. no software for us
and no money for dc.

what if the zpl would be gpl-compatible? the situation will be reversed.
a lot of people will continue to write and distribute zope products and
the occasional company not wanting to release will pay dc and other
developers for an alternate license. this will make *everybody* happy.

as i said before the *worst* case for zope going gpl-compatible is the
no-harm situation, while going apache-like is a little harm to some
entusiast developers and surely no good.

i finished. no more mail on this argument, and sorry for my bad english,
i wrote this one in an hurry...


Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology              [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
                           Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further

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

Reply via email to