I'd like to add a quick clarification, then I'll reply more later.
Frederico brought up a good point that indicated I wasn't clear. It is
a *desire* of ours to be GPL-compatible. Not a requirement, as it can
be awfully tricky, complicated, and time-consuming to get there. But
we've told people that we're intending to give it a shot.
Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> 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...
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -