On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote:
> 
> With great trepidation, I add a post to this thread.  As Barry has 
> mentioned, this has all been discussed a LOT.  I'll try to summarize and 
> clarify a few points:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

To clarify my opinion here, I have nothing against charging for
software. I look forward to boxed retail versions of Zope in the
marketplace, whether from DC or someone else. But, I think it would be
nice if those redistributions (of Zope itself) also came with source
code, even if the distribution included proprietary Zope Products (with
no source).

I guess I'm trying to draw a line between proprietary add-ons to Zope,
and proprietary changes *to* Zope.

This would prevent Company X's proprietary Zope Product from only
working with Company X's proprietary Zope distribution. This is perhaps
not an entirely likely eventuality, but I worry about these things.

> 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.

Apache and Zope are just as Free as GPL'd software, this is true.
However GPL'd software is better guaranteed to *remain* Free than
BSD-style licenses. If Zope had a GPL-like license that allowed both
proprietary and GPL'd Zope Products (which subclass Zope base classes),
I would be ecstatic (as opposed to 'merely' happy).

I have some code I haven't released (and in a couple of cases, haven't
finished) because I can't currently release them as GPL. It's nothing
particularly earth-shaking, but there it is.

> 4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of 
> an Apache-style license.
> 
> No approach pleases everyone, unfortunately.  We do the best we can.

And let me say, Paul, that you and the rest of DC have been doing an
excellent job in listening to differing points of view and navigating
among them.

Thank you for your time,

Michael Bernstein.


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

Reply via email to