-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 26.04.2009 um 18:16 schrieb Matthew Wilkes: > > On 26 Apr 2009, at 16:53, Martin Aspeli wrote: > >> We can fix this by introducing some code in OFS (and BTreeFolder2) >> that >> mimics what zope.container does. > > Is there any risk involved in this? It looks ok in theory, just that > we're at a4 of Zope 2.12, we should be getting wary of features. > >> We have code for all three of these in plone.folder which could be >> pushed down to OFS an BTreeFolder2 quite easily. > > plone.folder is GPL and owned by the Plone Foundation, BTreeFolder2 is > ZPL and owned by the Zope Foundation and contributors. This sounds > like "quite easily" from a copy-the-code point of view, but doesn't > take account of legal issues. You'd need at least a PF board vote. I > doubt the Plone foundation is a Zope contributor, and I'm not sure if > their agreements would even be compatible, it may grant Zope Corp some > rights that weren't granted to the PF The License-Locked-In effect? Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkn0jVUACgkQCJIWIbr9KYw6LwCgm2tdWpe2mHdZyobsb7mdSrgs JCYAoOUmoTtqTCVWqA/qHwwvsDxhnS/U =LNu3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
