-----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  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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 )

Reply via email to