-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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)
>> 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?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -