Andrew Milton wrote:
> +-------[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]----------------------
> |
> | > | * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term
> | > | IP protection
> | > 
> | > How? I think my death + 70 years is further away than the death of ZF, or 
> in
> | > fact the death of Zope.
> | 
> | But the end of your commitment to this particular software and/or Zope
> | might not be so far. Hunting developers down for getting their approval
> | of a license change or something like that after 5 years or so would be
> | a considerable pain.
> One wonders, why you NEED to change the license of someone else's code.
> You take some Open Source code. You put it in your repository where you can
> work on it. You don't need to own it to work on it. You don't need to own it
> to package it up. You don't need to own it to put it into svn.
> This is of course a distraction from the main question about the
> repository, not the who owns what and why, which has been beaten to death 
> in a hundred other discussions.

So let's not further discuss a dead point :).

> | > Requiring IP Handover? Makes a mockery of the Open Source movement. 
> | 
> | Plone does it, ASF does it, FSF does it. Seems to work.
> The proposal currently requires 3rd party code to be handed over to Zope
> Foundation[1] AND checked into the ZF svn repository in order to be 
> 'certified'. You indicated this was indeed the case.

I did absolutely not. In the very first email in this thread, you asked
whether the requirement for getting your package listed (or certified
for that matter) was to put the code into Here's what I

  "No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a*
  repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example
  the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc."

In fact, because of that I suggested to keep the repository proposal
separate from the ZSCP proposal, as the very same email continues:

  "I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common
  repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO
  there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess
  he didn't agree."

> So in order to gain ANY level of certification, even "Listed" Zope Foundation 
> has to own the code.



Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to