Magnus Alvestad wrote:
> 
> [Danny William Adair]
> 
> | Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps.
> 
> There are several issues here.
> 
> First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope
> site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any
> further source code.  Only if you (embrace and) extend that specific
> product would the GPL hit you.

That's LGPL, GPL affects anything _linked_ to it ;(

> Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always
> includes source anyway.  I guess the exception would be if you have
> binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something
> like that.  But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were
> 'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed.

LGPL would be fine, but GPL directly affects anything "linked" to/with
it.

As GPL has never (AFAIK) been tested in court the whole discussion may
be 
moot, but otherways you are in muddy waters if you use GPL'd modules and 
don't make all your source available. It _may_ be possible to separate 
your site into code, content and docs, but still at least whole source
code 
is affected, perhaps contents too, depending on how you/RMS/judge sees
it.


> Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have
> already distributed the binary version to.  I can't really see a
> customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source'
> anyway.

I can see only two reasons (except extortion) for not providing the code
- 
1. extremely bad code and 2. some really nifty invention (here a patent 
would serve you better anyway)


------
Hannu

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

Reply via email to