Jim Hebert wrote:

> Third, again, you're responding as though the discussion is about
> re-licensing all of Zope under the, which simply isn't what anyone has

I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a
GPL'ed component in a Zope site. 

My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex
object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole
work is now subject to the GPL? 

work = Zope-based web site/web application
use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc.

> proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product
> under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license,

Who did this? A strawman. 

> Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who
> wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of
> their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys
> other peoples'.

Sorry, but all I wrote was this:

| I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL.

I don't dictate anything. No one here does. 

Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace. 

I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the 
GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of 
using GPL'ed Zope components. I'm sure there are people working 
on components who would like to share their software and don't
realize that by using the GPL they make it impossible or difficult
to use their code for commercial development. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)

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

Reply via email to