Andrew Milton wrote: > +-------[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]---------------------- > | Andrew Milton wrote: > | > +-------[ Stephan Richter ]---------------------- > | > | Hello everyone, > | > | > | > | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new > | > | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the > adoption > | > | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also > start > | > | using the process for third party package development. > | > | > | > | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a > Zope > | > | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that > implements > | > | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any > comments > | > | about it! > | > > | > So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign > over > | > the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), > and then > | > check it into the svn respository. > | > > | > Is this is correct? > | > | 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. > > <block quote> > The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level repositories > like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating everything in the wider > Zope community. It is merely a place for high-quality packages that are > supported by the Zope development team. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Code in the Common Repository *must* also use the license stated in > section 3.5 and developers *must* sign the contributor agreement. The > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > agreement is necessary to ensure that contributions originated from the > contributing developer. > </end quote> > > > a) Supported by Zope development team > b) Must sign contributor agreement. > > I don't see why a 'repository' of 3rd party packages needs any > agreement signed, unless some kind of indemnity is required which it > wouldn't need if it's "just a repository". Any 'infringement' would > simply result in the offending code being removed from the repository > (which would have to happen anyway in case someone 'lied' about > owning it). After all the repository is not claiming ownership of the > code is it (unless you have to sign it over....) > > The license for the code should also be irrelevant, since it's just a > repository right? Just a convenient one stop shop for packages. So > each package should be able to have its own license, no need for a > common license. > > Having to sign the agreement serves no purpose unless there's some > other IP issue involved other than simply storing the code.
Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just like that code is to be made ZPL. These are the rules of the repository, even today (except for s/ZF/ZC). If you're not happy with that, then use your another repository. Nobody is forcing you to put your stuff there. Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages: * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into a Zope distribution. * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term IP protection * code in svn.zope.org will be under the common control of the Zope developers which makes long-term maintenance easier to ensure. * the common license (ZPL) and the common ownership of the ZF do away with some legal headaches... Perhaps there are others. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )