On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:48 PM, Alex Turner wrote:

au contraire - it is the ZPL which is anti-sharing in my estimation. You do not have to contribute changes back to a project which you extend in a BSD style license, so you can take a BSD style licensed product, extend it, and sell it without giving a single thing back to the original author of the original system except a credit note in the copyright statement.

BSD and ZPL is share and do what you like
GPL is share and share alike

Thats the core philosophy difference. If you like others to share too, then use GPL or LGPL (possibly AGPL actually, GPL doesn't gaurentee much of anything for application service providers as I've found out, which is probably most people using Plone etc.), if you want to give your code away then use BSD/ZPL, if you want changes back, then use AGPL. And if you think it wont happen, it already did. Microsoft took the BSD Kerberos code and re-purposed it into Windows, changed the protocol slightly and pissed off many people.

I would be careful about using labels like "anti-sharing" to describe individual licenses. As you acknowledged, both licenses are used to "share" software. ZPL-shared software comes with few strings attached. GPL-shared software comes the "share alike" string attached. It's a bit of a semantic question which is more true to the spirit of *sharing* so I'm going skip that debate.

Chris McDonough didn't appear to label the GPL as "anti-sharing". On the contrary, it's the existence of *both* licenses in the same community that he appears to describe as anti-sharing. And since in the Zope community, the ZPL came first and is the core license, it's a legitimate complaint that it's the later adoption of a different license by a subcommunity that is the primary culprit.

(a licensing agnostic)

Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to