I would also agree the different license has caused this issue. I don't think that it is beneficial to rehash past decisions but better to offer up solutions that are reasonably considered.

The problem posed is that that GPL'd code will normally have only GPL consumers. To this end, there is nothing in the way of the Plone Foundation releasing back low level components under the ZPL or a choice of GPL/ZPL other than the will to do so. This decision has little to do with IP or the where the code will be housed. The PF could use its discretion what to release in this way to ensure that Plone remains Plone.

I am speaking of generic low level components that could easily integrated into any zope project. There is certainly no need to be duplicating components and efforts under separate licensing regimes. There is on the other hand, a much stronger need to have solid components that are receiving the full attention of the community and uniting the developer community at large.

I am certain, the release of such components under a choice of GPL or ZPL would be welcomed by the zope community. It would certainly demonstrate stewardship toward Zope itself, without which Plone would not exist, and cultivate a reciprocal relationship to strengthen both the software base of generic components and a community that has always been divided over this issue. This is certainly my personal wish.


Ricardo Newbery wrote:

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.
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