On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote:
With great trepidation, I add a post to this thread. As Barry has mentioned, this has all been discussed a LOT. I'll try to summarize and clarify a few points:
1) I wanted to specifically address something in Michael's post here. We fully expect people to profit from Zope, even if that means for-fee, intact redistributions. They simply have to provide credit. Others may have a different philosophy, but that's ours. This is similar in some regards to Perl's and Apache, I believe.
2) We specifically expect to produce a packaged version of Zope. It's clear that it's the only way to appeal to the mainstream market. We hope others do the same.
To clarify my opinion here, I have nothing against charging for software. I look forward to boxed retail versions of Zope in the marketplace, whether from DC or someone else. But, I think it would be nice if those redistributions (of Zope itself) also came with source code, even if the distribution included proprietary Zope Products (with no source). I guess I'm trying to draw a line between proprietary add-ons to Zope, and proprietary changes *to* Zope. This would prevent Company X's proprietary Zope Product from only working with Company X's proprietary Zope distribution. This is perhaps not an entirely likely eventuality, but I worry about these things.
3) Regarding other posts, our license is nearly identical to Apache's license, close enough legally to say it is the same. Therefore, to say Zope isn't free enough is to say Apache isn't free enough. Anybody that says that loses a fair amount of credibility, at least with me. Apache is an example of a crossover success (open and commercial) that I think provides a fantastic role model.
Apache and Zope are just as Free as GPL'd software, this is true. However GPL'd software is better guaranteed to *remain* Free than BSD-style licenses. If Zope had a GPL-like license that allowed both proprietary and GPL'd Zope Products (which subclass Zope base classes), I would be ecstatic (as opposed to 'merely' happy). I have some code I haven't released (and in a couple of cases, haven't finished) because I can't currently release them as GPL. It's nothing particularly earth-shaking, but there it is.
4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of an Apache-style license.
No approach pleases everyone, unfortunately. We do the best we can.
And let me say, Paul, that you and the rest of DC have been doing an excellent job in listening to differing points of view and navigating among them. Thank you for your time, Michael Bernstein.