I'd like to add a quick clarification, then I'll reply more later. Frederico brought up a good point that indicated I wasn't clear. It is a *desire* of ours to be GPL-compatible. Not a requirement, as it can be awfully tricky, complicated, and time-consuming to get there. But we've told people that we're intending to give it a shot. --Paul Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
hi,
i wanted to draw myself from this thread before annoying the whole list, so i'll take paul mail as an excuse to write some final comments.
On 27 Jun 2001 09:06:16 -0400, Paul Everitt wrote:
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.
i think that nobody (ever gpl-oriented people like me) have anything against making profit from free software. profit means more time and resources to write even better software, profit is *good*.
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.
that's a business strategy. good or bad has nothing to do with licensing. i wish you all possible luck with a packaged version of zope. i'll even buy one if includes a well-written well-printed manual about zope internals... ;-)
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.
again, i agree. apache. *is* free. zope *is* free. end of the argument.
4) Any changes in the license are likely to be more in the direction of an Apache-style license.
let me try to explain why this is bad and a gpl-compatible license will be better. a lot of people, like me, wants other use their work, even for making money. but we want something back. this is why the gpl is good. if you use my work you can:
1/ release your sources under a gpl compatible license; or
2/ give me some money for an alternate license: this is good because i'll use the money to write even more software (see it as an exchange, you can keep your sources propietary but you finance someone for writing free code that will be made available to the community.)
the main problem with licenses like tha apache one is that they allow people to use public, free code without giving *anything* back.
with its current license dc is forcing *me* to release under a license that i don't like (ZPL) because if i release my software unsed the gpl nobody will be able to redistribute it. this will make more and more people like me abandon zope first or later (i hope later). the current license surely does not push away companies that don't want to open their sources but what good come from that? nothing. no software for us and no money for dc.
what if the zpl would be gpl-compatible? the situation will be reversed. a lot of people will continue to write and distribute zope products and the occasional company not wanting to release will pay dc and other developers for an alternate license. this will make *everybody* happy.
as i said before the *worst* case for zope going gpl-compatible is the no-harm situation, while going apache-like is a little harm to some entusiast developers and surely no good.
i finished. no more mail on this argument, and sorry for my bad english, i wrote this one in an hurry...
federico