Hi there, Uli Fouquet wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
I'm concerned about the state of the zc.buildout template recipes. I want one. I want some one-off files, specific to a certain project, for which writing a standalone recipe feels very heavy.
Here are the template recipes I found:
collective.recipe.template (Wichert Akkerman) iw.recipe.template (Ingeniweb) inquant.recipe.textfile (Stefan Eletzhofer) z3c.recipe.template (Uli Fouquet) buildout_script (Nathan Yergler) z3c.recipe.filetemplate (Philipp von Weitershausen)
[snip]
However, on starting to hack on its documentation to sketch the changes I wanted, I gradually realized that this was a fork of collective.recipe.template. Since collective.recipe.template is listed as BSD in setup.py (though I saw no explicit licensing otherwise), placing z3c.recipe.template in the zope.org ZPL-only repository is problematic.
But meanwhile, I'm concerned about the state of z3c.recipe.template. IMO, Uli and Wichert should try to reconcile the licensing and forking issues (with Uli taking the lead in those discussions, ideally, since he is the one who forked). z3c.recipe.template should be removed from the zope.org repository, unless/until the licensing story is cleaned up.
I removed the source from the repository and asked Wichert for how to proceed. If there's a lawyer in the house: how can one switch from BSD to ZPL for derivative works if both parties agree?
I negotiated with Wichert and we will focus on collective.recipe.template from now on. I'll apply all changes, extensions, docs and tests that went into z3c.recipe.template (in fact only a few lines were copied from c.r.template) now to collective.recipe.template (one template generator less). Wichert does not want to switch the license to avoid license proliferation. I can understand that. So, if you want to contribute (I'd be happy to see this), you can use c.r.template from now on. Having template generating support in stock buildout, however, would also be nice. Best regards, -- Uli