Michael "R." Bernstein wrote Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain.
They will probably lose developer mindshare. Given how important this is to Zope's growth (and to DC's growth, as a result), this is far far more important than the karma from switching to the far less flexible GPL. Your argument seems to be that DC would want to control other companies ability to make distributions derived from Zope - unless they've been hiding this nefarious plan from the community, this doesn't seem to be an objective for them. As far as a contributor to Zope wanting to keep their work free, then if the ZPL is GPL compatible, they can make their components GPLd. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
On 26 Jun 2001 10:29:39 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Michael "R." Bernstein wrote Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain.
They will probably lose developer mindshare. Given how important this is to Zope's growth (and to DC's growth, as a result), this is far far more important than the karma from switching to the far less flexible GPL
You're right. I hadn't considered that the ZPL needs to be 'proprietary compatible' so far as add-on products are concerned. perhaps the LGPL would suffice, as that would permit creating proprietary Zope products. But I won't be entirely happy if the ZPL permits proprietary third-party redistributions of Zope itself.
Your argument seems to be that DC would want to control other companies ability to make distributions derived from Zope - unless they've been hiding this nefarious plan from the community, this doesn't seem to be an objective for them.
Heh. I guess I shouldn't have stuck that in there. An argument I've occasionally heard for BSD-style licenses is that the original (usually corporate) author wants to be able to make proprietary releases based on other peoples contributions. The argument for NPL-style licenses is that they (the original author) want to be the *only* one with such a privileged position. DC has never indicated that either of these was important to them.
As far as a contributor to Zope wanting to keep their work free, then if the ZPL is GPL compatible, they can make their components GPLd.
True. Michael Bernstein.
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. 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. 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. --Paul Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
On 26 Jun 2001 10:29:39 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Michael "R." Bernstein wrote
Unless I've misunderstood something (which is certainly possible), DC doesn't seem to have anything to lose by switching from a BSD style license to the GPL (or a GPL style license with an additional optional attribution clause), and quite a bit to gain.
They will probably lose developer mindshare. Given how important this is to Zope's growth (and to DC's growth, as a result), this is far far more important than the karma from switching to the far less flexible GPL
You're right. I hadn't considered that the ZPL needs to be 'proprietary compatible' so far as add-on products are concerned. perhaps the LGPL would suffice, as that would permit creating proprietary Zope products. But I won't be entirely happy if the ZPL permits proprietary third-party redistributions of Zope itself.
Your argument seems to be that DC would want to control other companies ability to make distributions derived from Zope - unless they've been hiding this nefarious plan from the community, this doesn't seem to be an objective for them.
Heh. I guess I shouldn't have stuck that in there. An argument I've occasionally heard for BSD-style licenses is that the original (usually corporate) author wants to be able to make proprietary releases based on other peoples contributions. The argument for NPL-style licenses is that they (the original author) want to be the *only* one with such a privileged position. DC has never indicated that either of these was important to them.
As far as a contributor to Zope wanting to keep their work free, then if the ZPL is GPL compatible, they can make their components GPLd.
True.
Michael Bernstein.
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
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 -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology fog@mixadlive.com Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further
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
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:
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.
That's much appretiated :)
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.
participants (5)
-
Anthony Baxter -
Erik Enge -
Federico Di Gregorio -
Michael R. Bernstein -
Paul Everitt