The FSF page says this in regards to the ZPL: [snip]
We urge you not to use the license of Zope for software you write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as Zope.
So what is the issue you are raising? Any software you write on or for Zope can be licensed in any manner you choose. Stallman et al may not "approve" of the ZPL mostly I think because it has more in common with the BSD license than the GPL, in that binary distribution of Zope is allowed without the source code.
The FSF page says this in regards to the ZPL:
[snip]
We urge you not to use the license of Zope for software you write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as Zope.
So what is the issue you are raising? Any software you write on or for Zope can be licensed in any manner you choose. Stallman et al may not "approve" of the ZPL mostly I think because it has more in common with the BSD license than the GPL, in that binary distribution of Zope is allowed without the source code.
As Lalo Martins has pointed out the problem is with the fourth clause of the ZPL, which rms calls "the obnoxious advertising clause". That clause makes the ZPL GPL-Incompatible, it's illegal to distribute GPL code together with GPL-Incompatible code, that's what stopped Debian to distribute KDE. Because of this I've decided to use LGPL instead of GPL for my zope software, but I know there's people that don't use Zope because of this incompatibility. regards, jdavid
Juan David IbXXez Palomar wrote:
software, but I know there's people that don't use Zope because of this incompatibility.
their loss...
Chris
yes, their loss, but also our loss www.barrapunto.com is the most important weblog about free software in Spain and probably in all the spanish speaking countries, there are more than 300.000.000 people that speaks spanish in the world. They considered the possibility to use Squishdot but finally they choosed SlashCode, the problem with the license was one of the reasons to not use Zope and Squishdot. It's not only about the publicity they could give to Zope, they are also good developers we have lost. Probably there's more people in a similar situation. And more, there's already zope software with the GPL license, for example ZWiki. ZWiki is included in Debian, probably the Debian developer that maintains the package is not aware of these license issues. regards, jdavid
Juan David IbXXez Palomar wrote:
And more, there's already zope software with the GPL license, for example ZWiki. ZWiki is included in Debian, probably the Debian developer that maintains the package is not aware of these license issues.
Has any open source license issue actually come to court yet? How many people really care about this compared to the number of people who just want to get on, develop and use software in an open source community fashion and don't want to get involved in religious flame wars? My $0.02 Chris (who doesn't really bother about license issues and hasn't been hurt by it yet...)
Has any open source license issue actually come to court yet?
How many people really care about this compared to the number of people who just want to get on, develop and use software in an open source community fashion and don't want to get involved in religious flame wars?
My $0.02
Chris (who doesn't really bother about license issues and hasn't been hurt by it yet...)
this is not about religion and a flame war is the last thing I want I only wanted to let you know about these facts, and yes there're projects that have been hurt by "license issues", for example KDE. regards, jdavid (who has bet for Zope and is worried about its future)
this is not about religion and a flame war is the last thing I want
I only wanted to let you know about these facts, and yes there're projects that have been hurt by "license issues", for example KDE.
Regaurding licensing, twhile I wouldn't want to snuff out freedom of speech, I would say that we have already had the "Licensing Wars" about 18 months ago, and things are settled and non negotiable at this point. Arguing only creates tension in the community, which does more damage than good. If people choose not to use Zope because it doesn't have a GPL-style license, that is their freedom and we are sorry to see them leave the community, but it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, and the ZPL pleases most of the people most of the time---including our investors. No speaking for Digital Creations! ;-) Chris
Regaurding licensing, twhile I wouldn't want to snuff out freedom of speech, I would say that we have already had the "Licensing Wars" about 18 months ago, and things are settled and non negotiable at this point. Arguing only creates tension in the community, which does more damage than good. If people choose not to use Zope because it doesn't have a GPL-style license, that is their freedom and we are sorry to see them leave the community, but it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, and the ZPL pleases most of the people most of the time---including our investors.
No speaking for Digital Creations! ;-)
Chris
I didn't know it had already been discussed, I wasn't here 18 months ago, so that's all, thanks for your patience. regards, jdavid
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:48:20 +0100 (MET), palomar@sg.uji.es (Juan David Ibáñez Palomar) wrote:
it's illegal to distribute GPL code together with [ZPL] code
I dont see this as an issue for Zope (taken as a whole). There is no problem with other developers releasing GPL products for Zope, as long as they do not create a combined distribution of Zope+TheirProduct. Separate rpms is enough. I agree that GPL-compatability would be better for some of Zope's components which are useful outside of Zope (ZPublisher, ZODB, ZEO, etc) On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:09:40 -0600, Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin@texoma.net> wrote:
The GPL would protect DC from predatory competitors. It would also allow for Zope's adoption in certain environments. I also believe some people would relicense their products to the GPL if it were Zope's native license.
If a future version of Zope was released under GPL, I (and I guess many others) would *need* to create a fork from the last non-GPL version. This is to nobodys benefit. Toby Dickenson tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:48:20 +0100 (MET), palomar@sg.uji.es (Juan David Ibáñez Palomar) wrote:
it's illegal to distribute GPL code together with [ZPL] code
I dont see this as an issue for Zope (taken as a whole). There is no problem with other developers releasing GPL products for Zope, as long as they do not create a combined distribution of Zope+TheirProduct. Separate rpms is enough.
it's important only if you want your GPL Zope products to be redistributed by others, for example by Debian. regards, jdavid
participants (5)
-
Casey Duncan -
Chris Withers -
Christopher Petrilli -
palomar＠sg.uji.es -
Toby Dickenson