According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says: "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's." Shane
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote:
According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says:
"I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's."
Why not use the new Python's one instead ? just to know... Jerome Alet
On 25 Jun 2001 10:26:10 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says:
"I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's."
Hmm. So a BSD style license, then. Are there currently any Zope-derived distributions that are proprietary (third-party or DC's)? If not, does DC anticipate there being this kind of third-party proprietary derived distribution in the future? Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? As I see it, BSD style licenses ensure that anyone can make proprietary derived distributions. They are very similar to public domain in this regard. The GPL ensures that no-one can make proprietary derived distributions, except that the copyright holder always has the option of releasing under another license if they wish, so dual licensing or changing the license is always an option *if you have contributors assign the copyright of their contributions to you*. NPL (Netscape Public Licence) style licenses try to make it possible for no-one to make proprietary redistributions *except the original author*. The license generally requires contributors to allow the original author to make proprietary redistributions using their contributions even without copyright assignment (or that assignment is implicit in the contribution). Note that re-licensing (or dual licensing) would still require contributors to assign copyright just as with the GPL. Given that DC is the copyright holder for Zope, they would do well (IMO) to consider relicensing Zope under the GPL or LGPL, as that would force anyone who wished to redistribute a proprietary version of Zope to negotiate a separate license with DC, actually strengthening DC's position in that regard, while generally ensuring that contributors work would remain GPL. If some contributor did not wish to let DC relicense their contribution, they could simply not assign the copyright to DC. DC has the option of not adding the contribution into the distribution, or of removing the contribution from any relicensed version. So. The current ZPL is essentially a BSD style license with the optional attribution clauses, and a mandatory advertising clause (although there's an escape hatch too). It seems that the mandatory advertising clause is most applicable when someone creates a proprietary derived distribution of Zope. If there are none such (I'm not aware of any), then the clause is unneccessary. 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. Note that this is a different option than merely switching to a BSD style license that is 'GPL compatible'. Michael Bernstein.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:22:32PM -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? ... 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.
I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed. However we should take into consideration the fact that this would mandate that any Zope product should be GPLed too, since in the FSF view we "link" them to Zope. The same for Python C extensions, we would link them to a GPLed software (Python), so they would have to be GPLed too. That's why I'm pretty sure that unfortunately both Zope and Python would loose supporters if they were GPLed. bye, Jerome Alet
On 25 Jun 2001 21:54:16 +0200, Jerome Alet wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:22:32PM -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL? ... 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.
I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed.
However we should take into consideration the fact that this would mandate that any Zope product should be GPLed too, since in the FSF view we "link" them to Zope.
Did anyone ever get an 'official' statement to that effect? Specifically that creating a Zope Product that subclasses Zope base classes would require the product to be GPL'd? What about the LGPL?
The same for Python C extensions, we would link them to a GPLed software (Python), so they would have to be GPLed too.
That's why I'm pretty sure that unfortunately both Zope and Python would loose supporters if they were GPLed.
This makes sense. Michael.
On 25 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL?
Yes. A commercial one; an imperative one. If I make a Zope Python Product, I must license it as GPL to be able to redistribute. That's just unacceptable in my eyes. (It would probably go against my personal beliefs to do that, but in the business-would you can't barge in with a hard GPL-attitude all over your face and expect people do readily do business with you. That's why we need a transition period; 'till the catch up with us.) I, for one, am quite convinced that most of the revenue Zope help companies create out there is done by proprietary Zope Python Products. With Zope under GPL this wouldn't be possible. (Me thinks.)
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.
How do you suppose DC make their monies? I'm quite sure they can't license Zope under the GPL because they would intimidate their market too much with it (an assumption that could be wrong, naturally). Let's hope they go for a GPL-compatible one. I can't see what they would/could loose by using a BSD-style one, maybe you have some thoughts on that?
On 26 Jun 2001 00:29:05 +0200, Erik Enge wrote:
On 25 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL?
Yes. A commercial one; an imperative one. If I make a Zope Python Product, I must license it as GPL to be able to redistribute. That's just unacceptable in my eyes.
Umm. Yes, you're right. The compatibility needs to go both ways as far as Products are concerned. The Zope license should allow GPL'd Products, as well as proprietary ones..
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.
How do you suppose DC make their monies? I'm quite sure they can't license Zope under the GPL because they would intimidate their market too much with it (an assumption that could be wrong, naturally).
DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform.
Let's hope they go for a GPL-compatible one. I can't see what they would/could loose by using a BSD-style one, maybe you have some thoughts on that?
Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing. BSD style licenses permit proprietary free-riders. Contributing anything back to the open-source version is not required (although companies can still choose to do so). As DC is the copyright holder, they have the ability to do this with their work regardless of what license they choose, since they can always relicense or dual-license. But I have a problem allowing other players the same privilege. As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a content mangement solution for the southeast asian market. They go to a lot of trouble to internationalize Zope so it can handle CJK character sets, and translate the management interfaces. then they distribute the entire thing as a proprietary, binary-only, retail software package, and don't contribute back to the existing community i8ln effort. While they would be saddled with maintaining their proprietary fork thereafter, they still reap a huge initial windfall. They can also continue to incorporate improvements from the community with no repurcussions. Now, far be it from me to say that companies that make improvements to Zope are not entitled to a return on their investment, but I think that the example I've given here is one of a disproportionate reward. Michael Bernstein.
On 26 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform.
Yes, and forcing those paying customers to use GPL is very hard (and not very nice, either).
Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing.
No, that's not the issue, since I don't believe there will ever be a large successfull proprietary version of Zope. I think that is where we differ in opinions. Which is something that can only be tested by applying time on it :).
As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a content mangement solution for the southeast asian market.
I just don't think it would be very successfull. Zope isn't the type of application that would be great as a closed-source one. I just can't see that happen; maybe I'm too naive.
On 26 Jun 2001 23:37:25 +0200, Erik Enge wrote:
On 26 Jun 2001, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
DC has been up-fron about how they make money. They do so by selling development services using Zope as a toolkit/platform.
Yes, and forcing those paying customers to use GPL is very hard (and not very nice, either).
Um. Even if Zope was GPL'd, DC's customers would only be 'forced' to do anything if they redistributed Zope, as opposed to just using it themselves. If DC makes custom changes to Zope for a customer, even DC would only be 'forced' to give the source to those changes to *that* customer which they presumably would do anyway.
Well, I guess the issue is whether you think that redistribution of a proprietary version of Zope itself is a good or bad thing.
No, that's not the issue, since I don't believe there will ever be a large successfull proprietary version of Zope. I think that is where we differ in opinions. Which is something that can only be tested by applying time on it :).
I'm a worry-wart :-) Better safe than sorry.
As a possible scenario, let's suppose that someone wanted to create a content mangement solution for the southeast asian market.
I just don't think it would be very successfull. Zope isn't the type of application that would be great as a closed-source one. I just can't see that happen; maybe I'm too naive.
And maybe I'm too suspicious. Time will tell. Michael Bernstein.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:22, Michael "R." Bernstein wrote:
On 25 Jun 2001 10:26:10 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says:
"I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's."
Hmm. So a BSD style license, then. Are there currently any Zope-derived distributions that are proprietary (third-party or DC's)?
Absolutely! We use Zope as a core component in our product that's about to "hit the shelves".
If not, does DC anticipate there being this kind of third-party proprietary derived distribution in the future?
Absolutely! We have several products in mind that are based on Zope.
Other than keeping the door open for this eventuality, is there any other reason to choose a BSD style license over the GPL?
I think I've answered that question. We will be distributing the entirety of the source code of all open-source components of our product. We cannot distribute the source code of our product - that would be sheer foolishness. We've invested about 2 man-years in the code, and we're not about to just give that away. Our investors would string us up! Richard -- Richard Jones richard@bizarsoftware.com.au Senior Software Developer, Bizar Software (www.bizarsoftware.com.au)
On 26 Jun 2001 09:30:49 +1000, Richard Jones wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:22, Michael "R." Bernstein wrote:
On 25 Jun 2001 10:26:10 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
According to management, there's a zope-license list somewhere and we expect to move to a GPL compatible license. Paul says:
"I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's."
Hmm. So a BSD style license, then. Are there currently any Zope-derived distributions that are proprietary (third-party or DC's)?
Absolutely! We use Zope as a core component in our product that's about to "hit the shelves".
I guess the question is whether your product is simply a combined distribution of Zope and a proprietary product, or if you've made changes to Zope itself.
If not, does DC anticipate there being this kind of third-party proprietary derived distribution in the future?
Absolutely! We have several products in mind that are based on Zope.
Again, are these products making proprietary changes to Zope itself, or simply creating proprietary products and other add-ons to Zope?
We will be distributing the entirety of the source code of all open-source components of our product. We cannot distribute the source code of our product - that would be sheer foolishness. We've invested about 2 man-years in the code, and we're not about to just give that away. Our investors would string us up!
Is your product a 'Zope Product'? If so, I think that's perfectly acceptable, and Zope's license should certainly allow such. Perhaps the LGPL for Zope would work. Michael Bernstein.
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote:
(Paul says:) "I think the goal should be for Zope and Python to converge on the same license, with perhaps the new license being some off-the-shelf license like Apache's."
Wow, lobbying the management team at DC is pretty easy ;-). It's good to see that things will be resolved; thanks Shane.
participants (5)
-
Erik Enge -
Jerome Alet -
Michael R. Bernstein -
Richard Jones -
Shane Hathaway