On Monday 20 February 2006 23:55, Andrew Milton wrote: Wow, you took the following two quotes out of context.
<block quote> The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating everything in the wider Zope community. It is merely a place for high-quality packages that are supported by the Zope development team. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is from section 2, which defines the ZSCP.
Code in the Common Repository *must* also use the license stated in section 3.5 and developers *must* sign the contributor agreement. The ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ agreement is necessary to ensure that contributions originated from the contributing developer. </end quote>
This is from section 3, which defines *one possible implementation* of the ZSCP. But I see where your confusion stems from and I have added a paragraph to section 3.1 stating that the Common Repository is one implementation of the ZSCP but not the only one: The Common Repository is only *one* implementation of the ZSCP. While the Common Repository implements the ZSCP guidelines and suggested automation tools, the ZSCP process itself does *not* require the Common Repository.
The license for the code should also be irrelevant, since it's just a repository right? Just a convenient one stop shop for packages. So each package should be able to have its own license, no need for a common license.
For the ZSCP, the license is irrelevant. For the Common repository it is not.
Having to sign the agreement serves no purpose unless there's some other IP issue involved other than simply storing the code.
The following does *not* concern the ZSCP, but the code and repository: Right, the other issue is upstream movement. Let's say you have a package that has many contributors, like zope.interface, and the Python developers would like to put the interface package into the Python standard library. Since zope.interface is ZPL and Python has its license, you need to change that. If you do not have a contributor agreement that assigns half of the rights to an organization, then you have to ask *all* developers whether the license change is okay. If you cannot find a developer anymore you can never change that license. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training