I wrote a lot of nonsense:

you are not able to use GPL'ed Zope products with Python 1.6 (or 2.0) until the dispute is settled.

This is WRONG. Of course it is possible to use GPL'ed software with less restrictive licensed programs. Must be the starting alcohol intoxication because of the Hamburg vs Juventus Turin game in the Champions League :-) Prosit, Nils

Guten Abend. I recalled (?) my mail within a few minutes after sending. It didn't yet appear on the mailing list. Too bad you can't cancel a mail like a Usenet posting.

They can only constrain *distribution* of that software and derived works. This is a serious problem for software authors, but not for people running Zope-based sites.

I think a lot of the people running Zope sites are developing software too. If you use e.g. ZSQL methods and DTML to connect to a database, you _are_ a software author. Website development in Zope is actually programming. Well, but now it's time for the big soccer match in Hamburg =:-> Cheers, Nils

Nils Kassube wrote:

Jon Nathan wrote:

...

could break code. can i run zope 2.2.1 on python 1.6 or should i stick with 1.5.2?

According to Guido van Rossum in

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW

you are not able to use GPL'ed Zope products with Python 1.6 (or 2.0) until the dispute is settled.

Bzzzt. Wrong. He said he can't distribute *Python* as GPL. zope and the products I have seen come through the pike for Zope are not derivative works of *Python*. Quote: """ GVR: The new license was imposed by CNRI on Python 1.6 (the last release done from CNRI's code base). Python 2.0, which builds on CNRI's code base, is a derivative work of Python 1.6, and the CNRI license explicitly applies to (the 1.6 portion of) all derivative works. According to Richard Stallman this means you *can't* distribute Python 2.0 under the GPL -- and dual licensing is out too. """ Now, this means _explicitly_ that the license applies to derivative works of python. It does NOT mean that programs, scripts, etc built that use python as the (a) language are affected by it. Now, if DC wanted to take Python 1.6 or 2.0 and make their own custom version of it, the license would matter. Since I have no mention of anything like this happening, the fears being spread about the new license meaning you can't use GPL'ed products on Zope is baseless.

| GVR: It should be clear by now that the future of the Python license | is not in my hands (nor in BeOpen's hands) but in the hands of CNRI | and Richard Stallman. If they can't agree on changes to the 1.6 | license or a different interpretation of GPL compatibility by the FSF, | the final release of Python 2.0 (planned for early October) will be | incompatible with the GPL. Stallman has already mentioned that in that | case he will attempt to maintain a GPL-compatible fork of Python, | probably based on version 1.5.2. This would be a great waste of time | for all, but I can't stop him.

Well, possibly we'll lose the GPL'ed Zope components this way.

Probably not. A program written using the Python language is not considered a derivative of Python. How about before people go spouyting off how much Python not being GPL will hurt products that are NOT python derivatives, they consult a lawyer. Sitting around spreading FUD is not good period. If you MODIFY PYTHON, that's one thing. Writing something IN Python is another. One is a derivative, one is not. Quick question: What's the license on C, Pike, C++, JAVA, etc? That's right, you probably don't know, nor care. Nor should you unless you are modifying the code of the language itsself. People, this is getting very, very OT for this list. Either some lawyers speak up, or we should all take this off list if we want to continue it. Otherwise, it's a case of blind leading the blind. Misinformed, misinterpreted opinions as to the legality of licesning of Python is not, AFAICT the subject of this list. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy, and have the root password.