Re: ZPL and GPL: What should one consider when choosing a license?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alex Turner wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 7:56 PM, Ross Patterson <me@rpatterson.net> wrote:
Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com> writes:
On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Unfortunately, the comment by Chris McDonough mentioned in the latter doesn't seem to be accessible any more. I'd love to read it. It said:
""" I don't think Plone is "bad" because it uses the GPL. I do think it's a pain in the balls to have to ask authors of various GPL things if they're willing to relicense ZPL or other BSD-type license in order to be able to incorporate their software into CMF or Zope (as required by the ZC contributor's agreement in order to check it into either of those projects). It just puts up a big enough impediment to sharing code that the codebases don't intermingle much. What's gauche about using the GPL is that at least by default, the Plone guys don't need to ask the Zope guys if they can ship their software. They get the benefit (or pain ;-) of shipping it all without any extra work. But the Zope guys need to go track down the copyright owners of various bits of Plone code and get all of their permissions to ship their software in CMF or Zope via a relicense. That's just hurts collaboration badly. It's anti-sharing which I think is practically just gauche. """ Thanks for digging that up, its a really good point to have in the mix here.
au contraire - it is the ZPL which is anti-sharing in my estimation. You do not have to contribute changes back to a project which you extend in a BSD style license, so you can take a BSD style licensed product, extend it, and sell it without giving a single thing back to the original author of the original system except a credit note in the copyright statement.
BSD and ZPL is share and do what you like GPL is share and share alike
Thats the core philosophy difference. If you like others to share too, then use GPL or LGPL (possibly AGPL actually, GPL doesn't gaurentee much of anything for application service providers as I've found out, which is probably most people using Plone etc.), if you want to give your code away then use BSD/ZPL, if you want changes back, then use AGPL. And if you think it wont happen, it already did. Microsoft took the BSD Kerberos code and re-purposed it into Windows, changed the protocol slightly and pissed off many people.
Rehashing GPL vs ZPL is off topic here, because the ZPL is the *mandated* license for any code contributed into the zope.org repository: that choice is not subject to debate. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHbVOS+gerLs4ltQ4RAkKMAKC4Y6jhdzV+hvWmg2fTKYWBhhRsLwCfbyd9 6oeMLkDGQCN1ucjkPzow/A8= =uNGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tres Seaver wrote:
Rehashing GPL vs ZPL is off topic here, because the ZPL is the *mandated* license for any code contributed into the zope.org repository: that choice is not subject to debate.
And similarly, Plone core (at the very least, the CMFPlone package and the plone.app.* namespace, but probably some or all other things too) are mandated by the Plone Foundation to be GPL licensed. I personally prefer plone.* packages (which are more re-usable) to be LGPL or ZPL licensed so as to encourage re-use, but AFAIK there's never been a clear position on this, which is unfortunate. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Hi Martin. What you advocate would represent a milestone for the PF if any such inniative could gather traction. The componentization of Zope and Plone only brings the sharing issue into sharper focus. Overall, there is little need to duplicate generic recipes, authentication plugins, and other common componentry. This type of sharing could only increase colaboration and strengthen the software. I don't agree with introducing another license into the mix however if this were considered. The ZPL is the license has generated the success of zope and is comfortable to zope developers. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Aspeli <optilude@gmx.net> Date: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [Plone-Users] ZPL and GPL: What should one consider when choosing a license?
Tres Seaver wrote:
Rehashing GPL vs ZPL is off topic here, because the ZPL is the *mandated* license for any code contributed into the zope.org repository: that choice is not subject to debate.
And similarly, Plone core (at the very least, the CMFPlone package and the plone.app.* namespace, but probably some or all other things too) are mandated by the Plone Foundation to be GPL licensed.
I personally prefer plone.* packages (which are more re-usable) to be LGPL or ZPL licensed so as to encourage re-use, but AFAIK there's never been a clear position on this, which is unfortunate.
Martin
-- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Plone-Users mailing list Plone-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-users
participants (3)
-
fairwindsļ¼ eastlink.ca -
Martin Aspeli -
Tres Seaver