...

as i said before, writing gpl code subclassing zope is a non-sense. even the author cannot, imho, redistribute its work with a plain gpl attached to it. the gpl says that if you link with gpl code *all* the code should be gpl or gpl-compatible (major os components like clibs, compilers, etc are an exception). so even the author cannot do that without licensing under gpl plus some exception ("as a special exception you're allowed to link this code with zope or any other zope product distributed under the zpl".) see the (in)famous gpl vs. qt thread in the debian mailing lists for an in-depth analisys of this problem.

To me this is the key point. If you GPL license a product (or other software) for Zope, you cannot subclass ZPL coded classes in your product without violating the GPL. This makes a strict GPL license nearly useless for Zope development and incompatible (license-wise) with Zope itself. What bugs me is when people point to the ZPL being the "problem", it is the GPL that is the limiting factor IMEHO. -- | Casey Duncan | Kaivo, Inc. | cduncan@kaivo.com `------------------>

Either this is wrong, or I don't get it. The GPL talks just about _distribution_ of a product, or more precisely, about the rights of _others_ for distribution. I can distribute my products with any license I want, who should have a problem with that and what license may be violated? To cite the GPL: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." and "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. " and (from the GPL-FAQ): "Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL. However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community. " I.e. I also can publish internet explorer specific javascript under the gpl (or vb-macros for that matter). and (also from the GPL-FAQ) "I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ run-time library permitted under the GPL? Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler you are using." The only problem I see is when someone (DC) wants to incorporate someone else's GPLed product together with zope, or when someone wants to modify someone elses GPLed zope product and distribute it. But I think even the second part isn't a problem, because the GPL says (under section 2, the "viral" part): "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. " For me that means that as long as I distribute someone elses GPL'ed zope product without zope, it's ok. I guess that we all are in agreement that zope "can be reasonably considered independent and separate work in themselves". cheers, oliver