Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Correct me if I'm wrong (and don't bother with the discussion on the merits or non- of the GPL, I don't care in this context), but: In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to distribute the entire work under the GPL. RMS says that the ZPL isn't compatible with the GPL; either you can't get something via rights given by the ZPL, then distribute it under the more restrictive rights of the GPL (the copyleft virus). Or vice versa. Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be distributed as part of a Zope solution. You can link & use them, or distribute one and provide a pointer to the other for the other party to install, just not distribute them together to anyone else. Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare. -- Karl Anderson karl@digicool.com
Karl Anderson wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and don't bother with the discussion on the merits or non- of the GPL, I don't care in this context), but:
In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to distribute the entire work under the GPL.
RMS says that the ZPL isn't compatible with the GPL; either you can't get something via rights given by the ZPL, then distribute it under the more restrictive rights of the GPL (the copyleft virus). Or vice versa.
Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be distributed as part of a Zope solution. You can link & use them, or distribute one and provide a pointer to the other for the other party to install, just not distribute them together to anyone else.
Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare.
While i'm not a GPL expert, I believe your interpretation is correct, in that the distribution has to be separate. As far as packaging nightmare goes, it might be an extra download link or cd in a distribution. Not exactly a nightmare. I think a minor inconvience is worth giving freedom to authors to make they're creations available as they wish. and because you're a DC employee advocating against the GPL (for specific reasons which amount to inconvience), i feel its important to give a reason why you want to go through the inconvience: I want to give my code to the community. i don't want people taking my code from the community and distributing it without giving back. the last thing i want to see is someone taking code from the community, making changes to it and making it propertiary, and then selling it in restricted form. if they sold it with source, thats fine. its not about money, or code, its about freedom and enpowerment of the community. Kapil
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:53:34 -0700, Kapil Thangavelu <kthangavelu@earthlink.net> wrote:
I want to give my code to the community. i don't want people taking my code from the community and distributing it without giving back.
If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have happened if Zope was under a GPL license. Toby Dickenson tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com
From: "Toby Dickenson" <mbel44@dial.pipex.net> If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have happened if Zope was under a GPL license.
but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, could you please elaborate? /dario
+-------[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]---------------------- | | >From: "Toby Dickenson" <mbel44@dial.pipex.net> | > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back | > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on | > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have | > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. | > | | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, | could you please elaborate? There are a variety of reasons. First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form. Unlikely does not mean impossible, but until the NASDAQ picks up again, I would say most people will be wary of non-commercial friendly products. So if you have something useful, then what will probably happen is said corporation will likely throw money at it and reimplement it, market it better, and make proprietary changes and move on. This has already happened with a BSD licensed product (the license was incidental, but, it did happen). This can happen to any Open Source product. The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. Just look at any discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion and mention the GPL. I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL. The oft-quoted reason for GPLing code is to protect code from being 'made proprietary.' Well noone can do that anyway, because you own it. Mainly people GPL their code to stop other people making money from it (that's why RMS invented it in the first place d8) It should be noted that large projects are effectively proprietary anyway because of their size, (see Mozilla, and how long it's taken for any serious action). Here are some large, non-GPL products that are thriving. Apache -- BSD licence, several commercial versions around. It's hurt apache how? Well it hasn't, they in fact have received funding from IBM and others, and actually have bleeding edge Java support provided by corporations. X11 -- BSD license, several commercial versions around. Same deal, they get funding from large vendors to provide features etc. *BSD -- BSD license, Apple took Net/FreeBSD code for Darwin, and has contributed changes back to the relevant codebases, and have released Darwin as an open source Operating System (not required by BSD license). BSDI acquired Walnut Creek and FreeBSD, changes are being merged across from BSDI to FreeBSD. Mozilla -- MPL license. Zope -- ZPL license. Perl -- Artistic License (GPL - controversial bits). While the GPL guarantees that other people's code will also be open source, it doesn't guarantee that they will contribute those changes to you (i.e. stop forks 150 Linux distros can't be wrong). The BSD code doesn't prevent this either (OpenBSD anyone?). MPL does. It always amuses me that the GPL zealots who deride any and all licenses that are not GPL, continue to use the TCP/IP code pilferred from *BSD, use Apache, and use openssh which doesn't seem to have any license d8) They also proudly use Netscape which doesn't come with source at all. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068 |akm@theinternet.com.au|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. Just look at any discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion and mention the GPL.
Sorry, but until I've received your previous message, and the one about napalm, I've found this discussion very calm and interesting, now IMHO all we have to do is to wait for something from DC and the FSF. Jerome ALET - GPL Fanatic, and proud of it.
Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
+-------[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]---------------------- | | >From: "Toby Dickenson" <mbel44@dial.pipex.net> | > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back | > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on | > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have | > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. | > | | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, | could you please elaborate?
There are a variety of reasons.
First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form.
An unproven assertion. I have personally witnessed a very large corporation prefer GPL to other licenses, such as BSDish ones. Even after legal was through with it (a few times because legal recommended it).
Unlikely does not mean impossible, but until the NASDAQ picks up again, I would say most people will be wary of non-commercial friendly products.
So if you have something useful, then what will probably happen is said corporation will likely throw money at it and reimplement it, market it better, and make proprietary changes and move on. This has already happened with a BSD licensed product (the license was incidental, but, it did happen). This can happen to any Open Source product.
The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics.
As Does BSD. Just look at the BSD zealots that go to GPL forums with flame throwers on their back. Nearly everything attracts fanatics. Just look at the subject line. ;^)=
Just look at any discussion forums where the issue comes up. You cannot have a calm discussion and mention the GPL.
Not true. I have personally had more calm conversations, including honest disagreement, than not.
I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL. ... Mozilla -- MPL license.
Dual license with GPL. Sun relicensing StarOffice under a dual license with the GPL. Two very large and notable cases of the opposite. Python MAY go the same way.
Zope -- ZPL license.
Perl -- Artistic License (GPL - controversial bits).
While the GPL guarantees that other people's code will also be open source, it doesn't guarantee that they will contribute those changes to you (i.e. stop forks 150 Linux distros can't be wrong). The BSD code doesn't prevent this either (OpenBSD anyone?). MPL does.
One thing to note, and it is important, is that multiple distributions of Linux OS is irrelevant to the matter of the GPL. The Linux Kernel is under GPL, but that does not require the entire OS built on top of it to be. Technically speaking, a Linux OS Distribution is a compilation. To say that more than one linux distribution consittutes a fork is false, and rather misleading. It is also interesting to note you left out all the GPL work being done by corporations. Corporations such as HP, SUN, and Phillips. Now, lest anyone here presume I am a GPL zealot, visit my products page before making yourself look foolish. In any event, the original question at the top of this post was not answered. As demonstrated, it is a matter of personal preference. It is even more likley, that in this particular case, the contributons wuld not fall under GPL or ZPL. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy, and have the root password.
+-------[ Bill Anderson ]---------------------- | Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: | > | > +-------[ Dario Lopez-Kästen ]---------------------- | > | | > | >From: "Toby Dickenson" <mbel44@dial.pipex.net> | > | > If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back | > | > by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on | > | > company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have | > | > happened if Zope was under a GPL license. | > | > | > | | > | but is that because you personally don't like/endorse the GPL for | > | what-ever-reason or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, | > | could you please elaborate? | > | > There are a variety of reasons. | > | > First and foremost is that the GPL is not corporate friendly, which means | > that larger corporations are unlikely to take on GPLd products in any form. | | An unproven assertion. I have personally witnessed a very large corporation prefer GPL to other licenses, such as BSDish | ones. Even after legal was through with it (a few times because legal recommended it). Bottom of the GPL This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. It's not an unproven assertion it's a stated fact. | > The second reason is that GPL attracts fanatics. | | As Does BSD. Just look at the BSD zealots that go to GPL forums with flame throwers on their back. Nearly everything | attracts fanatics. I haven't heard anyone complain about getting death threats from people promoting the BSD license... | Not true. I have personally had more calm conversations, including honest | disagreement, than not. This one has been quite calm, although I have noticed a somewhat irrational sub-thread has just started. | > I have already seen one GPL project have to re-license its code to a | > company who despite the ranting of some and the calm assurances of others | > was not convinced that they could even comply with the GPL. | ... | > Mozilla -- MPL license. | | Dual license with GPL. | Sun relicensing StarOffice under a dual license with the GPL. StarOffice doesn't count, it's not even released yet :-) | One thing to note, and it is important, is that multiple distributions of Linux OS is irrelevant to the matter of the | GPL. The Linux Kernel is under GPL, but that does not require the entire OS built on top of it to be. Linux is just the kernel. | Technically speaking, a Linux OS Distribution is a compilation. To say | that more than one linux distribution consittutes a fork is false, and | rather misleading. RedHat I believe have their own mods to the kernel, which make it different. I really don't even know what the 150 are, I'd be struggling to name more than 5 or 6. | It is also interesting to note you left out all the GPL work being done | by corporations. Corporations such as HP, SUN, and Phillips. Because i was unaware of it. | In any event, the original question at the top of this post was not | answered. As demonstrated, it is a matter of personal preference. | It is even more likley, that in this particular case, the contributons | wuld not fall under GPL or ZPL. Well I couldn't answer for Dario, and the part of the two part question I was trying to answer was "Why would you get *more* back" Toby wasn't clear as to which part of the question he wanted answered d8) -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068 |akm@theinternet.com.au|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:33:05 +0200, "Dario Lopez-Kästen" <dario@ita.chalmers.se> wrote:
From: "Toby Dickenson" <mbel44@dial.pipex.net> If that is your motivation then you may find that you get *more* back by not using the GPL. My contributions to Zope (both personal and on company time) are fairly significant in total, and would not have happened if Zope was under a GPL license.
or is it because the GPL actually prevents this? and if so, could you please elaborate?
I am using Zope as a component of a closed source product. GPL components are not an option simply because we are not willing to open source *all* of this product. I am developing the one type of software product that the GPL is designed to work against. The difference between GPL and more flexible licenses such as Python's or the ZPL is that *we* get to draw the line between what we contribute to the community, and what we keep to ourselves. GPL advocates are wrong to assume that means we contribute nothing - there are strong technical and commercial reasons to contribute significant amounts of code and experience back to the community. Toby Dickenson tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com
Hi, I think the direction of this discussion has been lost. The main concern is with the distribution of GPL'd zope products as a part of other products, commercial, proprietary, freeware, or not. In this case, does the GPL enforce that the product as a whole must be distributed under the GPL? The GPL states that it only applies to "work based on the Program" defined as "means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications..." So from my understanding of this, and what others in this discussion have said, this means that if you create a product that uses a GPL'd product either by sub classing it or through other means, and you distribute this GPL'd product with your own, with the GPL'd product being modified or not, then your own product must also be GPL'd. If however you only provide a pointer in your distribution to the GPL'd product, and it is up to the software installer to go and fetch the GPL'd product, then you can distribute under any license that you wish. On another note...I am not clear on the meaning of the terms in the ZPL. Is it possible to distribute your own product with its own license (possibly the GPL) as a part of a standard un-modified zope distribution with its terms and conditions intact (i.e., your product is in lib/python/Products/ ), or in this case would your product automatically fall under the ZPL? Would you need to package your own product completely separately for to to have its own license? What do Digital Creations people have to say about this? You have been quiet so far ;-) terry -- Terry Kerr (terry@adroit.net) Adroit Internet Solutions Pty Ltd (www.adroit.net) Phone: +613 9563 4461 Fax: +613 9563 3856 Mobile: +61 414 708 124 ICQ: 79303381
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068 |akm@theinternet.com.au|
[Karl Anderson] | In order to link/incorporate a GPL'd module, you have to be able to | distribute the entire work under the GPL. : | Therefore, assuming RMS is correct, GPL'd components can't be | distributed as part of a Zope solution. : | Is this correct? If it is, the GPL isn't very appropriate for the | license of a Zope product, becuase it's a packaging nightmare. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a «module». Is a module an extension to the Zope application, or is it a Product that resides in lib/python/Products? I'm a bit confused, you use «component», «product» and «module». Which is what? And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them separately?
On 13 Sep 2000, Erik Enge wrote:
And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them separately?
Maybe this is stupid, but I'm sure it would clarify the situation for all of us if DC and the FSF could get in touch, talk about all this, and give us a final explanation, agreed by both, explaining exactly what we can and can't do regarding this licensing problem. bye, Jerome ALET - alet@unice.fr - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome Faculte de Medecine de Nice - http://noe.unice.fr - Tel: 04 93 37 76 30 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE
Well put! terry Jerome Alet wrote:
On 13 Sep 2000, Erik Enge wrote:
And if it really is Products (as in lib/python/Products), does this mean that if I make a GNU GPL licensed application for a client, I can't actually distribute Zope with it? I have to install them separately?
Maybe this is stupid, but I'm sure it would clarify the situation for all of us if DC and the FSF could get in touch, talk about all this, and give us a final explanation, agreed by both, explaining exactly what we can and can't do regarding this licensing problem.
bye,
Jerome ALET - alet@unice.fr - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome Faculte de Medecine de Nice - http://noe.unice.fr - Tel: 04 93 37 76 30 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
-- Terry Kerr (terry@adroit.net) Adroit Internet Solutions Pty Ltd (www.adroit.net) Phone: +613 9563 4461 Fax: +613 9563 3856 Mobile: +61 414 708 124 ICQ: 79303381
participants (9)
-
Andrew Kenneth Milton -
Bill Anderson -
Dario Lopez-K�sten -
Erik Enge -
Jerome Alet -
Kapil Thangavelu -
Karl Anderson -
Terry Kerr -
Toby Dickenson