Olaf Zanger wrote:

is the product planned to ship under GPL or an corresponding licence?

Please don't shit it under GPL, it makes it much less useful :-S A variant of the Zope License would be much mroe friendly :-) cheers, Chris

I really agree, do NOT change the license terms. Fabrice FRANK <mailto:fabrice.frank@bopack.fr> Chef de projet Extranet BOPACK T.E.A Z.A La Claire Voie 76520 Franqueville Tél. 02 32 86 52 69 Fax. 02 32 86 52 51 -----Message d'origine----- De : zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]De la part de ender Envoyé : lundi 29 janvier 2001 06:38 À : Chris Withers; olaf.zanger@soli-con.com Cc : andreas@ahit.de; Zope Mailinglist Objet : Re: [Zope] License On Monday 29 January 2001 01:41, Chris Withers wrote:

Olaf Zanger wrote:

...

is the product planned to ship under GPL or an corresponding licence?

Please don't shit it under GPL, it makes it much less useful :-S A variant of the Zope License would be much mroe friendly :-)

cheers,

Chris

just what i needed to start the week off right, a flamewar. :( please allow people to choose their licenses freely. knocking on the gpl, is ignoring the reason why its there, to allow people to give their work freely to the community without concern of it being subverted. k _______________________________________________ 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 )

+-------[ Bill Anderson ]---------------------- | Fabrice FRANK wrote: | | > I really agree, do NOT change the license terms. | > | > | | Ummm .. the software in questions has _no_ license terms yet. You stifling the right of the individual to license-free software Bill? huh? huh? Well are ya? :-) I've been laughing through this whole thread from Chris's typo to the rest of the people who didn't bother to read the rest of the thread to discover that a license choice hasn't been made... -- 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|

Bill Anderson wrote:

Yeah, that typo really caught me a good laugh too. I should thank Chris for it. :)

Just stick it on the Zope Quotes board, can't remember the URL though :-S Jeez, what have I done, I wholeheartedly apologise for even mentioning licenses. Any heard of the web app server called Zope? I hear it's quite good :-) cheers, Chris PS: GPL sux :P (stir stir) PPS: Bill: Your bill@libc.org address is broken :-(

+-------[ Oleg Broytmann ]---------------------- | On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Chris Withers wrote: | > Olaf Zanger wrote: | > > | > > is the product planned to ship under GPL or an corresponding licence? | > | > Please don't shit it under GPL, it makes it much less useful :-S | > A variant of the Zope License would be much mroe friendly :-) | | OH, NO, PLEASE NOT AGAIN :( NONE OF THESE LICENSE WARS, PLE-E-E-SE! Do | allow people to choose their licenses freely! Geez Oleg, all he did was make a request... chill on the caps.. -- 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 29 Jan 2001 13:29:06 +0300, Oleg Broytmann wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:

...

| > > is the product planned to ship under GPL or an corresponding licence? | > | > Please don't shit it under GPL, it makes it much less useful :-S | > A variant of the Zope License would be much mroe friendly :-) | | OH, NO, PLEASE NOT AGAIN :( NONE OF THESE LICENSE WARS, PLE-E-E-SE! Do | allow people to choose their licenses freely!

Geez Oleg, all he did was make a request... chill on the caps..

Those requests with these answers ("Please don't shit it under GPL") produce flamewars far too easily :(

Oleg, as was stated earlier (several times), it was a *typo*.

Andreas Heckel wrote:

...

EVERYTHING SNIPED!

PLEASE allow ME to choose the license freely and PLEASE STOP the flamewar on this thread! You can find tons of these licence discussions not only on this list and there is nothing new to say.

Come on people, this is not a flme war. Nobody is calling anyone names, nobody is saying one is better than another, nobody other than those crying 'flame war' is being less than civil. There is nothing wrong with _discussion_ and requests, they do not constitute a flame war. If someone comes on and says Zope can't do a certain thing, and someone corrects them, is that a flame war too? After all, what has happened so far has been nothing more than correcting a stated misconception. BTW, this also applies to some other cries about 'another flame war' in another thread. Bill Anderson

Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:

I believe the Horse of Licenses was beaten to death in a recent thread some month(s), if not weeks, ago. May It Rest in Peace.

This may be the Second Coming of It, but, with all due respect, License Horses and discussions of Other License's Merits and Flaws are off-topic for this list; I think most^H^H^H^H many subscribers will agree on this.

Be that as it may, it still does not constitute a flame-war.

Imagine the consequences of having the spooky ghost of the License Horse roaming about... *BRRRR*

Or worse, the fear of saying something in disagreement, for fear of being labelled a flame war starter. Bill

Chris Withers wrote:

Please don't shit it under GPL, it makes it much less useful :-S

*embarrassed laughs* Man, what a typo... I actually meant ship, beleive it or not. And the reason I asked is 'cos, as I understand it, if I use a GPL-licensed product in a product/solution I provide, then I have to do that for free and open source it too, which often isn't an option :-( Cheers, Chris (the typo king ;-)

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:58:35PM +0000, Chris Withers wrote:

And the reason I asked is 'cos, as I understand it, if I use a GPL-licensed product in a product/solution I provide, then I have to do that for free and open source it too, which often isn't an option :-(

Nope, that's wrong. If you extend a GPL-licensed product by your own work, and if you want to distribute this to somebody else, then you have to give this "somebody" the right to re-distribute the complete product (including your own work) under the terms of the GPL. Therefore it's no problem to sell such a product... The important thing is, though, that your customer could give away the result to everybody else for free (and could do everything else with it that the GPL allows). And in fact, yes, you'll have to make available the sources of your work, too, for your customer--if he demands to see them. So it's perfectly fine to use GPL software in a consulting work, and let the customer pay for it--if you give him all the other rights granted in the GPL. A very crucial point is the exact definition of "extending a GPL-licensed product" (that's my own words for "derived work"). According to the FSF, typical things of "deriving a work" from a GPL-licensed product are probably modifying or extending the code, reusing portions of the code, but also linking with it (be it statically or shared). In the field of interpreted languages, it gets even more complicated. It's completely clear on the other hand, that a mere aggregetion of the product (e.g. distribution GNU emacs on a CD with proprietary software) is no problem, and it's also no problem to use GNU tools to produce proprietary output (e.g. using GCC to compile a proprietary program). The GPL definitely is not contra selling software or services (one could even argue that it's the perfect solution for specialized consulting products, since it gives the customer a security that he'll be able to buy support for a product even if the original author has lost interest). Have a look at www.gnu.org, e.g. "Selling Free Software" by RMS (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) is especially interesting. Gregor

Olaf Zanger wrote:

hi there,

according to what i have seen on the homepage it seems like ZDatabaseTool is the missing link to push zope to a all in one solution.

Thanks for the flowers ;-)

until now we solved most of our stuff with znolkwizard. this is a great product for what it is designed. it has some shortcomes though.

I never tested ZNolk ... I found it just 2 minutes ago on the product list. As far as I understand it helps you creating ZSQLMethods and ZDTMLDocuments for searching, inserting, updating and so on. Unlike ZNolk ZDatabaseTool's Wizard creates a ZDatabaseWizard object. So if you give new features to this class all your already existing ZDatabaseWizard instances will take advantage of this new behavior. I know there is a lot of work especially to document the design. Perhaps I should start with a small UML diagram.

is the product planned to ship under GPL or an corresponding licence? I really don't know. Fortunately it is not yet released so I can think about it :-) So far I only decided definiet to give the code back to the community in one or the other way.

is it possible to get a tarball for testing? Not at this time. It's my first product. There is not only one line to comment the code! Das kann ich euch wirklich nicht antun. (Sorry ... Altavista is unable to translate this line ;-)

-- ________________________________________________________________________ Andreas Heckel andreas@aHIT.de UNIX is like a wigwam ...no gates ...no windows and an apache inside ;-)

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Andreas Heckel wrote:

BTW: Why I'm not surprised the trouble starts with Win ;-)

Oh, please !!! Please don't start a new flamewar here ;-)) bye, Jerome Alet

Olaf Zanger wrote:

hi there

Andreas Heckel schrieb:

...

Olaf Zanger wrote:

...

hi there,

tested the printing facility (nicely done by pdf).

it crashes * acrobat reader 4.05 on win98 and * the pdf/ps/ghostview part of konqui doesn't like it either,

it works though under * acrobat reader 4.0 on suse 7.0

Hi Olaf, thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the error. Development is done on Linux and it looks fine. I tested it just two minutes ago on the Win98 box of my girlfriend. Acrobat 4.05a 113001:28 ; IE 4.0 (version 4.72.3110.1) What can I say ... it works :-( So could you please have a look at the about boxes of your browser and Acrobat Reader and report your versions ?

acroread 4.05a 113001:28 (the same as yours) ms ie 5.00.2919.6307

also happens with netscape 4.73 de

so it might be acrobat reader on my system.

sorry -- can't test it more exactly without having it installed

Hi Olaf, I'll do my best to release the code as soon as possible. For now I turned off PDF compression. Would be interesting if it makes more sense to your KERNEL32.DLL :-) Unfortunately I can't update to ie 5 on the Win98 box of my girlfriend because she needs it for business and she prohibited to toch her (still) running system. How ever ... I already saw my program running on W2000 Acrobat 4.05 IE 5.5 . Perhaps we can get more feedback from WinXX users on this list ?! -- ________________________________________________________________________ Andreas Heckel andreas@aHIT.de UNIX is like a wigwam ...no gates ...no windows and an apache inside ;-)