[Grok-dev] Re: Performance of OrderedContainer

[Gary Poster]

On Jun 19, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:15:11 -0700, Gary Poster <gary at zope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, the only reason plone.folder is under GPL at the moment is  
>>> because nobody has asked us to do anything about it yet. If you're  
>>> interested in using the plone.folder code, I'm sure we can make it  
>>> happen. We need a first case to push a general policy. It has been  
>>> discussed extensively in both the community and on the board, and  
>>> everybody agrees that certain components should be BSD or LGPL  
>>> instead.
>>
>> This particular example is relatively small, but that sounds like a  
>> great general step to me.
>
> The smaller the code piece, the easier it is to understand what will  
> be done — which is probably a bonus since the important thing here  
> is to establish a policy and process around this, not the actual  
> code involved. I think this would be a perfect candidate for this  
> (although I'll let Martin Aspeli comment on this too, since he wrote  
> plone.folder — and has also been pushing for relicensing the  
> reusable parts of Plone).

OK, +1

>> It seems like it would be a fantastic message from Grok, Plone, and  
>> the Zope community to have some Plone code reuse.  This may or may  
>> not be the right instance for it.  Certainly if I need an API like  
>> this, and I might, I'll review this again and consider waving my  
>> arms a bit at you guys and seeing if we can start sharing.  That  
>> would be extremely cool.
>
> Yup, all of our core developers are enthusiastic about this, the  
> grassroots support is there, and we just have to make it happen.

OK.

>>> PS: it's unlikely that the license boundaries will be on plone.*  
>>> vs. plone.app.*. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's close to  
>>> correct, but the naming isn't about licensing. We might have  
>>> components that have a good reason for being GPL that will live in  
>>> the plone.* namespace.
>>
>> Both the rule of thumb and the possibility of exceptions to it make  
>> a lot of sense.
>
> Glad we agree. Now, let's change Zope to use BSD instead of ZPL, and  
> you'll make a lot of companies, lawyers and compliance people  
> happy. ;)

:-)  Sounds reasonable to me personally.  (My views have no relation  
to ZC's views, yadda yadda.)

> PS: I have never seen the rationale as to why the ZPL is needed at  
> all except for "everyone had their own license in those days". I'd  
> be interested if anyone can enlighten me as to what ZPL offers  
> beyond the BSD license!

Before my time.  Inertia might be the biggest thing to fight now.   
Maybe worth bringing it up on the ZF list?