[ZDP] BackTalk to Document The Zope Book (2.5 Edition)/Introducing Zope

[webmaster@zope.org]

A comment to the paragraph below was recently added via http://www.zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/current/IntroducingZope.stx#2-12

---------------

    These are just some of the compelling features that have made Zope so
    popular for developing web applications.  Perhaps Zope's best feature
    of all is its friendly, open source license.  This means that not only
    is Zope free of cost for you to download, but you are also free to use
    Zope in your own products and applications without paying royalties or
    usage fees.  Zope's open source license also means that all of the
    "source code" for Zope is available for you to look at, understand, and
    extend.  Zope does not lock you into a proprietary solution that could
    hold you and your web users hostage.

      % Anonymous User - Apr. 19, 2002 9:55 am:
       "This means that not only is Zope free of cost for you to download, [..]"
       This is not a correct explanation of 'open source license' as this license does NOT implicitly mean that a
       product is available for free. This paragraph should better be written like:
       "[first two sentences stay untouched] This means that you are free to use Zope in your own products and
       applications without paying royalties or usage fees. Zope's open source license also means that all of the
       "source code" for Zope is available for you to look at, understand, and extend. Besides that, Zope is free of
       cost for you to download, which is NOT implicit to the open source license but a matter of fact at this time.
       Like that, Zope does not lock you into a proprietary solution that could hold you and your web users
       hostage."
       comment by: webmasterATmoritz-naumann.de

      % Anonymous User - Apr. 22, 2002 2:29 pm:
       Rubbish, learn to use the language properly before you start correcting native speakers. This is a valid
       usage of the "not only" idiom -- it is quite acceptable for the first clause to be a true statement which is
       not necessarily implied by the preceeding section.

      % Anonymous User - Apr. 27, 2002 2:31 pm:
       Why use the term "open source" at all, because it has been used to describe a philosophy with regard to the
       benefits of distributing source code rather than keeping it under proprietary wraps. As such, "open source"
       is not appropriate to describe a particular license. Otherwise, I think the description is quite clear.

      % Anonymous User - May 1, 2002 12:32 pm:
       The statement is in regard to the license, not open source licensing in general. It's reflecting that Zope's
       license has certain properties, such as being free, etc. It's not saying that open source licensing means
       software is free, it's saying this particular open source license is offering free software. Using the term
       "open source" in conjunction with "license" is merely adjectival.

      % Anonymous User - May 3, 2002 4:59 pm:
       You guys ought to stop arguing subtle semantics.

      % Anonymous User - May 14, 2002 2:34 pm:
       I agree with the first poster- there are important differences which after one has explored the various sides
       can anticipate, and as written just paints over. free and Free, and available source...

      % Anonymous User - May 30, 2002 7:35 pm:
       Pshaw to all of that: what I find discouraging (and inappropriate) in the paragraph in question is not merely
       the over-simplification, but the insulting promotional/marketing language: no kind of license if friendly, by
       gum. It would be better to describe the license (accurately) and simply omit the emotive, hype. JEL

      % Anonymous User - June 8, 2002 5:31 pm:
       wow, you guys and grrls are bitching like this over something that's AND free to download AND free to use ...
       real cute, barbies. :-|
       (just testing this feature, really! not wasting my time here at alllll ;-)

      % Anonymous User - June 26, 2002 4:50 pm:
       Am I obligated to give my code back if I add a module to Zope?

       I am doing a contract and thinking about using Zope. But I don't think the guy who hired me wants me to give
       away anything that may reveal his business practice.
       Thanks

      % Anonymous User - June 26, 2002 4:57 pm:
       No, not at all.  See the ZPL license at http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL

      % Anonymous User - July 18, 2002 3:11 pm:
       The GNU license DOES NOT require you to give away code that you have written 
       that is based on GNU licensed code. The gist (as I understand it) is that, IF 
       YOU DISTRIBUTE IT (sell or give) then you cannot prevent the recipient from 
       (a) using it on multiple machines, or (b) passing it on to other users (still 
       under the GNU license).

      % Anonymous User - Oct. 11, 2002 3:49 am:
       gosh! U r in fact wisenheimer's!!! but it's fun though

      % Anonymous User - Nov. 23, 2002 1:54 pm:
       The clauses' subjects are different; "not only that...but also that" would be parallel, but repeating "also"
       is poor. Better: Join the sentences and enumerate, e.g., "...license, which (1) gives you free access to the
       source code and its ingenuity, (2) lets you adapt it to your own needs, and (3) invites you to apply it
       freely, even in writing programs for profit."
        -- Marshall Price (Miami, FL) d021317c at AOL.

      % Anonymous User - Jan. 1, 2003 5:00 am:
       " Am I obligated to give my code back if I add a module to Zope?

        I am doing a contract and thinking about using Zope. But I don't think the guy who hired me wants me to give
        away anything that may reveal his business practice.
        Thanks"

       Ooo, Sounds like an intersting "business practice"

      % Anonymous User - Jan. 17, 2003 9:39 am:
       Amazing, all this bickering, you wouldn't think open source teams exist. Can't wait for someone to get exited
       over the punctation. Go for it...