[Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL

[Hannu Krosing]

Jerome Alet wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> 
> >
> > >>> Jerome Alet wrote
> > > I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed.
> >
> > Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's
> > license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose
> > to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core
> > package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make
> > the world a better place?

Hopefully Zope will soon be considered a "universally available system 
library" and this will not matter any more ;)

> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people
> usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be
> the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to
> not become bastardized by some powerful entity.

I see GPL as a good license for GCC and other _compiled_ languages, but 
for an interpreted language GPL or even LGPL could well be viewed as 
forcing _anything_ written in it to be forced under *GPL. Even more 
ridiculous would be the situation where pure python modules can be 
proprietary but  modules written in C must be *GPL (think picle vs
cPicle)

> The problem with plain GPL, as mentionned in my previous message, is that
> this would make a lot of people run away. However the LGPL seems to be a
> very good choice, because this wouldn't allow the core (of Python or Zope)
> to be bastardized with proprietary versions, while still allowing
> proprietary products/extensions to be created.

AFAIK the ability to be "bastardized" is one of main strengths of
python.
It would be extremely hard to bastardise the main python (as it requires 
you to brainwash Guido), but having proprietary (or open-source)
versions 
that behave in some ways differently, like ZODB-python that has
transactional 
persistency seems to be a feature and not a bug of Python license.

> And yes, a thounsand times yes, I use the GPL for ideological reasons,
> because I really believe this will make the world a better place.

"Think global, act local" may be a good slogan for software
revolutionaries 
as well ;)

> 
> I've thought about the LGPL, and doesn't see any argument against it.
> 

I just can't see what LGPL would mean for _whole_ works vs. libraries
(or 
lessers as they are called nowadays ;)

---------------
Hannu