[Zope-dev] z3c.javascript license question

[Tres Seaver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Tres
> 
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] z3c.javascript license question
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> On svn.zope.org we have a library called z3c.javascript. Never got 
>>> released to pypi, but it did get released to 
>>> download.zope.org/distribution
>>>
>>> It basically contains a pile of javascript libraries. These 
>> have very 
>>> non-ZPL licenses.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether anyone at zope corporation ever got permission for 
>>> checking these in?
>>>
>>> What shall we do with this stuff? I'm tempted to remove it 
>> wholesale, 
>>> except z3c.widget uses bits in it, and that in turn is used by 
>>> megrok.form, which is how all this came to light. z3c.widget is 
>>> released on pypi (though newer releases exist in 
>>> download.zope.org/distribution again).
>>>
>>> Wwe will probably be able to rewrite megrok.form to lose the 
>>> z3c.widget dependency easily enough, so I'm going to 
>> propose we do this on grok-dev.
>>
>> I see no ZC-employee checkins at all in the svn log, which 
>> starts in May 2006.  This thread from October 2006 points out 
>> licensing issues:
>>
>>  
>> http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.comp.web.zope.
> zope3&article=19324
>> +1 to removal, perhaps after some kind of svn export process.:  those
>> who maintain the package should host it elsewhere.  The 
>> tarballs should be removed from download.zope.org, as well.
> 
> I remember that I added a correct license header some years ago
> for z3c.javascript.

There are several checkins which mention adding licenses for the
varioius JS libraries:  the problem is that non-ZC contributors are
never supposed to check in any code which they don't own, and which they
can therefore license under the ZPL.  The purpose of this restriction
was to ensure that folks using software from the repository could be
confident that they didn't need to audit licenses, because effectively
everything would be ZPL:  the few exceptions were supposed to have been
verified as being compatible with (and equally or more permissive than)
the ZPL.

I think I recall that Jim ripped out an integration package for the Ext
Javascript framework precisely because the licensing for Ext was
initially questionable, and later became outright unacceptable.

Now that the copyrights are transferred to the Zope Foundation,
essentially *nobody* can check in non-ZPL code, without a special
exemption from the ZF board or its delegate (nobody is yet appointed to
handle this).


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJ6Nz6+gerLs4ltQ4RAppjAJ0ZIOWw00XtGFQiVxFumUOWr7vGvQCeKSGi
Bx+MmnmOY0D11UUMxgAsnbY=
=xdSO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----