[Zope-dev] ZPL 2.0 usage and other license problems

[Tres Seaver]

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

On 12/03/2010 11:13 AM, Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:

> I am packaging Zope Toolkit for Ubuntu, but archive admins have
> noticed that some files have "Zope Public License, Version 2.0" in
> their headers. I guess this is unintentional, but now I have to find
> such files and specify their license separately. Can I simply change
> the version number to 2.1 and commit to the Zope repository? The
> affected files that I care about are attached.

Those files were all created either by DC / ZC employess, or by
contributors under the joint-copyright regime created by their
contributor agreements.  The foundation is thus free to relicense them
at will.

> zope.server/src/zope/server/http/tests/test_wsgiserver.py even
> specifies ZPL 1.1, that might be incompatible with 2.1.

That assertion is a typo, which we are free to correct.  I just released
zope.server 3.8.2 with that fix.

> At the same time, LICENSE.txt and COPYRIGHT.txt files that are still
> missing in many packages could be added, using zope.repositorypolicy
> scripts.

Please enumerate.  The weekly conformance checker tests identify
packages which haven't yet been brought into line.  None of them are
part of the ZTK, however (I personally did the cleanup for the core ZTK
package set).

> While investigating this, I noticed that there is only the ZPL 2.0 at
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zpl.php that is correctly
> categorized as "Non-reusable" in
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category . The ZPL 2.1 is now
> reusable, but it is not visible at opensource.org, and therefore its
> claim "This license has been certified as open source." is not true.

I believe that the OSI actually granted "OSD branding" to the ZPL 2.1.
Jim Fulton first announced that license to this list back on 2004-05-15,
and my memory is that ZC had "touched all bases" requested by OSI to
achieve that status.  CC'ing Jim for confirmation.

The fact that OSI's website doesn't reflect that grant is an issue to
take up with their webmaster.

> Two more packages have other copyright problems:
> 
> zope.pagetemplate contains non-free files. See
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope.pagetemplate/+bug/607228

As I replied on that issue, the copyright was transferred under the
terms of Evan Simpson's employment agreement when he first checked those
files into the repository.  I asked Jim Fulton to confirm that on the LP
issue.

> zope.structuredtext contains some files that are (C) Digital Creations
> and link to a non-existing COPYRIGHT.html. This makes them non-free as
> well.

I have released zope.structuredtext 3.5.1 with those copyright
assertions removed from the regression texts.

> Who can fix the mentioned problems?

Any contributor can help by fixing the erroneous license headers
identified in your attachment.  We would prefer that non-conformant
projects be cleaned up by developers who are active in their
maintenance;  projects which remain non-conformant should eventually be
removed from the repository.


Tres.
- -- 
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkz5Jt0ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5RhwCfQJSg/VOLwcm0iE13rgHYs68y
4OYAn2c8T4rOjdbm1bS1RSLBRlgy5hYl
=NwMu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----