[Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal

[Andrew Milton]

+-------[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]----------------------
|
| Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a
| Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just
| like that code is to be made ZPL. 

The license part is irrelevant after you've signed over the IP.

| These are the rules of the repository, even today (except for s/ZF/ZC).

This is for the core product. This is not add-on code. It makes sense for the
core product.

| If you're not happy with that, then use
| your another repository. Nobody is forcing you to put your stuff there.

Indeed. Anyone that wants to try is welcome to come around and have a go d8)

| Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages:
| 
| * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into
| a Zope distribution.

Putting into svn isn't the same as requiring IP handover. You can still put
things into the repository without IP handover.

| * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term
| IP protection

How? I think my death + 70 years is further away than the death of ZF, or in
fact the death of Zope.

| * code in svn.zope.org will be under the common control of the Zope
| developers which makes long-term maintenance easier to ensure.

This has nothing to do with handing over IP either. Noone disputes that the
Zope Developers lives will be easier if things are in a central svn. Why this
should require someone to hand over their IP to ZF is a mystery.

| * the common license (ZPL) and the common ownership of the ZF do away
| with some legal headaches...

The ONLY legal headache common ownership does away with, is that ZC or ZF (or
future owners) are free to change the license without asking permission of the
original author. The license itself is irrelevant, it doesn't apply to the
copyright holder.

IP "sharing" certainly has no advantages to the original author. Any lawsuit
arising from some problem with the code would almost certainly name all stakeholders.

Repository of 3rd party code? Great Idea.
Packaging standards? Great Idea.
Compliance Rating? Great Idea.

Requiring IP Handover? Makes a mockery of the Open Source movement. 

Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for (parts of) 
SchoolTool? I'm sure he has more than enough ways to protect his IP. Or are
you saying that it makes sense for ZF/ZC to protect him?

As I say, IP handover makes sense for the core product, but, doesn't make
sense for 3rd party code, which is after all 3RD PARTY code.

-- 
Andrew Milton
akm at theinternet.com.au