[Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal

Stephan Richter srichter at cosmos.phy.tufts.edu
Tue Feb 21 08:34:09 EST 2006

On Monday 20 February 2006 23:55, Andrew Milton wrote:
Wow, you took the following two quotes out of context.

> <block quote>
> The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level
> repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating
> everything in the wider Zope community. It is merely a place for
> high-quality packages that are supported by the Zope development team.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is from section 2, which defines the ZSCP.

> Code in the Common Repository *must* also use the license stated in
> section 3.5 and developers *must* sign the contributor agreement. The
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> agreement is necessary to ensure that contributions originated from the
> contributing developer.
> </end quote>

This is from section 3, which defines *one possible implementation* of the 

But I see where your confusion stems from and I have added a paragraph to 
section 3.1 stating that the Common Repository is one implementation of the 
ZSCP but not the only one:

  The Common Repository is only *one* implementation of the ZSCP. While the
  Common Repository implements the ZSCP guidelines and suggested automation
  tools, the ZSCP process itself does *not* require the Common Repository.

> The license for the code should also be irrelevant, since it's just a
> repository right? Just a convenient one stop shop for packages. So each
> package should be able to have its own license, no need for a common
> license.

For the ZSCP, the license is irrelevant. For the Common repository it is not.

> Having to sign the agreement serves no purpose unless there's some other IP
> issue involved other than simply storing the code.

The following does *not* concern the ZSCP, but the code and repository:

Right, the other issue is upstream movement. Let's say you have a package that 
has many contributors, like zope.interface, and the Python developers would 
like to put the interface package into the Python standard library. Since 
zope.interface is ZPL and Python has its license, you need to change that. If 
you do not have a contributor agreement that assigns half of the rights to an 
organization, then you have to ask *all* developers whether the license 
change is okay. If you cannot find a developer anymore you can never change 
that license.

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

More information about the Zope3-dev mailing list