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

whit whit at burningman.com
Tue Feb 21 23:48:18 EST 2006


Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Andrew Milton wrote:
>> +-------[ 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)
> 
> FWIW, Martijn and I did this with the z3base (http://codespeak.net/z3).
> 
>> | 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.
> 
> But the end of your commitment to this particular software and/or Zope
> might not be so far. Hunting developers down for getting their approval
> of a license change or something like that after 5 years or so would be
> a considerable pain.
> 
>> | * 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.
> 
> I never said the advantages of putting stuff into svn.zope.org
> necessarily have to have anything to do with handing over IP (actually,
> it's joint-ownership so it's sharing IP).
> 
>> | * 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. 
> 
> Plone does it, ASF does it, FSF does it. Seems to work. Note that with
> ZC (and I presume this will continue with the ZF) it's joint-ownership,
> not a total handover.
> 
>> Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for (parts of) 
>> SchoolTool?
> 
> Good question. Why would Zope Corporation hand over IP of Zope to the
> Zope Foundation? Why would we contribute code to the Plone Foundation or
> anyone else? In order to put the code under public govenance.
> 
> 
> Anyways, you're welcome to contribute code to the z3base if you'd prefer
> a public repository that doesn't require IP handover/sharing. Who knows,
> perhaps we'll even manage to implement the ZSCP for some packages there :).
> 
> Philipp

yeah...and it's amazing what you can do with svn:externals these days ;)

-w



More information about the Zope3-dev mailing list