[Grok-dev] Re: Re: Performance of OrderedContainer
limi at plone.org
Thu Jun 19 14:40:25 EDT 2008
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:26:08 -0700, Gary Poster <gary at zope.com> wrote:
> With a different adapter, the API looks good to me, and I like the
> adapter idea for providing ordering. Unfortunately, the license is GPL
> (http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.folder/trunk/docs/LICENSE.GPL), so
> the API itself may be tainted (or not, no idea, but my lack of ability
> to know is part of the point).
Please don't use the word "tainted" about standard open source licenses,
you're just doing everyone in open source a disservice.
> I thought code in the "plone" namespace was supposed to be ZPL, and
> "plone.app" was GPL? If it were ZPL, it could potentially just be
> snarfed up directly by grok, IMO.
BSD/LGPL license is a more likely candidate. License proliferation is a
problem, and we're trying to work with as few (and widely accepted)
licenses as possible. ZPL is not one of these.
Anyway, the only reason plone.folder is under GPL at the moment is because
nobody has asked us to do anything about it yet. If you're interested in
using the plone.folder code, I'm sure we can make it happen. We need a
first case to push a general policy. It has been discussed extensively in
both the community and on the board, and everybody agrees that certain
components should be BSD or LGPL instead.
PS: it's unlikely that the license boundaries will be on plone.* vs.
plone.app.*. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's close to correct,
but the naming isn't about licensing. We might have components that have a
good reason for being GPL that will live in the plone.* namespace.
Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
More information about the Grok-dev