[Grok-dev] Re: Re: Performance of OrderedContainer

Gary Poster gary at zope.com
Thu Jun 19 15:15:11 EDT 2008

On Jun 19, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:26:08 -0700, Gary Poster <gary at zope.com> wrote:


>> 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.

This particular example is relatively small, but that sounds like a  
great general step to me.

It seems like it would be a fantastic message from Grok, Plone, and  
the Zope community to have some Plone code reuse.  This may or may not  
be the right instance for it.  Certainly if I need an API like this,  
and I might, I'll review this again and consider waving my arms a bit  
at you guys and seeing if we can start sharing.  That would be  
extremely cool.

> 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.

Both the rule of thumb and the possibility of exceptions to it make a  
lot of sense.


More information about the Grok-dev mailing list