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