[Zope3-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: lovely.rating/ Initial import from Lovely Systems repository

[Martijn Faassen]

Tres Seaver wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>> If the GPL is one of those included licenses, the whole package falls
>> under the provisions of the GPL, not just the dependencies. This is what
>> the GPL requires.
> 
> I'd prefer to have somebody at the foundation pay for advice on this:  I
> have consulted to one very Zope-and-Python savvy IP lawyer (Ron
> Chichester) who has subsequently made his analysis of the interaction of
> GPL and Python's import public (at the Plone Symposium in New Orleans
> last March).

[one lawyer's interpretation of GPL's interaction with Python]

Not disrepecting Ron Chichester's opinion, but I have the suspicion that 
each lawyer we talk to will have a different one... I'm obviously not a 
lawyer so what I'm saying is not legal advice, let that be understood 
for all time. I do think that my interpretation is the interpretation 
more commonly made, and more in line with the original intent of the 
GPL. Whether that's correct legally I cannot say.

> I bring this up not to argue for Ron'd analysis, but only to say that
> assuming that you know what the GPL means in the context of Python might
> need to wait until the issue has been adjudicated.  

Agreed: this would become more clear once there's jurisprudence in the 
courts, and it may very well be this jurisprudence will also turn out 
differently in different countries...

> In the meanwhile, it
> is probably *not* going to be within the ZF's IP policy to allow
> checking in code which forces users of the repostiory to deal with the
> GPL at all; 

Agreed again: we could save the hassle and just sidestep the issue 
(instead of asking for legal council): avoid the GPL and thus we won't 
have to worry about it. :)

> I would consider such a checkin now, in the interregnum
> period, to be particularly ill-advised.

My reading of the ZF's IP policy is that it tries to avoid the 
provisions of the GPL. Whether it *strictly* forbids the checking in of 
code that depends on GPL-ed code elsewhere I have a hard time saying, 
but I'm more confident of my understanding of the intent of it.

[Stephan]
>>> Remember, we are talking only about a dependency here, not even an
>>> inclusion. This case is much weaker than a lot of others.
[me again]
>> I know we're talking about a dependency here. I'm not saying what you
>> did was wrong, but I do also think Benji brought up a good point that
>> should be carefully considered.
> 
> The Zope repository as managed by ZC has had a clear anti-GPL policy;  I
> don't think that the foundation's policy is likely to be more favorable
> to code which might, in theory, trigger the provisions of the GPL.

I think that this is correct: it's more explicit in the ZF's policy than 
before, actually. This is why I was talking about the intent of the 
rules as opposed to the exact letter.

Regards,

Martijn