Re: FYI: Zope Public License 1.1 vague, contradictory, and not DFSG-free
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:45:49AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Now we have to go on and discuss whether ZPL 1.0 is free according to
> the DFSG.
...
> I.e. the ZPL 1.0 is a FSF-free license.
So?
The question isn't whether we can distribute or use the software,
the question is whether it's reasonable for it to go in main.
So let's take a look at the problematic paragraph:
6) Modifications are encouraged but must be packaged separately
as patches to official Zope releases. Distributions that do not
clearly separate the patches from the original work must be
clearly labeled as unofficial distributions. Modifications which
do not carry the name Zope may be packaged in any form, as long
as they conform to all of the clauses above.
Branden is concerned about the 'must be packaged separately' language.
What I'll point out is that the remainder of the paragraph specifies that
as long as we clearly label our package as unofficial, we don't have
to worry much about how clearly separated our patches are. [We
are pretty clear in our patch separation in our source package, but
our binary packages of course combine the patches with the official
code into an unofficial variant -- you have to rebuild from source
to get the official version.]
So: binary package description should mention that this is an unofficial
binary package, and give reference to a doc on how to get ahold of the
official (but broken, from our point of view) binaries.
[apt-get source zzz; mkdir t; cd t; tar zxf ../zzz; ./configure?; etc.]
--
Raul
Reply to: