Re: Version Numbers and License

>>>>> "SR" == Stephan Richter <[email protected]> writes:

    SR> My suggestion about the License is simply the same as
    SR> Mailman's, unless Mailman will belong to Zope Corp. and their
    SR> license says that the software belongs to them.

No, Zope Corp does not own any Mailman or Python (or for that matter
Jython) work Pythonlabs produces.  Work we do on Zope of course /is/
owned by Zope Corp.  It's a good arrangement (actually fantastic --
have I mentioned ZC is cool? :).

If I were to contribute actual Zope code for the ZMailman project,
we'd have to figure out which side of the line that'll fall on.  Given
my current work load, I doubt that'll be a problem in the near term.
You guys do the Zope side, leave Mailman to me :).

To be completely legal w.r.t. the GPL, my suggestion would be to use
Python 2.1.1 and Zope 2.5.x.  Note that only Python 2.0.1 and 2.1.1
(and of course 2.2 when it's released) are GPL compatible.

    SR> With versions I want to take a totally crazy step and say we
    SR> sync it with Mailman for the first two numbers. So our first
    SR> release would be 2.1 in January. In case we develop faster or
    SR> make more sub-releases, we can always use the third digit for
    SR> that.  The advantages of syncing the two products is of course
    SR> that there will be less confusion and it will be easier to
    SR> communicate between Mailman and ZMailman developers.

That seems fine to me, as long as it's clear what's Mailman and what's
ZMailman.  I'll note that it's already moderately inconvenient that
Python and Mailman share version numbers.  I find myself often saying
"Py2.1" or "MM2.1" instead of just "2.1".  Maybe we should get in the
habit of appreviating ZMailman as "ZM2.1"?

-Barry