{"id":"ZPL-2.0","title":"Zope Public License 2.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-2.0","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"Models version 2.0 of the Zope Public License, a three-clause BSD licence with a separate trademark clause and a change-notice clause. The record follows BSD-3-Clause and adds dalicc:modificationNotice. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The grant reads \"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met\", so the record carries the BSD permission set.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"Clause 3 states \"The name Zope Corporation (tm) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from Zope Corporation\", modelled as a dalicc:promote prohibition. dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited as on the BSD records. (Corrected on 2026-09-15 by the verification of this review group: see the rubric 3 finding on relicensing below.)","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Clauses 1 and 2 give cc:Attribution and cc:Notice on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive. Clause 5, \"If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change\", gives dalicc:modificationNotice on odrl:modify and odrl:derive. This is what separates the Zope licence from plain BSD-3-Clause.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Clause 4, which says the right to distribute or use the software \"does not give you the right to use Servicemarks (sm) or Trademarks (tm) of Zope Corporation\" and points at a separate agreement, is quoted verbatim. The warranty and liability sentences are split into their own predicates.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The text names no legal system and sets no term, so cc:jurisdiction is dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the dependency graph dg_default returned an empty conflict list.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"major","field":"record","description":"The review group notes expected ZPL 2.0 to carry a condition that derived works be renamed and ZPL 2.1 to drop it. The SPDX text of 2.0 carries no such condition: its five conditions are source retention, binary retention, endorsement, trademarks and change notices. No dalicc:rename duty is written for either Zope record.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Library convention 15: a licence that asks for no reciprocity and no source code asks only that the notice travels with the copy, which is a duty on the acts it governs and not a bar on putting the copy under other terms. dalicc:ChangeLicense is therefore a permission here, and the prohibition the earlier reading wrote is removed. The text reads: \"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions in source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.\" The permission carries the dalicc:compliantLicense duty, as Apache-2.0 does, because the notice has to survive the relicensing.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Python, PHP, Unicode and W3C","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"The disclaimer uses the typewriter quotation marks of the original (``AS IS''), which are reproduced verbatim. The library holds no other Zope record, so this pair is the whole chain."}