{"id":"ZPL-2.1","title":"Zope Public License 2.1","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"http://old.zope.org/Resources/ZPL/","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"Models version 2.1 of the Zope Public License, which is version 2.0 with every reference to Zope Corporation replaced by a reference to the copyright holders named in the accompanying notice. The deontic model is identical to ZPL-2.0. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The grant is unchanged from 2.0: \"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met\".","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"Clause 3 now reads \"Names of the copyright holders must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from the copyright holders\", which is the same dalicc:promote prohibition applied to a generic licensor. dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited as on ZPL-2.0. (Corrected on 2026-09-15 by the verification pass: see the rubric 3 finding on relicensing below.)","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Clauses 1 and 2 require \"the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer\" to be retained, which is cc:Attribution and cc:Notice, and clause 5 keeps the change-notice requirement, which is dalicc:modificationNotice. The duty set is identical to ZPL-2.0.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Clause 4 is quoted verbatim; it now refers to the Servicemarks and Trademarks \"of the copyright holders\" and to a separate agreement with them rather than to the Zope Marks page. 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":"Diffed against ZPL-2.0. Every difference is the generalisation from Zope Corporation to the copyright holders, plus the dropping of the closing credits paragraph. The two records therefore carry the same permissions, prohibitions and duties, and the separation is justified only by the different licensor wording. No cc:attributionName and no dct:publisher are written, because the 2.1 text names no licensor.","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 accompanying 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."}