61
JMorris
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 19:58

  • JMorris

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2722

  • Since: 2004/4/11


Resized Image

62
Chainsaw
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 20:16

  • Chainsaw

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 304

  • Since: 2003/9/28


I think what Liquid highlighted is very valuable and insightful. Don't let this debate come down to grubby mud slinging or finger pointing. And pleaaaase.. don't even start the "he did it first" cos you're all much more older than that I hope.

If I may make a simple suggestion to Brash. Just call it a Beta testing club and members of the BETA club get first bash at BETA testing the module before public release for public scrutiny.

I seriously don't understand why everyone is getting SO UPSET about this.

If I look at the end result they are the same.

a. group develop module - release it to the public for testing (ie release candidate) then it become public final version. Public donation welcomed.

b. Brash commissioned someone to develop module - ask for public donation to spread cost. Decided to release module to donators for a short period before releasing to public as final version. All donations welcomed.


If Brash had kept quiet about it and just emailed the files to his donators, none of you would be making a big fuss about this. Eventually a public copy is still made available at the end.

Hey guess what? I've just donated money last week for someone to enhance a module for me. I'm using it on a website that is about to go live before the end of this month. This module does exactly what another module do. But the module developer wanted to further tweak the files before releasing it to the public. I get to use it first because of my donation (plus I need it urgently). Any problem with that?

63
Catzwolf
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 20:33

  • Catzwolf

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1392

  • Since: 2007/9/30


Quote:

Chainsaw wrote:
I think what Liquid highlighted is very valuable and insightful. Don't let this debate come down to grubby mud slinging or finger pointing. And pleaaaase.. don't even start the "he did it first" cos you're all much more older than that I hope.

If I may make a simple suggestion to Brash. Just call it a Beta testing club and members of the BETA club get first bash at BETA testing the module before public release for public scrutiny.

I seriously don't understand why everyone is getting SO UPSET about this.

If I look at the end result they are the same.

a. group develop module - release it to the public for testing (ie release candidate) then it become public final version. Public donation welcomed.

b. Brash commissioned someone to develop module - ask for public donation to spread cost. Decided to release module to donators for a short period before releasing to public as final version. All donations welcomed.


If Brash had kept quiet about it and just emailed the files to his donators, none of you would be making a big fuss about this. Eventually a public copy is still made available at the end.

Hey guess what? I've just donated money last week for someone to enhance a module for me. I'm using it on a website that is about to go live before the end of this month. This module does exactly what another module do. But the module developer wanted to further tweak the files before releasing it to the public. I get to use it first because of my donation (plus I need it urgently). Any problem with that?


Thank-you Chainsaw.

I hope people realise that my post was in no way a 'lets have a go at Brash or Mithirander' but clear the way for the future for Xoops.

My suggestion would be for Brash to seek legal advice over this and clear the matter (for his peace of mind sake).

Anyway, lets have a bit of fun; Quiz time =)

http://akfoerster.de/akfquiz/GPL-Quiz.html#top

Scott

64
Rhomal
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 20:37

  • Rhomal

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 274

  • Since: 2004/10/5


Wfsection -

> Please do not use my words to as a means to attack another member of this community, thank-you.

I was using the facts as you presented, not your opinions. Did he or did he not violate the orginial licence of AMS? It seems litke pretty black or white topic. If he didnt then lets move on. If he did then that should be looked at IMO. From how I read your post he did, I did ask for clarification.

>Brash is and I hope will continue to contribute to XOOPS in the manner he feel best, and I honestly believe his actions are with the best intentions and honourable, I can assure you he is not trying to make himself Bill Gates II.


Gates II he isnt nor will be. I am not implying such. But we will agree to disagree he is 'honorable' and doing the 'best' for the community. He is, IMO, in direct violation of the spirit of GPL. By his little "if you use the software by the licence I released it as im going to ban you" tirade.

From his post IMO hes nothing better then a shady salesman. Twisting the squirming around the wording of the licence (law) to fit his own ends.

He frankly needs to grow a pair and deal. If he does not like the fact people are allowed to distro the module for free after they buy it from him, then he should release it under a different licence.

Again, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. At the expense of the spirit of the GPL.

My 2 coppers

65
Mithrandir
Re: Double Standards

Quote:
Did he or did he not violate the orginial licence of AMS?

He did not, as I have now posted thrice, the GPL allows for anyone to take existing GPL code, modify it and release it for a fee
Quote:
"if you use the software by the licence I released it as im going to ban you"
Now who is twisting words? By making the module freely available prior to the public launch, you violate the agreement with Brash in regard to support on his website and email notification when new versions are out. Brash is not required to give that and has the right to revoke those privileges to his website as he sees fit. Nobody will be banned.
Quote:
then he should release it under a different licence

Not possible. He cannot take code derived from GPL code and release it under a more restrictive license.

66
Chainsaw
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 21:02

  • Chainsaw

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 304

  • Since: 2003/9/28


Quote:

Rhomal wrote:
He frankly needs to grow a pair and deal.



Seriously - do you really need to use such a phrase?

67
m0nty
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 21:07

  • m0nty

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 3337

  • Since: 2003/10/24


@Rhomal, Brash simply said if you donate to the software, you will get the software before general release to the public.. he asks that you don't distribute it before the public release date.. if you do that he will remove your account and you will no longer be entitled to support by him or be able to receive a copy in future before the public release.. HE IS IN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT

if you undermine his asking, and release it before hand, you have no respect for the work done.. The cost of development originally came out of his own pocket around $1100 as mentioned, he recouped a 1/3 of that cost before he released it.. HE COULD HAVE KEPT THE MODULE FOR HIMSELF, and never released it at all. but he didn't..

what exactly don't you understand abou the concept of releasing software to donators before the public release date? they paid something for it, i think it's fair that they receive it if Brash wants it that way..

i'll state again as you obviously missed the point about it being a private funded module..

Brash paid for the module to be developed because he wanted those specific elements to be included, he also wanted it done quickly. that's where the expense is..

you say if he can't afford it from his own pocket then release it to the ~XOOPS community to develop.. IMO that's the precise reason HE PAID for it in the 1st place, because he wanted those changes and features added and he wanted it doing QUICKLY.. now if he lets AMS be developed by the community is it going to be done as fast?? are you going to develop it?

nobody is stopping anybody taking the module and working on it for their needs or modifying it.. but Brash wants the module developed the waqy he wants it and for that He is paying for it, he is still paying for further development and now other people are donating and the module is progressing, so he is essence sharing the cost of future developing.. He is NOT keeping the money that is paid and putting it in his own pocket, he is paying for development.

you tell me where in the GPL it says he can't do that?

i think i know what your answer is going to be, but you're way out of order and simply do not understand what you are implying..

68
Mithrandir
Re: Double Standards

Sorry for not replying chronologically

Quote:
My freedom to the AMS (the News derivative) has a restriction to it that was not present with the news modulem, due to I have to pay to have access to the source.

You don't have to pay to have access to the source once you have obtained the module. Your access to the module is restricted, yes, but once you have that, you also have the source code (this is self-evident in PHP, but not in compiled languages, which the GPL was made for, when discussing the technical issues with the license)

With a compiled language, it is not self-evident that the source code is distributed along with the program - but it must be when it is under the GPL.
Where our perceptions differ is in the word "distribution" where you seem to believe (correct me if I am wrong) that because a GPL program is distributed free of charge, derived works will also have to be distributed free of charge. I disagree with that perception, as I see it as when you distribute a GPL program that is derived from another GPL program, you must supply the source code along with it. AMS does that.

Quote:
The cost of development originally came out of his own pocket around $1100 as mentioned, he recouped a 1/3 of that cost before he released it.. HE COULD HAVE KEPT THE MODULE FOR HIMSELF, and never released it at all. but he didn't..

Just clearing up the history and development of AMS:

AMS started as a custom job on the News module. Brash asked me what it would cost to get me to develop the features he wanted. I named my price and Brash fell off the chair. He thought about it a bit and then asked the community to chip in in return for the planned features. The idea was to raise $250 from the community and then he and his partner would put in $250 themselves. If the $250 was not reached, it would be re-payed and the module would not have been developed

The module got a few extra features along the way and Brash + partner decided to compensate me a bit more so the first release of AMS amounted to an $800 expense.

After the release of AMS, more people donated and a couple of guys approached Brash with specific feature requests that they were willing to pay for. Once again Brash chipped in some additional funds and the payment for the next version made the total amount those $1100 mentioned.

So to be absolutely clear: The only one making money off of this project is ME - and if anyone has problems with me charging for my development time, they should really start living in the real world.

69
Bassman
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 22:24

  • Bassman

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 1272

  • Since: 2003/5/23


I have avoided commenting in this thread, mainly because I have a lot of respect for all of the people who have contributed to the thread - from all the different points of view. However, I have to have my say. I'm all for constructive debate, but this is just getting too divisive and is not really helping the cause of supporting and promoting Xoops. I can see that the people involved are not going to find agreement any time soon. Can we please agree to disagree, and take up the arguments somewhere else where the average XOOPS user (who just wants a powerful CMS that works, without the politics involved)doesn't have to be a party to them?

70
PatsRule
Re: Double Standards
  • 2005/2/14 22:28

  • PatsRule

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 37

  • Since: 2004/9/15


Hi all. This is from a newbie to XOOPS and I don't even care to get into any legal ramifications about this. Not that I don't care, but because I can forsee what will happen, as what happens with any module that is out there public source.

1) Module goes public. Now anyone can download it and use it. With or without support. Depends on how knowledgable you are.

2) Those who have questions about it, how it works, and problems that may arise with it, will post their questions to the boards here or elsewhere, and hopefully someone will answer their question.

3) Some will ask, "Hey, Is there a way to do "this" or include "that" to this module. Someone will find a hack for it, or add code, and post it. Module developed more so. BUT...Not re-released as an updated version of said module, however. Yet those who want this add on or revision now have an updated version made public..so to speak, because of a public post about it and their implementation of how to do it.

I don't have a problem with anyone asking or requiring "donated" money in order to receive services early along with full support. Anyone who thinks of an idea, commissions someone knowledgable enough to implement the changes needed, pays said person to do this has the "right" to do this. This is America, where we live in a "free" society. No "free beer" tho, unless you know the owner of the establishment. Interpreting the GPL is for lawyers, not us. IF someone wants to challenge what is being done, then go through the expense of hiring a lawyer, talk to him/her and see if what is being done is illegal. NONE of us who are not experienced lawyers in this field know for sure.

As far as banning from a site that may have updates, support, guides, whatever... that is the owner of that site's "right" also. NO ONE call tell me who I want to have as members. Legally, I guess if there is a pay service for the entire site or parts of it, and you enter in a "contract", then unless that "contract" is violated, said owner can't do this, but if it's "free", meaning no cost and you haven't entered a contract, then said owner can tell you to take a hike. But as I mentioned above, support will be elsewhere soon. And upgrades will follow.

The bottom line for me as an end user only, while I learn this CMS, is that I KNOW if I download any module, I WILL get SUPPORT somewhere in time, will be able to have questions about it answered, and enjoy the features of it as well as others time, effort, possibly monetary value all for "free". This time "free" meaning I paid nadda.

What has been done is helping the community as a whole. Mostly by making it available a lot sooner, something that will benefit all of us in the long run.

Everyone take a deep breath and

Mike

Login

Who's Online

354 user(s) are online (112 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 354


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Oct 31
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits