It is now becoming very apparent that there is now a divide happening within the XOOPS Community and the quicker that this subject is addressed the better but I know it wont be.

I for one have been sitting on the sidelines watching as these double standards are flaunted by the people that
a: Should know better and,
B: using XOOPS for their own ends.

This whole election subject in my honest opinion was nothing more than a 'lets inflate our own ego's and show how wonderful we are. I'm sorry but how Ono never won the Non-Module code contribution category utter beggars believe and really makes me wonder about the validity of the whole affair. Either that some people should read their XOOPS history book from start to finish.

Is XOOPS GPL or XOOPS not GPL, does GPL mean we can charge for software or does it mean we cannot charge for Software? Hmmm let me see? Ask one member of the XOOPS Core and ask another one and you will get a completely different contradictory answer or depending on who is charging for it. The fact is that GPL clearly states that you CANNOT actually charge for the development of the software but you can charge for the postage and package or support.

I think some people have actually forgot what the term donation actually means and under the current version of the GPL charging for GPL software is breaking the GPL. And before I get shot down (because I know I am), I have worked in the retail sector all my life and I know the difference between buying something or giving a donation and I am sure my bosses would have been please if we gave everything away in his store for a donation.

I am not the only XOOPS user that feels this way, many of the developers and users I have spoken to are not only against this move but are angry with the way it has been done and its not the first time the the word 'split' from XOOPS has come up.

I personally have given a lot of my free time because I believed in Xoops, I spent many many hours unpaid to give something back to the community as the way many other people did for me and if we didn't have that then we wouldn't have an XOOPS the way we do today.

The fact is, we all either keep with the spirit of GPL or we take the GPL out of Xoops. Its that simple, nothing more or nothing less!

I feel targeted for this post (if that was not the intention, be more specific, please)

About the elections, you may well feel that it was just to inflate the egos of the Core team - and it is true that we are very happy with the recognition shown. There's no denying that. Getting recognition by having people vote for you in direct competition with others sure does feel nice. However, that was not the purpose of it.

Quote:
We cannot do the vote for people. If we were to ensure that only the most deserving won the categories, we would have had awards and not an election. If you think that I have manipulated with the votes so that I would get more votes than Onokazu, please say that directly instead of insinuating - or clarify your viewpoint because that is the impression I get.

Quote:
Could you back that up with relevant passages from the GPL? Because as I read it, you can charge anything you want for the software - but you cannot restrict how the buyer uses the software. He/she can put it up for free download and there is nothing you can do about that. Hence why the GPL states that it is quite futile to charge for the software, because you will probably only get one buyer, who will then make it freely available.

I can only guess, but I assume that you are aiming at AMS in your post. AMS has a donators-get-AMS-before-the-public policy to encourage people to donate to the continous development. If you don't want to donate, you can wait until the public release and get it then. Or you can donate (or "buy" if you really want that term), download and distribute it for free. However, that kind of defeats the purpose of donating.
If there had not been so many donations - that I think are mainly due to the aforementioned policy - AMS 2.4 would not have been developed (yet, and by me, at least) - and if there were no extra benefits, why donate?

Just chiming in as a happy XOOPS user....

I didn't vote in the recent elections. I feel that I am much too unfamiliar with the individuals involved and their contributions to make what I would consider an informed vote. I follow along on a weekly to monthly basis on this site to get an idea of what is new and to check for security fixes. I most certainly see some names much more often than others and like in real-world elections, that is often the deciding factor for many voters.

As far as donating (buying) to obtain modules and updates, I really have no qualms with that practice (with one big caveat as noted below). If I use it, I feel obligated to contribute. This may be monetary. Or it may take the form of bug finding, documentation, suggestions, helping others, etc. It may consist of a simple but very earnest thank you. I try to give back for what I take. No matter how small my contribution I know that it makes a difference to someone.

Where I draw the line though is with security fixes. I am a adamantly opposed to requiring a donation to fix security holes. This was the primary factor that drove me away from phpNuke. For any authors considering a donation route, please keep security fixes seperate from your donation version. I know this can mean keeping two codebases current with bug fixes. This is good customer service and even more importantly considering what can happen to a server depending on what the security breach allows access to, it's good netiquette.

Play nicely kids. And thank you for everything.

Now back to lurking for me....

i'm not gonna get involved with this 1.. i have too much respect for both catz and mith.. but i will say,

the GNU is releasing a new license version GPL 3 soon..

and as far as i'm aware, if the software contains the words copyright, then the developer has the right to charge for the software.. under GNU terms, if you require the source to be free and you want any person who then improves the software to not be allowed to charge for it then you change the words copyright.. to CopyLeft this then stipulates any distributor has to give the software away without charge..

see this reference:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#TOCWhatIsCopyleft

that's me done and outta this thread..

The copyleft standard is what I usually employ.
Quote:
If you are reading this statement and thinking that they are talking about charging for the software, I read it differently. "Free software" does not mean "free of charge" but "free to use in whatever way you want"

If that was not your point, please direct me to a more specific description of it - or elaborate yourself

hmmm sorry Mith, but yes i read and understand it as free of charge. but then that's my interpretation tho.. and like you say aswell, there is no clear definition of that statement unfortunately..

i think the GPL 3 when it's written is going to be written with clearer language and statements to stop a lot of confusion and misinterpretation but until thats written i can't really comment any further.. i think this is 1 of the biggest issues regarding the GPL.. it is easy to misinterpret and there is no clear definition.. so to be fair to both parties, we both could be right or wrong..

From the gnu.org front page, there is a link to the definition of "Free Software" -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Quote:

and further down:

Quote:

ok i think my browser timed out on my reply.. it took me abt 15 minutes to write.. i hit submit and it said article submitted, but i wasn't logged in when the page redirected and the post isn't here :( i went back on my browser and it said post already submitted.. but i can't recover it..

but the jest of what i was going to say is based on your quotes and statements i would be inclined to accept your definition :)

but i still think the way it's written is open to misinterpretation, i hope the new GPL 3 addresses these issues.. i know it's definitely going to clearly define what's what and also incorporate what's what with copyrights and intellectual property (patents) which lots are using as a loophole in the GPL as it is..

Quote:I strongly agree. No developer should ever hold back security fixes in any way.

Quote:

Suppose, using the above mentioned example, I were to do a custom theme for someone. Then, again using the above example, it would be okay for my client to make the theme available to the XOOPS community say for a $5 donation. Of course the intent would be to recoup customization fees and also provide any future updates that might refine the theme. And, of course at some point the theme would be added to the Themes Library for download.

comments please?