Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

You start to say im wrong in thinking your getting paid for AMS, its a hobby, then say its a business your getting paid for

you think Brash pays me for my hobby

if I recall in the news article about it there were 2 or 3 items posted under bugs/fixes. I dont see those released to the current public version is my issue.

Catzwolf wrote:

Either that some people should read their XOOPS history book from start to finish.

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.

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.

jegelstaff wrote:
Quote:

Catzwolf wrote:

Either that some people should read their XOOPS history book from start to finish.

I agree that there is a lack of knowledge of the history of the project among newcommers, but as a relative newcommer myself, I have to say that it's very hard to discover this information. There is no history of XOOPS on the site, you have to dig through the really old news postings and forum archives.

I think there would be tremendous value in a section in the 'All about XOOPS' part of this site, which discussed:

--the original creation of XOOPS

--the development of XOOPS 2

--the formation of the 'new XOOPS community':
http://www.xoops.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=992

--bios about some of the major figures.

While such things were being prepared, some material about the current directions, such as 2.1, would be good to put up there. Is there even a design document for 2.1?

Quote:

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.

This is not true. The GPL is silent on the issue of charging for development. What the GPL says is that you cannot impose restrictions on other people's rights to examine and modify the software source code, nor on their rights to redistribute the software. How you choose to fund the development of GPL software you write is entirely up to you. But if you release it as GPL, then the above restrictions apply.

This effectively pulls the rug out from under standard closed source business models, where the revenue stream is built on restricting the supply of the software because only the author is legally allowed to distribute it. The GPL allows everyone who has a copy to be a distributor, which simply creates a disincentive to build a business around charging for your own distribution, because potential buyers could probably get the software from somewhere else.

Basically, to use closed source terminology, the GPL legalizes piracy; making and distributing copies for free is allowed, so that's a severe disincentive to use a closed source business model.

Quote:

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.

I agree that the term 'donation' as used in the distribution of AMS seems odd. It is a fee, since they are not allowing you to download the current version without paying. If you could download and then choose to pay a fee or not pay, then that would be a donation.

However, I do not believe that charging a fee or donation or whatever you want to call it breaks the GPL in any way (see above). The GPL simply means that anyone who has downloaded a copy could put it up for download themselves if they chose to.

Quote:

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.

If I read between the lines, I think I'm hearing you say something like this: "and it's bad that other people are only giving to the community in as much as they are getting paid for their efforts." I appologize if that's not what you are saying, but if it is, then I would say: "isn't it only a good thing for the community to have more contributions from more people, no matter how they get made?"

It's up to the community and the core team whether contributions get accepted into the official core, or get stamped as official modules in the new 2.1 world when we get there. So more people doing more and giving more is only a good thing, no? I mean, since the community is still the arbitrator of what gets accepted or not, business interests aren't going to hijack the project.

In fact, it's against the interests of businesses that would be involved in XOOPS to try and hijack the project or fork it. The value of an open source project for a business is simply that other people are helping out by contributing to the project, so the business doesn't have to do all the work itself. It's a cost effective way to develop software for a business. If a business were to hijack the project and make its focus more narrow and related only to whatever uses of XOOPS that business were interested in, that would make the project far less useful and interesting for everyone else, so a lot of contributors would leave the project, and all of a sudden, the whole point the business is involved in the project -- the fact that other people are contributing -- disappears.

I will fall back on an example I seem to always bring up in these kind of discussions: IBM and Linux. IBM does not give work and effort to the Linux community out of altruism, and you can bet the IBM programmers who contribute code are being paid for their time, and IBM is building a fee for Linux into the price of their computers that come with Linux. And is this bad for Linux? Absolutely not, it's been good to get more code and more professional code into the project.

JMorris's post about Red Hat and Linux in another thread seems apt to point out here too:

http://www.xoops.org/modules/newbb/vi ... id=137966#forumpost137966

--Julian

The bargain created by the GPL can be paraphrased simply as follows: You may have this free software on condition that any derivative works that you create from it and distribute must be licensed to all under the same license.

Here's how the GPL actually says it:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (GPL, Section 2.)

This is the most powerful idea in the GPL and the one that has aroused the most passion in its adherents and its detractors.

Adherents of the GPL suggest that this provision protects free software. It guarantees that all derivative works of GPL-licensed software will also be GPL-licensed software. Licensees cannot selfishly remove their improvements from the public commons. Derivative work software will always be free and open. The result is a dynamic and ever growing collection of GPL-licensed software that can be reused and improved.

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (GPL, Section 2.)

If a business were to hijack the project and make its focus more narrow and related only to whatever uses of XOOPS that business were interested in, that would make the project far less useful and interesting for everyone else, so a lot of contributors would leave the project, and all of a sudden, the whole point the business is involved in the project -- the fact that other people are contributing -- disappears.

Mithrandir wrote:
Quote:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (GPL, Section 2.)

There are no license fees in AMS (which is how I read that exerpt - that you cannot put license fees on work derived from a GPL program)

I understand your interpretation, but do not think it is very clear.

Derivative work software will always be free and open.