| Re: New low for scammers of Xoops |
| by marcan on 2006/1/27 14:14:36 @netshark: Quote: I just get so fed up with people that never bother to read the GPL. They all have this idea on what it means but they never actually read the GPL. I agree with you. Most people don't know or understand the GPL. I agree it may be frustrating sometimes... @mongrel: Quote: Given the Global reach of XOOPs, it seems likely that someone, somewhere is doing that very thing. Enforcing compliance can be quite difficult, especially if the seller/installer is a fly-by-night operation. I also agree with you. It is obvious that people around the world are doing this at this very moment. Fighting those people would require A LOT of energy for very little gain... I understand it's frusrtating... But it's life ! Some people care about the others, and other people don't. We have accept that. Law actions agains those people is highly improbable as we don't have the money nor the time to do it. My thought on this is yes, we can send them a letter an notify the GPL organisation but that's it. After that, let's focus on what we do best : creating the best CMS around ! Cheers ! |
| Re: New low for scammers of Xoops |
| by Herko on 2006/1/27 7:46:55 Quote:
The GPL is very clear on this, actually. The GPL does not transfer the IP rights (intellectual property rights, such as the copyright) from the original author at all. The code is owned at all times by the author. But, by rightfully releasing that code under the terms of the GPL, the author grants everyone a non-discriminatory, everlasting, non-revokable *licence* to use the code under the terms described. In other words, if you're not the copyright owner of the code, you cannot grant others this license. That protects closed code from being released under the terms of the GPL unwillingly. The other way round is another matter tho. Open code distributed as closed and with restrictions that the GPL doesn't allow, is more difficult to find and fight. GNU/FSF has an abuse e-mail address, but we'll need solid proof of course. And even if we have a solid cas, what to do with it. Sue? Claim damages? I think a cease and desist letter is a good start, but what if they don't stop? (note that I'm referring to a hypothetical case where there is a clear violation of the terms of the GPL!!) Send in the lawyers, a time consuming and expensive measure, and definately not our core business. What about the modifications they have made? There's a good chance they legally should be open sourced as GPL (as a derrived work of XOOPS), but do we force that, in effect create a fork? I think this is not an easy thing to determine, as there are many factors to take into consideration. But I'm keen to hear everyone's thoughts and suggestions  Herko |
| Re: New low for scammers of Xoops |
| by MadFish on 2006/1/27 6:30:36 Quote: Hypothetically, what do you feel we should do when we find a real case of misuse and GPL violation? How should we go about this? If it looks intentional, personally I'd like to see a letter sent to them from the XOOPS Foundation. Just a thought - but if someone does include GPL code in a proprietary non-GPL product, can they continue to claim copyright over their own product? Could anyone (hypothetically) start distributing the 'proprietary' software on the basis that it contained GPL code? That might make a lot of companies think twice. |
| Re: New low for scammers of Xoops |
| by mongrel on 2006/1/27 4:57:43 Quote:
Given the Global reach of XOOPs, it seems likely that someone, somewhere is doing that very thing. Enforcing compliance can be quite difficult, especially if the seller/installer is a fly-by-night operation. While forming a legal committee and/or fund is probably premature, some attempt at forming a policy regarding license may not be a bad idea. One way to start would be with the identification of players in this hypothetical case: -XOOPs -The Seller -The Customer -The governing authority with jurisdiction in the Sellers physical location -Any appropriate national/international organizations to whom complaints are to be directed Some Cease and Desisit Letter might be drafted, perhaps with input from some legal expert: Quote:
The buyer might be notified to be sure that they are made aware that they purchased something they could have gotten for "free." I don't know what legal recourse is available in a situation like this, should it occur, but surely there is a precedent for it or something very similar. Can it be argued that the XOOPs community suffers any actual damages from the sale of the system outside compliance with the license? Maybe yes, maybe no. It is on one hand a matter of giving credit where credit is due and on the other, as I said earlier, protecting the reputation of XOOPs from unjustified harm due to the actions of rogue "installers." |
| Re: New low for scammers of Xoops |
| by netshark on 2006/1/27 1:18:31 Quote:
Your right. I just get so fed up with people that never bother to read the GPL. They all have this idea on what it means but they never actually read the GPL. They then make claims of things like that is in the title "New low for scammers of Xoops" I am sorry for the rant  It over now.....Keep up the good work guys. I have finished some new modules I will be submitting to the modules repository later on tomorrow I also have an awsome "flash" based theme that I want to submit however I am not sure on how secure it is to use flash with Xoops.
|
Search
Recent Posts
Who's Online
Donat-O-Meter
| Stats | |
| Goal: | $15.00 |
| Due Date: | Jul 31 |
| Gross Amount: | $0.00 |
| Net Balance: | $0.00 |
| Left to go: | $15.00 |
|
|