@Draven:

This is a good question, and something that I am asking myself too. But I think it would be more useful to gather requirements from the end-user perspective rather than just consider "cloning" some functionality from another system.

The only things that come to mind straight away as lacking in XOOPS are Metadata and workflow. Does anybody know of a good link about CMS requirements? All I can find is this one:

www.lassa.org.uk

Andy

Good point. Allowing modules to be closed source, would indeed be an incentive for some really good developers to contentrate on business-quality modules - which would be good for the overall reputation of Xoops, and would "up" the expectation of less professional module developers.

But on the other hand, I think it would slow down the overall development of the XOOPS "platform". As the opensource.org website says: "People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing."

I guess both approaches are capable of getting good results. But I wonder if the opensource way isn't so relevant to XOOPS at the moment because most modules and parts of the kernel are simple enough for single developers to work on them alone. But say XOOPS was to be become a bigger more complex project (perhaps a three tier application server, for example) then I think it would be difficult for individuals to pull this off, and the open source community would have to work together in larger teams, and then the open-source nature becomes more relevant and successful.

So... I guess we need to think about what XOOPS 2007 could look like if it's allowed to "take off"? Will it just look similiar to XOOPS now, but be more friendly to the business community with higher quality modules. Or will it be part of a much bigger ecosystem, integrated with server modules (eg. mod_xoops?) and other applications and platform, with a hundred times more developers and lots of different protocols (eg. LDAP) and standards supported? Who knows?

Anyway, that's just me thinking out loud!

Andy

As somebody who has made a living from XOOPS in the past couple of years (and continues to) I'm very interested in this discussion.

I agree with all the points made in this discussion so far, and I think it's going to be a very difficult decision for someone to make.

For me, the strength of XOOPS is the source code for hundreds of available modules. There is a truely awesome selection! This is probably the one single thing that stops me using any other CMS.

So one problem I see with a license change is that most XOOPS modules are simple enough to be written initially by one person, and that they are mostly done for personal reasons. This means that GPL-style collaboration is not really a motivating factor for the original developer - they can code it all on their own from scratch.

With a license that doesn't support sharing code, they then might think
"hey, why should I bother releasing my module. I could just sell it instead." This would be a great shame, as they were just "scratching an itch" anyway and not motivated by making commercial software. The result would be that XOOPS wouldn't have such a wide ranging and colourful amount of modules. Whereas the GPL lets people release code that has already served its purpose, and the authorcan rest in the comfort of knowing that the code will remain free forever (as in freedom, not money).

Of course I could be wrong - but I would be interested in your comments anyway!

Andy

Hi Zardoz,

Congrats on your first post! And welcome to the world of XOOPS

Quote:

I totally agree. It's something I'd be interested in working on.

Andy

Quote:

Sorry for the confusion, but you've got me wrong here. I'm not saying that and neither is the GPL. In fact there are many good reasons to hang onto your code and not distribute it. But there are also penalties to pay. For example, if I (or anybody else) decide to keep modifications "in-house" and not distribute code then I loose out from the community support and improvements others might make to my code.

So all I am saying, to quote myself:

Quote:

As for the ransomware approach, I'm not in a position to say if it works better or not. I'm certainly not condemning it as "in defiance" of anything. All I know is that if GNU/Linux, Gnome, OpenOffice, Apace etc etc were originally developed as ransonware, then I doubt open-source software would be as successful as it is now.

Quote:

Our development work is financed by clients. They all share the benefit from custom developments because they are buying a working solution to a problem rather than just source code. So if we use the same software to solve a different problem for a second client, then the first client doesn't care because he still has a solution for his original problem. He might even get it improved for free because of the changes that the second client adds.

The second client is certainly not a "free-rider" because we make him pay us for knowing how to solve the problem. Using this model, the first client has the potential to get something for free due to the changes that the second client adds, and so on....

I guess this doesn't work if you are in the business of just making software source code, but it does if you are in the business of solving people's problems.

Most visionaries are saying that this means software is becoming a commodity item. An example of this in everyday life is the Apache webserver; it now powers most of the Internet, and few businesses now try and make money just from propietary web server technology - instead they provide solutions based on the Apache platform. It's expected that Apache is always there and it "just works".

Quote:

... and can be modified and modifications made available.

Quote:

I agree. Sorry if my comments came across as such. I just want XOOPS to be as successful as GNU/Linux, Gnome, OpenOffice, Apache etc and all the other open source greats.

Quote:

LOL! I couldn't agree more. Let's get back to work...

Andy

Sorry if I've started a flame war. That wasn't my intention (but at least it got your attention! ) Neither am I trying to attack anybody's personal integrity. I am also not horrified that people have to pay for certain things. So what am I getting at?

The only thing that I am trying to attack is the incorrect notion that for people to make money from OSS, they have to keep the source code to themselves. And that giving away source code equates to giving away money and loosing the opportunity to make any more money:

Quote:

This is the opposite of the philosophy behind OSS development. It's not about giving away code only when you can afford it, or only contributing time that is "spare". Is about challenging the old way of propietary software development.

I respect you greatly as a talented developer, but I worry about the future of XOOPS in the Free Software community if the opposite of the OSS philosophy is preached by core developers. Hmmmm.....I wonder if this means Xoops3 core will not be released under the GPL?

Andy

Jmass... oh I forgot to say. If you want to share our code, then the easiest thing to do first is to join the WF-PROJECTS team. Then you can contribure code, and also get the development version before testing is finished etc.

Andy

Hi jmass,

I'm all for sharing code - after all that is the spirit of the GPL!

Quote:

Just to clarify: we are *NOT* against releasing code! There is only one of our modules we cannot release, and that is the Event Management module because it was developed for a client to use in-house, and they have chosen not to release it to the public. We don't have any control over that and we certainly don't want to go behind their backs!

As for our other commercially developed modules, it is our plan to release the code once they have finished testing. But to be honest with you, I am now doubting the maturity of the XOOPS developer community to handle this. Basically I don't want code we have paid thousands of dollars to develop becoming "closed" by other developers who won't release their minor modifications until they've been paid a couple of hundred bucks - just like asking for a ransom! The whole idea of the GPL is that modifications are shared between developers, and that money is made by giving the end-users better experiences rather than keeping things secret. So the code remains free - as in freedom, with no ransoms. Holding code to ransom is just an alien concept to the freedoms of the GPL.

I'm not pointing the finger at you, or saying that money cannot be made. My concern is with the recent "release" of the AMS (Article Management System) by Brash and Mithrandir, which is an enhancement to the XOOPS news module. The modifications have not been released until Brash gets some of his development costs back (only $500 in total) from the XOOPS developer community. There are no promises for how much has to be paid, or what people will get back in return. Sounds just like a kidnap/ransom situation - with the code as hostage.

Andy

Draven,

Your site is amazing! Have you developed other sites?

Quote:

No!!! You should seriously consider helping the WF-Section team. They need lots of help, and their vision is for a high-end CMS module. You could contribute a lot of good ideas and code. How's about it?

Andy

Hi Jegelstaff,

Quote:

Thanks for the info on Plone. Groups *do* matter to me. Is that really true about lack of groups in Plone? That amazes me!

Andy