Greetings -

Does anyone else have any additional comments about the sugestion that I made for a new mixed license model?

So far only a couple of individuals have offered their opinions, sugestions, or comments.

Greetings wtravel -

Easy or hard is just a fact. The question is, whether the community wants it or not. And might be posible to do so on a new version if all the core modules get reworked. Release them under the new XOOPS mixed license module and those who want to convert their modules can do so. And the new mixed model can allow modules that are coded with "GPL" to plug in and those can remain "GPL".

But lets not argue that point, the posibilities, or mechanics of doing so and leave the XOOPS alone for now and come back to it again if you want to do so.

Where it is very easy to do is XOOPSPHERE. From my understanding, that is a new development effort, and has not been released yet in any form under any license.

My sugestion is to start there since that is a new rewrite.

Release it under a XOOPSPHERE mixed license model created by the community, with clear documentation, examples, with no room for "interpretation", that protects both open source modules and closed source modules, protects intectual property, and with an organization already in place that arbitrates any new usage, business, or marketing models.

I prefer the Open Source to Close Source models. There have been a number of fixes that I have had to do to other "GPL" code to get it to work properly. And the fixes have always gone back. And if I did not have the source available the fixes would not have been posible.

But if I pay for something that gives my website an extra edge, and it is on a "public" server, I certainly do not want to be forced to give something that I paid for to everyone just because it is running under a "GPL" framework. And the current interpretation seems to allow that type of action. In my opinion, and I am allowed to have one, that seems to be licensed theft.

From my perspective the intentions of "GPL" are good, but the "interpretation" leaves a lot to be desired.

Please do not misunderstand, I work with "GPL" and when I do I abide by their rules. But I believe (and I might be wrong) that the XOOPS community can do better by defining a new mixed model that takes the best from both worlds.

And until a new mixed model license is defined and tried, any asumption that is made about how such mixed model works is invalid. And if does not work you could make it posible in the new mixed model for it to be changed to another model and it could go back to plain "GPL".

Greetings -

Does anyone else have any additional comments about the sugestion that I made for a new mixed license model?

Does anyone want to start a new thread about the sugestion to create a new XOOPS / XOOPSPHERE mixed license model?

Greetings EMSguy -

I agree with you. Open Source beats Closed Source every time.

However, I would not want to spend a lot of time or money developing a customized module for my web site to get an email like that.

And I do not think that anyone understands the "GPL" license enough to give me a 100% money back guarantee on any private development I funded that I will not get an email like that.

Having the XOOPS community create something like "GPL" that protects an individual's private development and fosters open source might be a usefull way to go.

It at least merits some discussion.

Greetings Mithrandir -

Quote:

It depends on your goals. Please note that I never said a closed source license model. I sugested a mixed open and closed source license model on developed modules. I sugested a model in which modules could be open source and closed source to protect the intelectual property right of individuals that do not want to release their source modules. They can fund development and not have any fear of losing their time or monetary investment because of a "GPL" quirk or interpretation. Or because their privately developed module hapens to run on a "public" website.

Quote:

There seems to be an assumption (without any basis in fact) on your part that a mixed model will make less open source modules available. Where is your evidence?

And as a matter of fact, generally there is now more open source development going on than ever. And the trend is increasing so much that some large commercial companies are having to rework their business models so they can survive.

There will still be open source development and modules to learn from. And now there are additional options for individuals to pay to have modules developed. The posibility of commercial gain from the development of XOOPS modules might bring more additional coding talent into the XOOPS fold. And the only way to really find out is to try it.

Quote:

The mixed signals (if any exist, again an assumption) can be posibly resolved by communication and documentation. If the options are explained clearly and the new license model has examples then there should be a minimal of misunderstanding. You are not going to get 100% understanding from everyone. But at least clearly defined mixed licensed model might be better that the "GPL" interpretation. And we all know that as it is currently worded the "GPL" license is not 100% clear to anyone, including the lawyers.

You can say (again a sugestion), this is the free open source XOOPS core, this are the free open source XOOPS core modules, these are the free open source XOOPS modules developed by many individuals, and there are the 3rd party developers that will develop something specific for you if nothing else fits.

Quote:

I never said it would bring lots of people in or out. It might or might not. In the same way that "GPL" might or might not bring additional developers. It does or does not. XOOPS might benefit if there are more developers, or it might not. And with a mixed license model license there might be more developers interested in XOOPS, or there might not.

And just because you do not see a benefit to something, does not mean that one does not exist. To find out if there is a benefit (ie. more developers involved, more modules developed, or anything else) it will have to be tried. And until it is tried, any assumption is invalid. And you know, if it does not work out, you can change it back to plain "GPL" and you are done.

Quote:

I agree. And a mixed license model where people can protect the source they are willing to pay for without fear of losing control of what they paid for is an additional development option.

Quote:

I have open source that I can customize to suit my web site and remains in open source. I have a closed source module that I paid for that I do not wish to share with anyone else that further customizes my web site.

Please explain exactly how a mixed license model prevents individuals from customizing their software?

Please explain exactly how a mixed license model takes away the reason for making XOOPS altogether?

Quote:

It does not make any difference to me who is wrong or right. The only way to find out is to try it. And if it improves the level of participation, development, and quality of xoops, then great. If it does not we can go back to plain "GPL".

But make a note of the fact, that the community is going to be defining the posibly new mixed model license, and that there are some very intelligent invididuals in this community, and that these individuals want a license model that is free from "interpretation", that fosters open source, and protects private intelectual rights.

I have the hope that the community is up to the task.

To be absolutely honest, it makes no difference to me what you do. I have nothing to gain or lose. You can continue to do what you are doing. But you are not the whole community.

The sugestion was made to answer some of the individuals that posted in this thread with concern about "GPL", development of modules, payment for modules, etc.

The sugestion was made to make this a separate thread and have the community voice their opinion. Are you at least willing to do that?

I apologize in advance for any hurt feelings that this reply might cause. I replied to every point you brought up with respect to your person, to your development skill, and to your level of knowledge about xoops.

Greetings davidl2 -

And we do have a new version of XOOPS comming out real soon. So if the community chose to, it could be released under a new license model.

Maybe a new thread should be started so the community could weigh in on this subject.

Greetings Mithrandir -

I have a sugestion. Create a new license type for both XOOPS and the upcomming XOOPSPHERE. A license type that supports both Open Source and Commercial Development.

There will be no need to interpret or fight about what GPL means anymore.

You can clearly state the requirements for the the open source side and the commercial side are. You can give examples of both. You can decide what copyright text do display on either type of development. You can have the organization that you just created discuss, arbitrate and decide what falls under what when questions come up about different marketing, business, and payment models.

You will then have the best of both worlds and talent from both sides of the fence working on Open Source for the reputation and experience, and Commercial Developers for the money.

And there is nothing to prevent an un-successfull commercial module becomming a successfull open source module if the author wishes it.

This will keep the infrastructure of XOOPS and XOOPSPHERE with their core modules open source and will allow development of open source and close source modules.

Everybody wins...

Again, this is just a sugestion.

Greetings Kaotik -

Thank you for the response.

Anyone?

Greetings -

Is there somewhere we can monitor the progress of XoopSphere?

I am interested in learning about the architecture and how the new module structure is going to be layed out.