What you could do is to make all modules unavailable for anonymous users. When visitors try to open a page they will be forwarded to the login page by default (AFAIK).

Hi Gestroud,

That looks like a very good start. You did a great job on the integration with Amazon and the open directory. The video section is also very nice.

The directory is a bit slow, I am not sure how to improve that. Do you pull that data straight from the directory site or do you collect the data once and store it in your own database?

May I suggest to make the site a little less full? It looks a bit crowded to me. Also perhaps the design could use some more improvements, to make it look more attractive.

Happy to finally see a travel site made with XOOPS!!

It means that the file cannot be found in that path.

I suggest you look again carefully, because when php says the file is not there, usually it really isn't

When you go to your admin panel you will see the XOOPS version at the bottom of the page. It is not the same as the system module version.

HTH

It depends what functionality you want on the website. If you want to have content pages only, you can choose from several modules, like:

- Content module
- Mastop Publish
- Wordpress
- SmartSection

Perhaps a contact form would be useful, in that case you have a look at:

- Formulize module
- Standard contact module with anti-spam hack

There are so many more options. Think about what you functionality you want on the website and then ask yourself what modules can provide this.

For protection against bots you can use a captcha hack, which will prevent bots from registering. I have seen a few sites who use this, probably you can find some more information about this hack using google or this site's search feature.

We can make a news post of this summary you stated because for many people it IS news. If I would not have taken the effort to keep track of this topic I would have no idea that the core developers are working on a merge. I assume not everybody is going to read through all the topics to find out what is going on .

@David, off topic but do you mean the google translation on Nachenko's site?

@jerome, the laws and legistrations may be different in various countries, also regarding the appliance of GPL. Therefor in one country you may be winning a case, while in another you lose the same case. Even within the same country often the same case is judged differently by different lawyers.

Quote:
I never got the chance to download the latest version of xAsset (which is different from the file hosted at xoops.org), so probably it is a newer version of xAsset than the version hosted in the module repository. In version 0.83 I did not find that restriction in the readme file.

Quote:
I am not a lawyer, but I interpret this like one cannot change the license without renaming it. If the readme file conflicts with the GPL, the limitation to the GPL becomes invalid.

In case I interpret this differently than a lawyer would, I believe the version that is hosted on the xoops.org site is an older version and does not contain the text regarding distribution only to be allowed from the developer's website.

For the shop module the same applies: if the copyright owner wants to release a module under a different license than GPL, he is free to do so. If the module is released under unmodified GPL, the module may be distributed freely.

If I buy a copy of GPL module and redistribute it freely, I would be allowed to do so according to the GPL. But of course it would be considered not done if I would do so (and personally I wouldn't). But if the developer of a module distributes free copies of a module released under GPL I don't see a moral reason why I should not redistribute it if the developer decides not to support it any longer.

@Jerome: I think that you are off topic now, since you changed point of this discussion to the legal aspect of the XOOPS foundation. Please stick to the topic. If you have any issues with Herko on wether or not the foundation is legal, please start a new thread.

This thread is about the situation where a developer of web site owner decides to distribute a module that was distributed with a GPL license, after the original developer decides to revoke this GPL license (which is the case of xAssets).

To my interpretation, according to the license the module was released under, this license is irrevocable, meaning the developer cannot stop people from distributing and/or developing the module further.

With all respect to McNaz's request to stop the use and distribution of this module, by distributing the module under the GPL license in the first place, legally he is bound to this license.