1
amayer
Re: XOOPS trademark
  • 2005/11/8 9:22

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Thanks for the straight reply Herko. So you are basically saying right now, nobody owns or controls the use of the "XOOPS" name? I guess that is a good and a bad thing.

Andy

PS. If I had the spare cash I'd help out with the costs. Shame.



2
amayer
Re: XOOPS trademark
  • 2005/11/8 7:56

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


I've read the news article and comments, and I can't find any references to trademarks, or answers to my original post.



3
amayer
XOOPS trademark
  • 2005/11/7 14:12

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Not sure where to post this question or who to ask, but here goes anyway....

Who owns the trademark for XOOPS? For example, there are many XOOPS fork projects (for example e-xoops, XOOPS Cube etc) that use the name of Xoops, and indeed other support website (eg. myxoops.org, planetxoops.com etc etc).

How can these people get away with using somebody else's trademark?

Linus owns the Linux trademark and allows people to use it to further the Linux cause (that's why we have companies with the name "Linux" in them).

http://slashdot.org/linux/00/01/19/0828245.shtml

But what of XOOPS? Many people use the XOOPS name. Does this mean permission been given by an owner?

Just curious. Has this been discussed before? Is there an official view?

Andy



4
amayer
Re: Commisioned Modules
  • 2005/11/2 23:29

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Brash,

Thanks for your reply... which basically confirms my conumdrum!

Andy

PS. Herko, what's stopping you deciding to allow modules to be made under any license? Why do you actually prefer a very strict interpretation of the GPL for Xoops? Is it because you genuinely believe that it's a technical issue (ie. modules use XOOPS core classes) or because you believe tighter commercial licenses for modules are a bad idea?



5
amayer
Re: Commisioned Modules
  • 2005/11/2 21:29

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Quote:

jerryj wrote:

So, that's all I have to say. Am I alone in my thinking here? Does anyone else agree with me?


I join you in thinking the same. It's a shame XOOPS has taken this stance as it makes it hard to operate commercially in the XOOPS world. I hope also that Mambo's interpretation doesn't drive professional module developers away from XOOPS and towards Mambo.

I run an ASP business based on XOOPS, and develop modules for commercial use that we use to run multiple client sites together. We offer a lot of added value through support and application hosting.

But if an unhappy client want's to take "their" website to another supplier then there is real difficulty as we only have two options:

(a) We hand over all the module code we've developed from scratch for our ASP business with no license restriction (because Herko says it has to be GPL), or

(b) We tell the customer that it's tough and they can't take "their" website to another suppplier (ie. we don't release the code).

Niether option seems particulary fair. In my opinion, a fair solution for both parties would be to say to the client, yes you can take all your XOOPS site somewhere else, but the modules we use to run *our* business can be sold to you (with restrictions on distribution etc).

I'd really value some feedback about this.

Thanks,

Andy



6
amayer
Re: Xoops coders in the UK
  • 2005/9/15 8:55

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Hi Aharon,

I've PM'ed you with my email address so feel free to get in touch to discuss your requirements further. Or you can get my phone number from our website: www.andymayer.net

...and yes I am based in Sheffield. We have an office in the city centre Technology Park, currently there are four of us, three of which are XOOPS coders :)

Andy



7
amayer
Re: Subscription Service Comming
  • 2005/7/7 2:22

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Quote:

brash wrote:

How is the development of this module different to AMS? ...
The only difference I can see is that with AMS I had the module developed and then asked for contributions, where as cuckston has done this the other way around.


That's a good answer to your own question LOL

I also think you didn't release the module for free until enough money had been paid.

Anyway... back to the topic..... and back to work...

Andy



8
amayer
Re: Subscription Service Comming
  • 2005/7/7 0:59

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


@Rhomal

Cuckston says that downloads will be free of charge. But upgrades will be done according to how much money he gets through donations. That's different to how AMS was released.

@brash

It's not fair to call Rhomal a troll just because he's got a different point of view from you. The english definition of donation means to give money towards a worthy cause and not to recieve something in return.

I think people need to agree to disagree here, and stop throwing mud.

Andy



9
amayer
Re: Novell Forge and other famous XOOPS sites
  • 2005/6/27 17:48

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Hi Herko,

Do you have a link for the European Commission dev site... or is it an intranet?

Cheers,

Andy

PS. Hope the slap didn't hurt too much ;)



10
amayer
Re: Novell Forge and other famous XOOPS sites
  • 2005/6/27 16:58

  • amayer

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 82

  • Since: 2003/10/18


Ha ha ha.....

*slap*




TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 5 »



Login

Who's Online

59 user(s) are online (46 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 59


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Oct 31
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits