I have been using XOOPS for about 9 months now and have been nothing but impressed. I have built several sites for clients, and they have been nothing but impressed with Xoops.

I am thinking of aggressivly marketing a portal system. My company had developed a closed source portal system based on Lotus Domino. My intention was to market this system. However, I have been smitten by Xoops. I will still be using my Domino application, along with other closed source stand alone apps with single sign on through LDAP. They will have no code level interaction with the GPL products, so there is no license problem. I can not, however, market XOOPS as is (with the onscreen credits and links). Neither can I afford to give away my "trade secrets" by advertising that 60% of my portal system is such a great open source product. Of course all credits in the code and license, really everywhere except for the display output, would remain.

I know that I can LEGALLY modify Xoops, repackage and sell it as long as I make my "new" product GPL. However, I am concerned with the community reaction - especially the developers who have worked so hard. My first thought is that they would not mind because they are planning on LGPL for Xoops3. This is because they want to make XOOPS viable for commercial use in a even greater way. However, I feel the need to "ask permission" in a way.

Your input is appreciated.

JMass

This topic has been covered numerous times, do a search would unearth some very insightful comments.

FYI - here is the quote from XOOPS FAQ
Quote:

This topic has not been covered that I could find.

In fact the FAQ you quoted has been proven to be inacurate. See another forum post by Herko.

I know what I can do LEGALLY. I am not building modules, I am integrating other software in a hosting package. I would also like to offer a download of the rebranded HTML portal only (read the XOOPS part).

The above quote is WRONG. However, I am not even asking about it. I know what is legal, I want ot be aresponsible community member. These are not always the same.

JMass

Edit - I did not mean to sound to tearse. I am running out the door, and trying to respond to the above. Got to run....

Quote:


Quote:

Read the FAQ and GPL - you can not sell XOOPS as YOUR OWN.

this has been covered many times as Tl says..

you can REMOVE the outputted text like powered by XOOPS etc..

you can remove any of the outputted text as long as the credits in the code remains..

You Can't modify xoops, repackage and sell it as your own, as the code doesn't belong to you. you have to provide the full source code of XOOPS in the distribution but you are free to sell any hacks and modules you have made yourself providing they don't contain any XOOPS code..

I have due to questions around here looked at the GPL and as I understand it (I am NOT a lawyer, mind you) you can

1) Do whatever you want with the code
2) Package whatever you want
3) Sell it for as much as you want

AS LONG AS you
a) Supply the source code
b) Keep the original credits in the code (not necessarily in the output)

This will not go against the GPL.

You may not release it on a more restrictive license, keeping the source code from your customers and you may not remove the credits - if you follow those rules, you can charge just about anything you want for just about anything you want.

Personally, I don't like to hide the fact that I am working with XOOPS and I charge for the work, I put into a module, a theme or a core hack for a customer - and I would of course prefer that you did not, either, but it is not up to me to ask that of you.

Mithrandir is the first reply that has been correct. It is also the first reply on topic.

I agree with everything that Mithrandir wrote. To put it bluntly, TL IS WRONG. I am not tying to be rude, I am just stating a fact. I stress this so that others are not confused. I did not mean, nor want to debate what is legal or not. This has been discussed in many other threads. One of which I started. Sadly, many are still confused.

I know what I want to do is LEGAL. What I want to ask is how others FEEL about it.

Mithrandir states:

"Personally, I don't like to hide the fact that I am working with XOOPS and I charge for the work, I put into a module, a theme or a core hack for a customer - and I would of course prefer that you did not, either, but it is not up to me to ask that of you."

This is an on topic response. It expresses his opinion on the (completely legal) repackaging and sale of Xoops. Thank you Mithrandir.

Any other on topic responses are welcome.

JMass

PS - I don't like hiding XOOPS either. On the current sites I have done, I have touted XOOPS and the community. I worry about advertising this on my site though. Other companies competing with my company for web design contracts will be able to pick my offering apart, while I am still in the dark regarding their offerings. It has already happened once where I pitched a XOOPS portal to a client and they got competitive bids. The competitors were shown my bid and discouraged XOOPS to the client.

Quote:

You can sell as much as you can if your clients are willing to pay for it. You CAN NOT though PRETEND (that was what you said on planning to do, correct me if I mistaken your intention) that you wrote XOOPS and charge your clients for the codes. People are not stupid they will one way or another find out that you are charging for something you did not do.

How do you want to proceed to pretend the codes are yours if you are binding the GPL terms? You can charge for customization but not the codes. Why should they pay for something that is free?

Honesty is of paramount importance in business. Selling something that you did not do is unethical.

Thank you for calling me a dishonest, unethical person.

I do not want to pretend I wrote a thing. I will be advertising that my offering is based on open source and commercial software. This will not be a secret. This is a selling point. I mentioned that part of my solution is based on Lotus Domino. I am not pretending that I wrote that either. IBM would not be happy. I will be using a commercial mail server. I am not pretending I wrote that either. Icewarp would not be happy.

My offering is a hosted one. I will be charging for design and hosting only. They will pay for a "turn key" portal solution. I combine a polished XOOPS portal with Lotus Domino workflow apps, and Icewarp mail services. I have absolutly no need to release a single bit of code. I am just using it.

I will be replacing the on screen IBM, Icewarp, and XOOPS logos with my companies. This is all legal to do.

I thought that it would be nice to offer a download of the open source part (Xoops) for people who could not afford or did not want to pay for my services. I would not charge for the download.(though legaly I could) I would not hide that it is open source. I would not hide that it is GPL code developed by the community at large. I would not remove the code credits. I would not hide that it is Xoops. I would just have my logos on it. It would include a selection of themes, modules, and hacks that I feel make XOOPS even better. It is kind of like the Wolfpack XOOPS version, except I do not want to advertise that it is Xoops.

I do not care if others "find out" that it is xoops, after all I already stated that it is community developed open source software. I just do not want to scream "It's Xoops!" at the top of my lungs. I will call it something else. Nothing more, nothing less. Really it is just like "forking" Xoops. Forking happens all the time and is legal. Often not polite, (see wf-sections vs xf-sections) but legal. BTW - XOOPS was a fork of PHP Nuke.

Nothing dishonest at all. Nothing unethical at all.

I do see that my clients would not be happy to pay $$$ for a GPL product I did not write. They would feel cheated, and rightfully so. I am not dishonest, nor stupid.

Really, I could save the headache and not post a download. I really do not care. I already have a copy.

My question is how do people feel about offering a product (In my case it is a design and hosting solution) based on Xoops, that does advertise Xoops.

I am starting to regret I asked. Not because they do not like it, but because I am being derided for things I am not planning to do.

JMass

Quote:

Sorry, I still do not get what you want. If you plan to state open source, why all the fuss of mentioning Xoops? If XOOPS is a liability, then you should be thinking using other systems.


Quote:
You did not state exactly on what you planning to do in your original post. Selling repackaged XOOPS has many meanings.

One important thing is that if you are using Xoops, then you should state that.

I can use XOOPS for free, but I can't sell it as my own. The codes do not belong to me. I could package XOOPS as part of my offerings, but I would let my clients know about that.