Mith -

>He did not, as I have now posted thrice, the GPL allows for anyone to take existing GPL code, modify it and release it for a fee

You and WF seem to be saying two different things, hence my confusion on the matter.

> Now who is twisting words?

Perhaps 'ban' is the wrong term.. loss of access and support to AMS. Not a site wide ban. We in agreement now?

So you do not beleive he is twisting the spirit of the GPL then by taking such a policy?

Also I find this interesting presidence. One usally gets their access removed for doing something wrong. One is entitled to by the licence distro it for free. But if I do so there are going to be negative repercussions. Seems I am the only one who sees a doubble standard/arm twisting here? Also again a violation of the spirit of the GPL?

Also by what you say his 'policy' supercedes the GPL on the level of what is right and wrong. Interesting presidence he is setting for XOOPS I must admit.

m0nty - I dont know what page your reading.. but come to the last page with the rest of us. I dont know anyone, myself included, who has a issue with Mith getting paid, or the fee for AMS per the GPL at this point.

Quote:
True, we disagree on the interpretation of his points - however, noone has pointed out areas of my quotes from the free software definition and said "you read this part like this, but I read it like that".

Liquid has argued that he is getting restrictions regarding AMS that are not present in News. I have argued that all the freedoms in the definition of free software is also present in AMS. Only access to the program/module is restricted - which is allowed by the GPL - but once you have obtained the program/module, you also have the source code and all the freedom of the GPL to use that source code to whatever you please.
Quote:
Access to support forums and early access is given under some conditions. The conditions are that you do not redistribute it before the public release. You are entitled to redistribute it under the GPL, but the GPL says nothing about the distributor being required to give support so that is something that is given extra and therefore it can be revoked, if you go against the conditions.

Quote:

not exactly, i don't see any twisting here.. and i see no violation of the spirit of the GPL.

i don't know how to say this clearer than i already have.
You are free to redistribute it once you have it.. fine.. but if you do that before he has released it publicly you are undermining all the work carried out and then DisRespecting all the other donators and Brash himself.

if you don't donate fine, but you will have to wait longer to get it.. if you break the terms of Brash's agreement of which he says NOT to distribute it before the release date, you will not get any support from him in future neither will you be able to download any future versions before the general release date and will have to wait for it to be released.. so it's upto you.. I just think it's dis respectful to distribute it before that date..

what he hasn't said is you will not be able to get the module at all, he just said you will have to wait longer to get it..

it's the same as me getting a listing of events run by frantic & nukleuz records and godskitchen/sundissential nightclubs months in advance of them going out to press.. even their secret events where they hold events at a secret venue and nobody knows where until a certain date.. i get those sent me way before the date, but i am asked not to tell anybody.. if i did tell people and they found out, i wouldn't get this information from them in future.. it's the same concept just differnt situation..

@Mith;

We agreed to disagree on this subject in private and I feel we should now least try honour and to keep to that agreement. We both just have opposing arguments on the same side of the coin. I see no reason why we both should continue with what I believe was just a very small part of the bigger picture here.

Everyone else:

Fine we can keep hammering at the same subject avoiding the 'real' issues here at Xoops.org. For me, the reality is that the WF-Projects teams affairs are more important than some of the issues over here. But when 'these issues' directly affect what happens at WF-Projects, I have to take notice and act on them.

My post on the 'whole' was not about whether it was wrong for Brash to hire someone to make modifications to someones else module and then charge for it. Brash is quite entitled to do what he is doing, it is his 'Intellectual property' and I have no problems with him trying to make money to recover his costs and with the method he is using, good luck to you Brash. I really wish him well on this matter and he has my full support anytime.

@Brash:
Brash please seek legal advice over this matter for the country you live in. As the laws do change to country to country and if I am wrong I will state I am wrong, Simple.

The real, and what I believe more pressing argument of my post was the protection of a developers work, the right for a developer and XOOPS to work commercially side by side in an open source world. This to me is far more stimulating and rewarding subject for Xoops, developers, open source users and the business community as a whole.

Seriously, I see it over and over again within these forums, the real issues which are more important all around are sidelined by petty squabbles and nondescript arguments that benefit no one, either in the short or long term.

Come on, everyone here seems to be focusing on one point in a post that really should have started a healthy debate in all area's of development. The development cycle does not just stop at who will try and be the next Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds or who is ripping off who.

Scott

From the user stand point, I don't see any license questions here. I'm not using AMS and I'm not going to use it in the near future. On the other hand, I would have been gladly using stable version of WF-section 2, for example, if it was published uder the same conditions. XOOPS really lacks some modules and some are not developed anymore and maybe this is the way to speedup development.

If developer need more time for development and money can buy it, than why not, especialy if he's getting paid for hobby and at the same time contributing to the community. If there is a necessity for some to use specific module and are willing to pay small amount for that, there is no problem. Others can wait reasonable time for donation free version.

But there is a problem, if core developers choose this model for their work, who knows what will happen. Core don't work without modules and modules don't work without core. Would module developers wait a month to get donation free version to test if their modules work with new version of the core or are they going to pay for every new release? And what about users, would they wait another month more to get free version of module? Hm, I defended AMS model above, but yet I don't know, what future will bring, if this is spread around.

Here's a question which relates directly to this topic.

Say there is a module, which was coded by another coder, who has given up on it. And I wanted to pay a developer to enhance the original.

How would I stand legally - and in the spirit of GPL - on this?

As long as the software can be aquired from someone, anyone, you are free to do what you wish with the software.

So in other words if the said software is available somewhere you can have it modified to suit your needs.

As long as the modified module continues GPL, and all credits remain.

Obviously if the original was freely the available, the updated would also have to be?

Thats what is being debated here. As far as I have read in the GPL you could charge for the code even if you received it free. As long as no restrictions of usage are inforced.

Also the way I read it you could obtain GPL software, make it available for download and charge for support of the software.
Again no restrictions on the user usage, and the user is free to distribute the software. That is copyleft, you give up the copyright to the said software.

Well someone could pay you to modify/enhance the module. It is my understanding that you (or the payer) are not under any obligation to release that modification to the community.

However, if the mod was also released then it becomes GPL...and thus free for others to modify and enhance. That's is the spirit of open source development IMHO. Free speech not free beer...

And that is exactly the spirit I want to see. There will be many themes and modules being developed by capable folks for fun and for personal goals that are useful to the community. Or even to showcase talents...

However, there are folks (like me) who don't want to code in that depth - so I'm happy to pay for my development and release it back so that others can build on my contributions in that way.

I'm glad this discussion has turned productive....

Dan