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.

Well getting back to topic I think the code snippet may just work, just have to test the ipnppd.php file on ma test site.

ok a little off topic

Ok, opensource does win over commercial, since you don't have to try and get your money back from Opensource for a crapy module or broken promise.
Its just the whole "gestapo" attitude written into the GNU/GPL that bothers me.

My only concern

I mean they can, if they want, force you to give up your code on any module that you use that is on a public server (i.e. the internet). That to me seems like an invasion, I would feel so violated if I got this e-mail:


Dear webmaster,

We noticed you had made custom changes to the XOOPS software. Thank you for your time, money and effort and send us the code you changed or face legal action. Please reveiw the GNU/GPL license of the original code, if you have any questions.

Regards

Xoops


This technically could happen, according to the GNU/GPL! How would you feel?

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 -

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?

Hi,

I asked a similar question regarding licensing and Herko provided me a clear answer.
Quote:

So once development of a GPL product started, you cannot change it like that.

HTH,

Martijn

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?

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

Dear artigas this discussion seems endless...

Lets try to make it clearer.

From the Programmer’s point of view; If a software is free, means that every programmer can use it without having to pay in order to buy and use it to make programs (XOOPS, XOOPS modules, whatever...). He can offer it for free to the others, OR sell his time to make it (not the software).
The same also applies to PHP, Apache, MySQL...

From the User point of view, things are different; If someone needs a function/program, he can either use those that are offered for free by the programmers, OR to order and buy one from a programmer. If he feels that it is useful for others too, he can offer it for free to others(if he likes to).

This is how I understand it.

I do not think that the above-mentioned are in opposition with GPL.

Regards
George

Now, let's go back where we began.

I need a subscription module.

I have 3 options:

1. to buy AMember (for about $200)
2. to wait until someone makes one and offer it for free
3. to order and buy one from a programmer

#1 does not work for me since it does not support other languages
#2 is what i wish (not demand)
#3 I cannot affort

BUT I can contribute or donate with others in order to have #2 solution (see other threads in the Forum)

What do you think?

Greetings gtop00 -

Yes they do seem endless. And it is because of the nature of the GPL and its "interpretation".

Everything that you mentioned is correct.

But here is the problem. If you pay $$$ for a module, you do not want to release it because it gives your website a competitive advantage (either look, form, or function), and you run in on a "public" site, because of the current GPL "interpretation" you could be forced to hand over the source to that module, even if you do not want to.

Even if you funded all the development, nobody pays you a cent, and you do not release it, you could be forced to release it. And that means you paid for something, had to give it away, and never got any money for it.

As a developer, I have a little problem with that. If I spend 200 hours at $10 an hour (keeping the math simple) on a module to run only on my website that is a cost to me of $2000. Now because it runs on a "public" website and on a "GPL" framework, I get a little notice from the XOOPS saying to hand over the source code or face legal action. According to the "GPL" I am legally forced to do it. That someone will do it or not is irrelevant. It is legally posible.

If I want to give it away, I will do it. If I do not want to give it away, I wont. But under "GPL" I could be forced to do it, even if I do not want to.

I sugested a mixed model license to there could be an option to develop open source or closed source that protects me from being legally forced to put things into the public domain that I do not want.