Moderator Note: The original text of this post was posted by someone else then the apparent author.

Steps have been taken to stop this kind of cowardly sabotage.

Jerome has requested the removal of the text, because he doesn't agree with what has been posted under his name.

tom wrote:
Quote:

Yep. On his Website: http://xprojects.co.uk/ he states:
Quote:

@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.

I think many of you need to stop half ass reading the GPL and applying something to it that you really don't understand. The simple fact is that a developer may and CAN add stipulations to the distribution of their software from the onset but these stipulations cannot be changed afterwards by another developer.

So did anyone bother to read the readme or anything like that with the software? Because if he has stated that his module cannot be redistributed anyware else but from his website then in fact anyone who distributes the module is in violation of the agreement and he would in the right to have it removed.

Also, in the good name of Open source if a developers asks in good faith that something be removed then the same should be applied to complying with the wishes of said developer. He has asked you to remove it, then you should in the good name of open source. You can't have it both ways sorry.

This module was developed under the module dev forge, which AFAIK has it's own terms and conditions for developers that wish to use it.

I don't think it says anywhere 'you suckers can beta test this for me free of charge until I decide to sell it, then I'm off and you can't use it anymore".

Disabling download of this module sets a very worrying precedent.

The way I understand things, although I may be mistaken. I agree with Tom, Herko and Peekay; and the decision of taking it away from public here at XOOPS were people already have the module and are using it is a mistake. McNaz, is a good developer, and with great respect he has the free will to do with it what he wants and license it in any way he wants but in a new version.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense
I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?
The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.

The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the license that applies to your copy.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy
If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?
No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

As far as I know I have a copy (v0.93) and so do hundreds of other people. I don't see anywhere in the files a license just in the xoops_version that it says GPL.

If it was taken away from XOOPS repository it was respecting in a humane way McNaz's decision, but under GPL terms this is incorrect in my opinion, unless the module has a different kind of license in the packaged zip.

I would encourage people interested in this thread to actually take 5 minutes to go and read the GPL and the accompanying FAQ. It is very clear:

Quote:

McNaz can do what he likes with respect to his software. But he cannot revoke the right of people to use and distribute code that has previously been released under GPL.

The decision on whether xoops.org wants to keep distributing this software or not rests entirely with xoops.org - its a value judgement. There is no legal obligation in either direction.

Edit: Cross post, sorry Snow.

quoting Madfish
"Edit: Cross post, sorry Snow."

No problem Madfish, we are all here sharing our points of view, and even if similar, each point of view is just as valuable. What's important is the interaction in between us all as long as it's done with nice manners.

[edit]

I meant I was typing my post while you had already sent yours in, so I didn't see it and duplicated some of what you said.

I didn't mean I was angry

Moderator Note: The original text of this post was posted by someone else then the apparent author.

Steps have been taken to stop this kind of cowardly sabotage.

Jerome has requested the removal of the text, because he doesn't agree with what has been posted under his name.