The GPL does not remove the author's copyright, they keep it, so there is no issue about that.

However, when an author voluntarily releases their code as GPL they give the recipients a right to use, modify and redistribute the code (under the same license). One of the conditions of the GPL license is that this right cannot be revoked.

This is essential aspect of free software license. If authors could release code as 'free' and then later put restrictions on it then we could not have a collaborative project like xoops.org that has code from many different authors.

I doubt that many authors of paid modules will want to release them to the XOOPS Foundation. However it would be great if the Foundation could fund the development of important modules, where there is an obvious and significant gap (eg ecommerce).

Quote:

As read it, Bookshop is a commercial product and I therefore doubt that Hervé, Christian et al at Instant Zero will have released it under GPL so the answer to your question is "No".

@jerome, the laws and legistrations may be different in various countries, also regarding the appliance of GPL. Therefor in one country you may be winning a case, while in another you lose the same case. Even within the same country often the same case is judged differently by different lawyers.

Quote:
I never got the chance to download the latest version of xAsset (which is different from the file hosted at xoops.org), so probably it is a newer version of xAsset than the version hosted in the module repository. In version 0.83 I did not find that restriction in the readme file.

Quote:
I am not a lawyer, but I interpret this like one cannot change the license without renaming it. If the readme file conflicts with the GPL, the limitation to the GPL becomes invalid.

In case I interpret this differently than a lawyer would, I believe the version that is hosted on the xoops.org site is an older version and does not contain the text regarding distribution only to be allowed from the developer's website.

For the shop module the same applies: if the copyright owner wants to release a module under a different license than GPL, he is free to do so. If the module is released under unmodified GPL, the module may be distributed freely.

If I buy a copy of GPL module and redistribute it freely, I would be allowed to do so according to the GPL. But of course it would be considered not done if I would do so (and personally I wouldn't). But if the developer of a module distributes free copies of a module released under GPL I don't see a moral reason why I should not redistribute it if the developer decides not to support it any longer.

At the end of the day, Xoops.org is within it's rights to continue provision of any version of a module released through the dev forge under the explicit terms and conditions of using the dev forge.

I would be very grateful if you would put xAsset back.

I have the 0.8 media edition. There are no restrictions in the readme file. You can have that one if you're short of a copy.

I believe I have the latest or at least one of the latest versions of XStreamer.

If any one has the latest releases of all those module and would like to send them me, then please drop me a pm.

So that's it is it? Scrolled off the bottom of the 'recent topics' block to be forgotten forever.

Well If people have the latest versions then please feel free to let me know via pm, and you can send them me.

Quote:

Apart from whats been said, I feel it important that we don't dwell on this.

OK I won't dwell on it, but the xoops.org resources are intended for open-source software development. I appreciate the rights of a developer to abandon support for a module, however xoops.org management are in a position to enforce the terms and conditions of the module dev forge to ensure that this community can continue to use software that THEY helped to develop.

In that respect we have all been badly let down by the decision to remove xasset from the repository (IMHO).

I have seen bugfixes posted here that have clearly taken someone a lot of time and effort to resolve. If their reward is to have the module they've helped to fix removed by the developer once everything works - an action now condoned by xoops.org - then I doubt the value of even bothering to post solutions here in the first place.

If GPL software is deleted from the repository just because some disaffected developer demands it, then I doubt that XOOPS will retain any respect as a viable CMS.

There is an increasing amount of competition and this is not the way to beat it.

xoops.org does not condone it, we respect the rights of the developers aswell, but the module has not been deleted. It had only been removed until the legal aspects were resolved. Also the question of respecting mcnaz's wishes had to be weighed against the many users that already use the module.

As mentioned prior send me the latest copies, I have most but not all.

Peekay, I'm not against you on this, you saw my previous posts.

I believe in gpl and what it stands for, but XOOPS has taken the moral high ground here with regards to the wishes of this developer.

I'm not saying I would of done the same thing, in fact if I'm honest I wouldn't off, however I respect the decision that the guys at XOOPS have made.

I made a donation to the Xproject to get new features for these module, but I never got my features, I did finally get my donation back though (about a month ago or so) even though it took a few month (not sure on date but think I donated before Christmas).

So I was disheartened by McNaz's decision.