Quote:

kinda like how compaq reverse engineered ibm's bios and produced a bios of their own that is legally theirs.

edit: Columbia Data Products was first to do it.. (according to wikipedia.. ahh history.. things we learn..)

The default theme is called DEFAULT not because it presents the user with basic, standard (if you will, and yes please use "standard" loosely) display of XOOPS capabilities of using blocks(clearly outlined or not) to display data, the default theme is called default because simply because it needed a name.
Need I remind you that XOOPS was/is shipped with two other "default" themes...so which one are we talkin about?!

Let me put it different...any theme that has 3columns, blocks (outlined or not), and has a image for a logo can be considered a copy/pasted default theme simply because they use the same principles of displaying data...even if one wrote all the code by hand which may vary in some amount or not...right?! LMAO.

Just because it works on XOOPS and it displays XOOPS data doesn't makes it default XOOPS theme or derivate of it.Something like one made a book, another one made also a book completely different content but still a book...did the 2nd one broke the license?

Ah yes...can one show me please the default XOOPS module?

Well, are we conclusive on this?

Based on the new information can we safely say that a theme designer has 100% legal rights of his product.

Based on these conditions.

[list]
[*] The work is not a hacked version of a theme pre-packaged with the XOOPS core.

[*] The work is released under an independent license and such is clarified by the designer at the time of release.
[/list]

Under these conditions, can we safely say that as of 09/20/07, XOOPS position on themes is that they are a separate piece of software that may or may not function with the XOOPS Content Management System?

Is, my and all other theme developers/designers, work 100% our own intellectual property?

_____
This has been a marvelous topic, I am almost sad to see that it is being concluded. I wish we had more topics like this :(

You know I've asked a few times in the past about a section on XOOPS which could list commercial services for development, modules, themes, but nothing ever seems to be done. All it would take is a new category in the weblinks section.

Or is XOOPS being GPL and in the spirit of open source, not going to condone such commercial avenues.

Perhaps an official response would be cool here.

Personally being a business, I'd like to find one location, one directory showing me my options, we're not talking about supporting one of the other, just showing users their options for something a little different or unique.

Oh and before one will tell me that themes which are based on the default XOOPS themes can't be sold ...i would like to see the evidence that the html code in it is original therefor XOOPS is allowed to license it

Quote:

All of them. They were all shipped with xoops.org. I put it to you that they are all GPL.

Quote:

If you're using or modifying GPL code written by someone else, yes, you're bound by GPL. If you wrote the code yourself and whatever it is performs its intended purposes 'stand alone' then you can probably claim copyright for it. To me (and the rest of this is just personal opinion and I have to say I am somewhat persuaded by biteronboard's rims analogy) if your theme is explicity written for xoops, and doesn't work with any other system, then its dependent on XOOPS to function. (You could of course write your own dynamic website that uses the same css styles and whatever else in which case I would no longer argue that it wasn't an independent work but I can't think of anyone that has actually done this).

Quote:

Sure. But fact is that most themes in the past have been made by someone that took the default theme and started changing it. Case in point, the current xoops.org theme. You can't tell me this one isn't based on the original default theme. And if a theme can't display data without xoops, can it really be considered independent or to be performing its intended use?

Quote:

That I can do. It is my pleasure to reveal to you...the System Module!!!! Other modules written by other people that depend on the system module in order to function are bound by the GPL, lock, stock and two smoking barrels, baby.

According to the GPL modules are not in this exception.

Quote:

Thats not to say that a module cannot be sold, although I believe that the source code has to be made available.... could be wrong.

The point.

We all agree that a theme is a designers intellectual property. Can we all agree that based on the findings that themes are not released under the GPL by default. As there is not a demand for all theme works to be released in this fashion. I can legally release my work, out of the umbrella of the GPL - Under my own license. Thereby protecting my work in whole.

If so, what measures would I need to take to do this.

1. Themes/Templates should be sold as Independent works, that have the ability to function with XOOPS.

I.E.
My theme folder should contain both the template.html and theme.html.

2. Should be packaged with independent license, and boldly clarify that it is not released under the GPL.
____

Anything else/wrong?

That's right.

A basic theme.html framework could look like this, anyone can use it:



I believe you can distribute how you want the creative end result, which is the graphical design rendered by the css layout.

If you build your own html theme thats stands on it own and name it index.html. You have 100% copyright over the code and graphics.

Now you include this theme with the ported version to XOOPS and your covered. Plain and simple you ported your copyrighted work to XOOPS for others to use but not under the gpl.

This will hold water...

Anyone from the foundation wanna input on what XOOPS position is on all this?