xoops forums

ewonline

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2007/6/2 22:54
ewonline
ewonline (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 198
Since: 2004/11/17
#31

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

I agree with Tom (and others) that its GPL and under those licensing terms, its perfectly legal to distribute those modules. IMO, XOOPS as an open source project has an obligation to uphold the notion of open source (GPL) and what it stands for.

@Tom, can you send me those modules? I think that they all XOOPS users should be able to use them to better their XOOPS sites.
Resized Image

McNaz

Just can't stay away
Posted on: 2008/7/6 11:03
McNaz
McNaz (Show more)
Just can't stay away
Posts: 574
Since: 2003/4/21
#32

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

I have noticed that both xStreamer and xAsset have now re-appeared on Xoops' module repository.

As previously stated, I am the developer and copyright holder of these two module. These are very old modules and the inclusion of these modules on Xoops' download repository is generating unwelcome support issues for both my self and my company. Also, both modules include commercially licensed third party components which I had licensed and made available to XOOPS users when I was a member.

As I am no longer a member of Xoops, nor wish to be associated with Xoops, I am no longer licensing the distributions of these modules by Xoops.

Please note that I am not able to remove these modules myself from Xoop's module repository nor the SourceForge repository and hence this request.

To XOOPS admins; kindly remove both xAsset and xStreamer from Xoops' module repository

Mamba

Moderator
Posted on: 2008/7/6 21:05
Mamba
Mamba (Show more)
Moderator
Posts: 10992
Since: 2004/4/23
#33

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

McNaz,

I'm afraid, we have a misunderstanding about the GPL License, under which you've released your programs. The GPL states clearly:

Quote:
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.

Since the license explicitly forbids you to ask us to surrender the rights to distribution, it's clear that you cannot ask us for that, as it would violate the license.

Quote:
the inclusion of these modules on Xoops' download repository is generating unwelcome support issues for both my self and my company

I can understand that you might not want to have your email in the source code in order to avoid any support calls, and if you desire to remove it (together with other identifiers, like URL or name of the company), then of course we can do that for you.

Another option is that you can reassign the Copyright to somebody else (e.g. XOOPS), and then permanently remove yourself from the source code going forward.

Let us know, how would you like to proceed, and as long as the GPL license allows us to do so, we'll be glad to do it...
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs

Peekay

XOOPS is my life!
Posted on: 2008/7/6 21:56
Peekay
Peekay (Show more)
XOOPS is my life!
Posts: 2335
Since: 2004/11/20
#34

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

I offer 100% support for Mamba on this issue. This is not a free beta testing resource for software developers.

Modules released under GPL cannot be upgraded to a restrictive licence after the event, or prohibited from distribution simply because the developer changes their mind.

In addition to the software licence, modules developed utilising the XOOPS dev forge are subject to it's own terms and conditions of use, which are (were) displayed during the registration process and clearly reinforce the aforementioned point.

Under the circumstances, I agree that removal of any email links in the accompanying docs or readme file is a reasonable request.
A thread is for life. Not just for Christmas.

Mamba

Moderator
Posted on: 2008/7/7 9:40
Mamba
Mamba (Show more)
Moderator
Posts: 10992
Since: 2004/4/23
#35

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

Small follow-up:

It's always good check on Google to make sure that we don't make any mistake.

As you can see from this article on Groklaw (a legal website), there was a case where a developer tried to revoke a GPL license. The response from the legal minds on Groklaw was:
Quote:
I know by now you've seen the notice by the guy claiming to "revoke" the GPL license on his code, because I'm getting email about it.

Here's the answer to your question: Quote:
No. One can't retroactively revoke licenses previously granted, unless the license terms allow you to do so. The most you can do is stop granting new licenses.

Yes, I verified this with an attorney. Here's the GPL v2. See any terms allowing you to revoke? Me neither. You can find a lot of resources to help you understand the GPL on Groklaw's permanent GPL resources page. I'm doing my part, and I hope the guy does his by studying it.

If you change your mind and don't want to use the GPL any more, you can stop and use something else on new code going forward, and you can dual license your own code, but you can't redo the past and pull back GPL'd code. That's one of the beauties of the GPL, actually, that even if some individual gets a bug up his nose, or dies and his copyright is inherited by his wife who doesn't care about the GPL and wants to take it proprietary, or just to imagine for a moment, a Megacorp were to buy off a GPL programmer and get him to pretend to revoke the GPL with threats, and even if it were to initiate a SCO-like bogo-lawsuit (based perhaps on a theory under Copyright Law ยง 203, termination of rights -- lordy do we have to endure a living demo in some courtroom somewhere of every antiGPL theory found on every message board before they give up?), it doesn't matter ultimately, I don't think, as to what you can and can't do with the GPL. The GPL is what it is. Please don't use it if you don't like the terms.

Here are couple more links related to this case:

gpl-violations.org
Infowares.com

As stated in another thread, it is our goal to have all XOOPS-related code in our repository, so XOOPS users can use it, or analyze it and learn from it.

However, we are committed to help McNaz to resolve any issues, especially any hardship for him or his company (e.g. people contacting him for support) resulting from having the files in our repository.
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs

McNaz

Just can't stay away
Posted on: 2008/7/7 20:20
McNaz
McNaz (Show more)
Just can't stay away
Posts: 574
Since: 2003/4/21
#36

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

Mamba,

Thank you for your response.

I am aware of the GPL and the terms of the GPL. Please note my request carefully:

1. xStreamer was never licensed to XOOPS under the GPL. If you examine the source files in the xStreamer archive there is no mention of the GPL whatsoever. The xoops_version.php file specifies:

$modversion['license'] = "Copyright Panther Software Publishing Limited 2001-2006.";


2. xStreamer contains third party components that I have commercially licensed (i.e. bought). This is namely the SWF Video Player and the encoder video.php file. Both these are NOT released under the GPL. These component's individual licenses are not compatible with the GPL and do not automatically become GPLed by simply being in the same zip file.

3. Uploading a module to XOOPS does not automagically make it GPL code.

4. By having both the xStreamer and xAsset modules on XOOPS is generating un-necessary interest (ie requests for support and so on). I do not wish to be associated with either of these modules nor with Xoops. By having both modules linked to my site, through both your site and through the source code is the cause of this.

5. xAsset has been released as GPL. You are correct in that XOOPS is entitled to distribute this module as it wishes. I do, however, request that XOOPS does not. This is a very old version of the module. If you intend to fork it, then please do. I, however, doubt that that is the intention here.

Let me put it this way. I have been a big supporter of XOOPS for over three years. I no longer wish to be associated with it nor do I wish you to list software that is very outdated that is linked back to me.

Combined, these modules constitute over 12 months of work. Going against my request is tantamount to a slap in the face to a long time supported and contributor to Xoops.

Sadly, this is the reason why I am no longer part of Xoops.

Please comply with my request by removing both modules or by removing the third party components from the xStreamer component (as outlined above).

I had previously requested that these modules be removed from your repository and the previous moderators were kind enough to comply. I do not understand why they have re-appeared or why this is an issue now.

Regards.

Mamba

Moderator
Posted on: 2008/7/10 5:10
Mamba
Mamba (Show more)
Moderator
Posts: 10992
Since: 2004/4/23
#37

Re: Official Notice for removal of xAsset from the Module Repository

Nazar,

I have a total respect for you as a developer, especially since we both share the same love for Delphi , and I hope that you've used some of our JCL/JVCL Open Source components in your work (Project JEDI was my first Open Source project)

But situations like this make me very sad.

It starts like everybody understands the rules of the game and complies, they contribute, they write code, they share, and then suddenly somebody doesn't want to play the game anymore, and they want to take their toys away and go home.

That's what GPL has been created for, so we can avoid discussions like this, and the rules are clear and legally binding.

As I said, we have total respect for you, but one thing that we cannot do is to violate GPL, i.e. we have to accept that:

a) modules written and released for XOOPS are also GPL, based on the fact that XOOPS is released under GPL (see here)
b) everybody can distribute GPL source


So as you can see, we cannot do anything about this, i.e. you have the copyright (and nobody is taking this away from you), but the modules are GPL-based modules, and anybody can distribute them.

But that doesn't mean that we don't want to help with anything else that doesn't violate the GPL.

Quote:
By having both the xStreamer and xAsset modules on XOOPS is generating un-necessary interest (ie requests for support and so on). I do not wish to be associated with either of these modules nor with Xoops. By having both modules linked to my site, through both your site and through the source code is the cause of this.
[...]
Let me put it this way. I have been a big supporter of XOOPS for over three years. I no longer wish to be associated with it nor do I wish you to list software that is very outdated that is linked back to me.

I can totally understand it. Please send us a note that you're assigning the copyright to XOOPS (or to somebody else), and we'll replace your name/email in the source code with whoever you designate as a copyright holder. If you still want to keep your name, but only remove your email and company name, we can also do it. Just let us know what do you want us to do.

Quote:
xStreamer contains third party components that I have commercially licensed (i.e. bought). This is namely the SWF Video Player and the encoder video.php file. Both these are NOT released under the GPL. These component's individual licenses are not compatible with the GPL and do not automatically become GPLed by simply being in the same zip file.

Of course not. But the question is: were these "royalty-free" components which you were allowed to distribute with your software? If yes, then I don't think, it's a problem here. Could you please email me a copy of the license for these two files, so we can take a look and check with our lawyers to make sure that we don't break any law? If we are legally allowed to distribute them, please email us also your invoices for these two files, as it would be only fair to reimburse you for these two files. If the license won't allow a distribution, then of course, we'll remove these files.

Again, we'll work with you to make sure that we avoid any hardship for you resulting from the having these modules in our Repository. But we cannot touch anything that would violate GPL. If you want to take it off-line to discuss details of how could we work it out to your satisfaction, please send me a PM.

Final thought:

Just think about it - how would you feel if Linus Torvalds would suddenly request to stop distributing Linux? Or, since you're Ruby developer now, if David Heinemeier Hansson would request to stop distributing Ruby on Rails....

The beauty of Open Source is that they never could!
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs