first of all thank you to you catzwolf...

my question...

what will happen to the modules listed now in the current repository..some of the module entry have comments by users and developers..will this modules go into archives or be deleted..last time of repositiry maintenance/upgrade many user comments are gone...and many of this comments are useful for fixing bugs, installation problem etc

for me personally all i want is a new great module repository...and i don't mind if the old is gone..we can start afresh


***********
free to delete this if its not suitable to be put here
Quote:

Quote:

What is the official XOOPS stance on this? You would have to ask the XOOPS Council and not me, I am not qualified to answer this question on their behalf. This is a question that will have to be asked at a later stage of the module repository redevelopment.

However, I would like to add my personal view on the subject and please note, again this is not the official line from XOOPS or the XOOPS Council.

This is a complex question and there has been much debate far as long as I can remember, and everyone has their own opinion beliefs over the wording of the actual GPL licence.

To me personally, I understand that the source code must be made available at all time to the community and that mean basically I can view the code without the need of having to decompile code without de-compilers or any other tools first.

So basically:
1. You include the full unmodified source of any GPL code you used in your distribution.
2 - You include the full source of any parts of any code containing the GPL code.

Now the problem with GPL, is in reality GPL itself. The wording is vague and very much open to debate, counter debate and so on and in my humble opinion, the GPL is about the code being made available to view, modify and redistribute with no restriction placed after the original restrictions imposed.

Now when the GPL states this, does it mean that the code should be free? Some will claim that it does and other will counter that claim, and because the believes that GPL is actually so vague about everything, then it is also to subjection and conjecture. (some may even counter this claim).

But really, you have to look at the bigger picture here. This is just not about the code and whether or not it should be free.

Sure, at the end of the day, you as the developer has the choice to release you code gratis, or charge a minimal fee for the service/support that you provide. You, on the other hand are free to pay for the developers service (either through fee or a donation) or you could chose to not to pay for it and download another product that is does a similar job. It is your choice.

In my honest opinion, in reality, you are NOT buying the CODE you are paying for the overall service.

Now, you have to ask yourself the implications of both, paying a developer for his services and support almost will help keep the development of his work going. Once he as taken monies, he has to provide that support and the people who purchase that support are quite within their right to expect it.

Many major companies will invest large amounts of 'money' for support and the continued development of a product that they depend on and many will even pay to have a particular piece of coding added to the product.

On the other hand, when you download a product free, you basically have to put your faith in the developer to give you support, the service and continued development, and if the developers stops the development, you have to hope that someone else will pick up the baton and keep running.

Now, here is the harsh reality. XOOPS isn't just about people creating personal websites, blogs and social networks, there are many companies who depend on the continued development and support of many of the modules available, but also the survival of XOOPS itself. We all can see the impact that the current module crisis has been having on XOOPS and we can all now appreciate the need for safe, secure active modules.

I believe that if people want to pay for support to keep modules actively development then I believe that can be a good thing for Xoops. In the case of Herve, if companies or individuals wish to pay for his support and continued development of his free modules, then I say that is a good thing for many of the XOOPS users and XOOPS in the long run.

Catz

Quote:

Not at the moment. This is something that we need to discuss properly from the start as it is the most important part of the reconstruction.

We will be looking at all opinions available that will do the job required, be easy to manage, have very good moderation tools and will work within the XOOPS Framework.

At this moment XOOPS is open to choice.

Catz

Quote:

This will of course be open to subjection and conjecture from all parties involved and if you do, good luck :)

Catz

Quote:

This question is more in the direction of XOOPS Module Framework.

The whole module framework or lack of it within XOOPS is something that the XOOPS Core and Module developers need to sit down and discuss. The Core needs to understand the module developers need in this department and the module developers need to understand that not everything will happen over night though.

Within this new framework I personally feel that there should be a way of modules being able to communicate and interact with each other at some level.

How and when, this depends on the XOOPS Core and module development team working on the module framework.

Catz

Quote:

Actually, I feel that this is a misuse of the current software, WF-Downloads as the functionality to allow the updating of each item.

However, I think that there should be a policy of only having one active version within the repository at anyone time and I think there should be a time limit imposed before a module is considered part an archive. Having modules that are over 5 years old within the current active area is only asking for trouble in the long run.

So yes, having a up-to-date listing and free of duplications should be a requirement.

Catz

Quote:

Don't thank me, thank the team as I wont be the only person with this. I am only a cog in the wheel doing my part for XOOPS as a whole :)

Quote:

I think it will be fair to say that we have to start new here. AS I said this is not a just a quick fix but one that I hope will last for a good few years to come. I think we can say, we are building for the future here and not the past.

Would it serve any purpose to keep anything within the old one?

Quote:

I think we have to look at the bigger picture. Comments are nice for the developer, but we should be looking at other methods of helping the developer and the community by putting the comments you mentioned within the right place and where they could help the most (both for the developer and the user).

As a module developer I personally have search the comments to the modules to find bugs or other fixes to my modules and I suspect neither do many other developers here. Why? We just don't have the time to do this.

In all honest, posting about bugs and fixes is targeting the wrong audience and won't in all honesty get to the person that matters in this case, the developer.

If you find a bug or have a fix for it then let the developer know. Email them, visit their support site or bug tracking system and let them know. That way, they can deal with issue properly.

but I agree that we should keep as much information, even if we have to archive it and make it available in a read format only. :)

Quote:

Totally :)

Catz

I vote for attaching banks to the GPL license

Quote:

Fench banks only..... because there's no money left in the English or American ones

Not so much a question as a statement:
I'm in favour of a limited number of the same module being made available via the repository, i.e. the latest one for the the current version of XOOPS and an older version for those folks who can't or don't want to upgrade from an earlier version of xoops.

I also think it would be productive to assign one or two folks to the task of scouring developers' own sites looking for updates and new releases of modules.

Question:
Is there likely to be a sourceforge repository for those of us who want to develop modules under the "xoops banner" rather than maintain our own SVN?

Quote:

Not a question Herve, tut tut.