XOOPS 
Forum
Forum Index General Forums Community Support Modules Support Themes Support Development International Support Module Hack Reviews Theme Designer Talk
  1. Board index / 
  2. XOOPS Community Support forums / 
  3. XOOPS general usage questions 
  4.  / Addons for sale
Register
11
intel352
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 17:17

  • intel352

  • Module Developer

  • Posts: 824

  • Since: 2003/11/23


nice counter-point, but again, by that same reasoning, XOOPS would also be useless without the php code to rest upon, which by your statement, it's useless without the php core, just as a XOOPS module would be useless without xoops.

now, it could be rewritten to be used in another code base, just like pretty much everything else, so i think that explanation maybe fails in that regard.

i'm not trying to be argumentative, i enjoy this discussion

i do agree with what you stated, that modules which actually depend upon XOOPS functions to exist are definitely gnu/gpl, whereas modules that are often 'ported' don't need to be gnu/gpl

but where do you draw the line? (just tossing this out for discussion)

at some point, XOOPS likely uses unique functions that are part of the php core, without which it would obviously break. modules use unique php functions, without which they would obviously break. so actually, it's quite possible to say that all php code should be gnu/gpl, since it depends on a gnu/gpl system to function.

heh, since that is not the case though (and since i appear to just be rambling now), it seems as though as long as you don't include exact or modified version of gpl code, then you can license it however you want


anyways, i'm probably wrong
but i'm trying to make a valid point
12
JMorris
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 17:23

  • JMorris

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2722

  • Since: 2004/4/11


Quote:

Herko Coomans wrote:
I am definately not against commercial module development. In fact, I'm very much in favor of this. However, I'm also in favour of open, community participated development. I think those tow should go hand-in-hand in a healthy development project such as XOOPS, and I believe it is it this time

Herko


Agreed. I see nothing wrong with charging for a module that you developed from scratch. Where I would have a problem is if you took existing modules, hacked the code to perform enhanced functions and then turned around and sold it as your own work. That would be just plain wrong. It doesn't seem as though that is the situation in this case; therefore, I see nothing wrong with selling your work.

Similar to what has been previously mentioned, I personally believe anyone who a) is benefiting from XOOPS and b) who has the skill to do so, should give something back to the project and community that has given so much to them freely.

I may charge clients to install/customize their XOOPS package (either because they don't know how or don't want to bother with it - it's their choice), but there are a few projects I'm working on that will be distributed free of charge to the XOOPS community. Why? Because the XOOPS community has given me so much.

From what I've seen thus far, there are countless members who feel and do the same.

Just my 2 pennies
13
intel352
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 17:40

  • intel352

  • Module Developer

  • Posts: 824

  • Since: 2003/11/23


i concur with that.
14
tjnemez
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 17:43

  • tjnemez

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1594

  • Since: 2003/9/21


hey guys,

jmorris wrote: "I may charge clients to install/customize their XOOPS package (either because they don't know how or don't want to bother with it - it's their choice), but there are a few projects I'm working on that will be distributed free of charge to the XOOPS community. Why? Because the XOOPS community has given me so much."


i have had a number of requests to install and customize sites based on xoops. designing a theme and customizing templates takes a lot of time, so i see nothing wrong with charging a fee for that. like jmorris, i would, should i undertake some of these projects, make the theme and templates available to the XOOPS community.

quote tags went silly on me.
15
Herko
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 19:06

  • Herko

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4238

  • Since: 2002/2/4 1


Quote:

bd_csmc wrote:
nice counter-point, but again, by that same reasoning, XOOPS would also be useless without the php code to rest upon, which by your statement, it's useless without the php core, just as a XOOPS module would be useless without xoops.

now, it could be rewritten to be used in another code base, just like pretty much everything else, so i think that explanation maybe fails in that regard.

i do agree with what you stated, that modules which actually depend upon XOOPS functions to exist are definitely gnu/gpl, whereas modules that are often 'ported' don't need to be gnu/gpl

but where do you draw the line? (just tossing this out for discussion)

This is exactly what I tried to explain: the line is drawn at the process level. XOOPS isn't a PHP process, even tho XOOPS depends on PHP processes to work. XOOPS modules however, are part of the XOOPS application processes, and are thus considered part of the whole application.

So it's not *just* a case of dependencies, it's more subtle. And this means there is no 'hard' line, but something that has to be considered case-by-case. But, it'll have to have it's own processes to work, or it'll be considered part of the whole XOOPS application.

Herko
16
Mithrandir
Re: Addons for sale

We should also draw a line between non-GNU/GPL modules and non-free-of-charge modules.

I think almost all modules should be GNU/GPL licensed as the whole idea is to base it on the XOOPS framework.

I have no problems charging for GNU/GPL modules, but I also make sure to give back through community-developed modules on dev.xoops.org and helping with the core development.

As such it is not against the license to repackage and sell a module written by someone else as long as the original author's credits are maintained - but if it is available for free elsewhere, there should be something else giving reason for the price.
17
Bunny
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 20:25

  • Bunny

  • XOOPS Advisor

  • Posts: 57

  • Since: 2002/10/21


On the GNU.org website you can find a nice FAQ that answeres nearly all question regarding the GPL. (BTW: PHP is not under the GPL, but under a much less restrictive license, the PHP license)

Quote:
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?

A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.


The XOOPS Core is a library of classes/functions, released under the GPL.

Quote:
Q: If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?

A: When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. [...]


This would cover the running of proprietary software on PHP, if PHP where GPL'd.

Quote:
Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?

A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.

But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. [...]


Really says it all, does it?

Quote:
Q: If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?


A: It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. This means they must be released under the GPL [...]


18
intel352
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 20:40

  • intel352

  • Module Developer

  • Posts: 824

  • Since: 2003/11/23


nice definitive post, puts most of my questions at ease.

so everyone that has developed a commercial module needs to change it to gnu/gpl and just charge for accessing the module, i reckon
19
intel352
Re: Addons for sale

  • 2004/6/9 20:45

  • intel352

  • Module Developer

  • Posts: 824

  • Since: 2003/11/23


one thought: what if a person developed a standalone script/application under a strict license, and later on, ported the application to become a XOOPS module? would it still be considered gnu/gpl as a result? if so, is that why many strict license apps often just develop a hook into a cms, instead of a full-blown port? (other than laziness)
20
Mithrandir
Re: Addons for sale

Quote:

bd_csmc wrote:
so everyone that has developed a commercial module needs to change it to gnu/gpl and just charge for accessing the module, i reckon
No. GNU/GPL does not mean that you cannot charge for the module itself.

Bunny has established that most modules fall into the category, which cannot have a stricter license than GNU/GPL, but that doesn't mean that you have to distribute it for free - only that when you distribute it, you
a) Have to supply the source code
b) Have to supply the GNU/GPL license, so the recipient can read what he may and may not do with the software
c) Cannot restrict the use or modification of the software by the recipient
d) Cannot prevent the recipient from distributing it for free
« 1 (2) 3 »

Login

Register now!  |  Lost Password?

Search

Advanced Search

Recent Posts

Who's Online

326 user(s) are online (261 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)

Members: 0

Guests: 326

more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Nov 30
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits