@Mith;

We agreed to disagree on this subject in private and I feel we should now least try honour and to keep to that agreement. We both just have opposing arguments on the same side of the coin. I see no reason why we both should continue with what I believe was just a very small part of the bigger picture here.

Everyone else:

Fine we can keep hammering at the same subject avoiding the 'real' issues here at Xoops.org. For me, the reality is that the WF-Projects teams affairs are more important than some of the issues over here. But when 'these issues' directly affect what happens at WF-Projects, I have to take notice and act on them.

My post on the 'whole' was not about whether it was wrong for Brash to hire someone to make modifications to someones else module and then charge for it. Brash is quite entitled to do what he is doing, it is his 'Intellectual property' and I have no problems with him trying to make money to recover his costs and with the method he is using, good luck to you Brash. I really wish him well on this matter and he has my full support anytime.

@Brash:
Brash please seek legal advice over this matter for the country you live in. As the laws do change to country to country and if I am wrong I will state I am wrong, Simple.

The real, and what I believe more pressing argument of my post was the protection of a developers work, the right for a developer and XOOPS to work commercially side by side in an open source world. This to me is far more stimulating and rewarding subject for Xoops, developers, open source users and the business community as a whole.

Seriously, I see it over and over again within these forums, the real issues which are more important all around are sidelined by petty squabbles and nondescript arguments that benefit no one, either in the short or long term.

Come on, everyone here seems to be focusing on one point in a post that really should have started a healthy debate in all area's of development. The development cycle does not just stop at who will try and be the next Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds or who is ripping off who.

Scott

Quote:

not exactly, i don't see any twisting here.. and i see no violation of the spirit of the GPL.

i don't know how to say this clearer than i already have.
You are free to redistribute it once you have it.. fine.. but if you do that before he has released it publicly you are undermining all the work carried out and then DisRespecting all the other donators and Brash himself.

if you don't donate fine, but you will have to wait longer to get it.. if you break the terms of Brash's agreement of which he says NOT to distribute it before the release date, you will not get any support from him in future neither will you be able to download any future versions before the general release date and will have to wait for it to be released.. so it's upto you.. I just think it's dis respectful to distribute it before that date..

what he hasn't said is you will not be able to get the module at all, he just said you will have to wait longer to get it..

it's the same as me getting a listing of events run by frantic & nukleuz records and godskitchen/sundissential nightclubs months in advance of them going out to press.. even their secret events where they hold events at a secret venue and nobody knows where until a certain date.. i get those sent me way before the date, but i am asked not to tell anybody.. if i did tell people and they found out, i wouldn't get this information from them in future.. it's the same concept just differnt situation..

Quote:
True, we disagree on the interpretation of his points - however, noone has pointed out areas of my quotes from the free software definition and said "you read this part like this, but I read it like that".

Liquid has argued that he is getting restrictions regarding AMS that are not present in News. I have argued that all the freedoms in the definition of free software is also present in AMS. Only access to the program/module is restricted - which is allowed by the GPL - but once you have obtained the program/module, you also have the source code and all the freedom of the GPL to use that source code to whatever you please.
Quote:
Access to support forums and early access is given under some conditions. The conditions are that you do not redistribute it before the public release. You are entitled to redistribute it under the GPL, but the GPL says nothing about the distributor being required to give support so that is something that is given extra and therefore it can be revoked, if you go against the conditions.

Mith -

>He did not, as I have now posted thrice, the GPL allows for anyone to take existing GPL code, modify it and release it for a fee

You and WF seem to be saying two different things, hence my confusion on the matter.

> Now who is twisting words?

Perhaps 'ban' is the wrong term.. loss of access and support to AMS. Not a site wide ban. We in agreement now?

So you do not beleive he is twisting the spirit of the GPL then by taking such a policy?

Also I find this interesting presidence. One usally gets their access removed for doing something wrong. One is entitled to by the licence distro it for free. But if I do so there are going to be negative repercussions. Seems I am the only one who sees a doubble standard/arm twisting here? Also again a violation of the spirit of the GPL?

Also by what you say his 'policy' supercedes the GPL on the level of what is right and wrong. Interesting presidence he is setting for XOOPS I must admit.

m0nty - I dont know what page your reading.. but come to the last page with the rest of us. I dont know anyone, myself included, who has a issue with Mith getting paid, or the fee for AMS per the GPL at this point.

Hi all. This is from a newbie to XOOPS and I don't even care to get into any legal ramifications about this. Not that I don't care, but because I can forsee what will happen, as what happens with any module that is out there public source.

1) Module goes public. Now anyone can download it and use it. With or without support. Depends on how knowledgable you are.

2) Those who have questions about it, how it works, and problems that may arise with it, will post their questions to the boards here or elsewhere, and hopefully someone will answer their question.

3) Some will ask, "Hey, Is there a way to do "this" or include "that" to this module. Someone will find a hack for it, or add code, and post it. Module developed more so. BUT...Not re-released as an updated version of said module, however. Yet those who want this add on or revision now have an updated version made public..so to speak, because of a public post about it and their implementation of how to do it.

I don't have a problem with anyone asking or requiring "donated" money in order to receive services early along with full support. Anyone who thinks of an idea, commissions someone knowledgable enough to implement the changes needed, pays said person to do this has the "right" to do this. This is America, where we live in a "free" society. No "free beer" tho, unless you know the owner of the establishment. Interpreting the GPL is for lawyers, not us. IF someone wants to challenge what is being done, then go through the expense of hiring a lawyer, talk to him/her and see if what is being done is illegal. NONE of us who are not experienced lawyers in this field know for sure.

As far as banning from a site that may have updates, support, guides, whatever... that is the owner of that site's "right" also. NO ONE call tell me who I want to have as members. Legally, I guess if there is a pay service for the entire site or parts of it, and you enter in a "contract", then unless that "contract" is violated, said owner can't do this, but if it's "free", meaning no cost and you haven't entered a contract, then said owner can tell you to take a hike. But as I mentioned above, support will be elsewhere soon. And upgrades will follow.

The bottom line for me as an end user only, while I learn this CMS, is that I KNOW if I download any module, I WILL get SUPPORT somewhere in time, will be able to have questions about it answered, and enjoy the features of it as well as others time, effort, possibly monetary value all for "free". This time "free" meaning I paid nadda.

What has been done is helping the community as a whole. Mostly by making it available a lot sooner, something that will benefit all of us in the long run.

Everyone take a deep breath and

Mike

I have avoided commenting in this thread, mainly because I have a lot of respect for all of the people who have contributed to the thread - from all the different points of view. However, I have to have my say. I'm all for constructive debate, but this is just getting too divisive and is not really helping the cause of supporting and promoting Xoops. I can see that the people involved are not going to find agreement any time soon. Can we please agree to disagree, and take up the arguments somewhere else where the average XOOPS user (who just wants a powerful CMS that works, without the politics involved)doesn't have to be a party to them?

Sorry for not replying chronologically

Quote:
You don't have to pay to have access to the source once you have obtained the module. Your access to the module is restricted, yes, but once you have that, you also have the source code (this is self-evident in PHP, but not in compiled languages, which the GPL was made for, when discussing the technical issues with the license)

With a compiled language, it is not self-evident that the source code is distributed along with the program - but it must be when it is under the GPL.
Where our perceptions differ is in the word "distribution" where you seem to believe (correct me if I am wrong) that because a GPL program is distributed free of charge, derived works will also have to be distributed free of charge. I disagree with that perception, as I see it as when you distribute a GPL program that is derived from another GPL program, you must supply the source code along with it. AMS does that.

Quote:
Just clearing up the history and development of AMS:

AMS started as a custom job on the News module. Brash asked me what it would cost to get me to develop the features he wanted. I named my price and Brash fell off the chair. He thought about it a bit and then asked the community to chip in in return for the planned features. The idea was to raise $250 from the community and then he and his partner would put in $250 themselves. If the $250 was not reached, it would be re-payed and the module would not have been developed

The module got a few extra features along the way and Brash + partner decided to compensate me a bit more so the first release of AMS amounted to an $800 expense.

After the release of AMS, more people donated and a couple of guys approached Brash with specific feature requests that they were willing to pay for. Once again Brash chipped in some additional funds and the payment for the next version made the total amount those $1100 mentioned.

So to be absolutely clear: The only one making money off of this project is ME - and if anyone has problems with me charging for my development time, they should really start living in the real world.

@Rhomal, Brash simply said if you donate to the software, you will get the software before general release to the public.. he asks that you don't distribute it before the public release date.. if you do that he will remove your account and you will no longer be entitled to support by him or be able to receive a copy in future before the public release.. HE IS IN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT

if you undermine his asking, and release it before hand, you have no respect for the work done.. The cost of development originally came out of his own pocket around $1100 as mentioned, he recouped a 1/3 of that cost before he released it.. HE COULD HAVE KEPT THE MODULE FOR HIMSELF, and never released it at all. but he didn't..

what exactly don't you understand abou the concept of releasing software to donators before the public release date? they paid something for it, i think it's fair that they receive it if Brash wants it that way..

i'll state again as you obviously missed the point about it being a private funded module..

Brash paid for the module to be developed because he wanted those specific elements to be included, he also wanted it done quickly. that's where the expense is..

you say if he can't afford it from his own pocket then release it to the ~XOOPS community to develop.. IMO that's the precise reason HE PAID for it in the 1st place, because he wanted those changes and features added and he wanted it doing QUICKLY.. now if he lets AMS be developed by the community is it going to be done as fast?? are you going to develop it?

nobody is stopping anybody taking the module and working on it for their needs or modifying it.. but Brash wants the module developed the waqy he wants it and for that He is paying for it, he is still paying for further development and now other people are donating and the module is progressing, so he is essence sharing the cost of future developing.. He is NOT keeping the money that is paid and putting it in his own pocket, he is paying for development.

you tell me where in the GPL it says he can't do that?

i think i know what your answer is going to be, but you're way out of order and simply do not understand what you are implying..

Quote:


Seriously - do you really need to use such a phrase?

Quote:
He did not, as I have now posted thrice, the GPL allows for anyone to take existing GPL code, modify it and release it for a fee
Quote:Now who is twisting words? By making the module freely available prior to the public launch, you violate the agreement with Brash in regard to support on his website and email notification when new versions are out. Brash is not required to give that and has the right to revoke those privileges to his website as he sees fit. Nobody will be banned.
Quote:
Not possible. He cannot take code derived from GPL code and release it under a more restrictive license.