Chainsaw wrote:
I think what Liquid highlighted is very valuable and insightful. Don't let this debate come down to grubby mud slinging or finger pointing. And pleaaaase.. don't even start the "he did it first" cos you're all much more older than that I hope.

If I may make a simple suggestion to Brash. Just call it a Beta testing club and members of the BETA club get first bash at BETA testing the module before public release for public scrutiny.

I seriously don't understand why everyone is getting SO UPSET about this.

If I look at the end result they are the same.

a. group develop module - release it to the public for testing (ie release candidate) then it become public final version. Public donation welcomed.

b. Brash commissioned someone to develop module - ask for public donation to spread cost. Decided to release module to donators for a short period before releasing to public as final version. All donations welcomed.


If Brash had kept quiet about it and just emailed the files to his donators, none of you would be making a big fuss about this. Eventually a public copy is still made available at the end.

Hey guess what? I've just donated money last week for someone to enhance a module for me. I'm using it on a website that is about to go live before the end of this month. This module does exactly what another module do. But the module developer wanted to further tweak the files before releasing it to the public. I get to use it first because of my donation (plus I need it urgently). Any problem with that?

Rhomal wrote:
I agree the post by wfsections is VERY informative. I for one do agree under the rights conditions GPL does not mean free, free. (I was convinced several posts ago but does not hurt to re-state my position)

But the main topic of this is AMS, as per the post above:

>I will 100% agree with them on this issue and they are 100% correct. But this is as far as I will agree with them regarding this issue and there is one major outlining part that been has forgotten regarding AMS, the license that AMS uses is now invalid. I will explain. If we actually look at the history of AMS, we will see that is a derivate of another work 'News Module' (Which was originally a port for another CMS). As I am aware and I might be incorrect here, neither Brash or Mithirander are the creators, nor the original developers here. If this is the case, the news module is freely available to download and modify, edit and redistribute as long as NO FURTHER RESTRICTIONS are placed in the FREEDOMS of it use to edit, modify or distribute it by another person.

If I am reading this and the rest of the post on the matter correctly, brash is in violation of the orginial licence of the module?

Not only in spirit but legally it seems. Be interesting to see how brash rationilizes this. As this post mostly nullifies most everything he has said up to this point.

Oh and as for these points:

>Yep, that's it. I wonder which color Porsche I'll drive to work tomorrow, so many choices with all the money I'm racking in from all those $10 donations. Bugger it, I think I'll buy a helicopter as I'm sick of sitting in traffic. Man it's GOOD to be sitting in a pile of money like this....

Seth able.. LORD. He racked in several hundred thousands of dollars on his shareware software. Do I imply or think your going to even get close to that? No. (In fact i'd be surprised if you make more then a few hundred) But the point is its certainly possible unlike how you seem to imply its not.

> Sorry for the sarcasm, but if you had actually bothered to research the history of AMS at all...

Apparently from wfsections post I am not the only one who needs a refresher on the history of where AMS came from or what licence it uses.

> But if you can tell me that hosting your site has cost $1100USD in the last 6 months then I really think that argument is null.

Internet service x 6 months = ~$300.
Server cost = ~$900. (parts/built it myself/upgrades)
Time = my normal fee is $40./hr (average) when I contract myself out. I put in, on a consertive amount 2 hrs/day into the site. Thats $80./day x 30 x 6.

You do the math.

Again if you cant afford it or have the skills to do it yourself hand it over to the community. The excuses you give are not worthy to reply to directly. All I see is a guy grasping at reasons which are, at best, weak IMO.

My 2 coppers

rowdie wrote:
The license states that if the derivative work is released, it should be released under the same or a lesser license. AMS, when it was released either to the donators or later to the XOOPS community, was released under the GPL license so that argument is invalid. There were no restrictions placed on the module once released, so that quoted bit of the license doesn't apply.

There is no obligation to release a module. AMS is a privately developed work that was released. Stop complaining about it and just get on with helping the community in whatever manner you can, in the true Open Source spirit. I'm tired of reading rants.

Rowd

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere