xoops forums

wishcraft

Module Developer
Posted on: 2010/6/23 5:55
wishcraft
wishcraft (Show more)
Module Developer
Posts: 3711
Since: 2007/5/18
#91

Re: What a ranker!

Quote:
From: mamba
To: ptomter; lsd25
Subject: GPL and Your modules
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:36:27 -0400
Has the GPL issue been resolved?

Please understand that we cannot support XOOPS modules that violate GPL.

Please let me know ASAP.

Michael


First mistake none of the modules are covered by GNU by law they can be in any format or any licence this applies to the core only with it licensing as they are adaptable to other platforms like reproducable on Joomla.

Quote:
From: Simon Roberts [mailto:lsd25]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:48
To: mamba; ptomter
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
All of chronolabs modules on www.chronolabs.org.au will remain GPL..

The modules on www.defense.io are not part essentially of chronolabs core business, they are per the commerical paid modules category on www.xoops.org repository.


Quote:
From: mamba
To: lsd25; ptomter
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:47:48 -0400
And the paid modules are what I am talking about.

As I said before, by not giving your customers the code, or at least letting them know where they can download the module code, you're in violation of GPL with your paid modules!

Please read this FAQ on Drupal,

http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7

especially questions 7, 8, 9

which is very clear about what you can and cannot do with modules based on Drupal (and the same applies for XOOPS).

Bottom line - if you distribute a XOOPS module, regardless if it's paid or not, you have to provide (or offer to download) its source code, so the user (or client, if it's paid) is able to modify the code if he desires that!

Otherwise you're violating the GPL, which then makes the right that we as XOOPS give you to create/modify XOOPS code and to make derivative work based on XOOPS (i.e. modules) invalid and thus illegal to distribute your work. For example, Instant-Zero, when they were selling their modules, they included the source code.

Again, please read this FAQ on Drupal,

http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7

especially questions 7, 8, 9, which explain very well what I'm talking about.

Please let me know if this violation has been resolved, or if you plan to resolve it and by when.

Michael



This is completely incorrect as checked with Open Source specalist lawyers. Also quoting a sperate project that is incorrect in it statment that modules are only covered under the core licencing.

Quote:
From: Simon Roberts [mailto:lsd25]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:52
To: mambaX7; ptomter
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
I am sorry mamba - commerical code as per www.whmcs.com licensing and hundreds of millions of other titles are compiled there are no terms on the xoops.org site that defines this and anyway we use a licensing code system which requires a simple removal if the code is distributed.

Unfortunately you do not speak on behalf of the XOOPS Council you are actin on your own accord. And having you define terms to me after i was the only one developing xoops from 2004 - 2005 when the project collapsed I really thought you could see you need at least some modules.

Unfortunately mamba you can goto the drupal project if you like there terms better.


Of course mamba is a fish without water he needs to start exercise the law of michael beck not internation software law and bans people for being pointed out wrong.

Quote:
From: mamba
To: lsd25; ptomter
CC: runeher; trabis; infomax
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:10:12 -0400
Simon,

I am not interested in arguing as these are not my rules!

If you develop a stand alone system, you can do whatever YOU want - you can encrypt your modules like WHMCS does, and you have every right to do it.

But this is GPL, and the rules are very clear there. These are not my rules, and it doesn't matter if this is XOOPS, Joomla, or Drupal - the GPL license has the same rules for everybody. Drupal did a very good job explaining them and you need to follow it, or you're violating GPL. And we cannot promote modules on XOOPS that are violating GPL.

Simon, sorry, there is no way around it.

Please get a lawyer who understands GPL and can advise you on these issues and can make sure that you're not violating GPL.

Michael


Yeah they are your rules they aren't internation software law in the slightest. Well change the license to BSD then we can even have hardware with XOOPS running.

Quote:
From: Simon Roberts [mailto:lsd25]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:19
To: mambaX7; ptomter; Ricardo Costa; D. J.; xoops-doc-team; sb-2212
Subject: FW: GPL and Your modules

Well you just did email a lawyer..

My business partners frilogg are a large group of Norwegian lawyers that fund web design. IonCube is a standard PHP compiler not an encryptor, it is performance boost for the code being an a machine language ever since i was a young boy playing Freeware GPL and GNU titles like Alley Cat.. I new the difference between the commerical code DOS 3.1 and Alley cat.. Here let me draw a quick diagram for you.

Freeware = GPL & GNU
Commerical Module = Independent Commercial License.

Since XOOPS Supports commerical code .. ie: https://xoops.org/modules/repository/viewcat.php?cid=118

You hit the flaming option mamba like a many of the poeple i met at the old man home in brisbane where poeple like you leave programmers like me on the street fending for financials, now who suggested to start flaming me all of a sudden without any introduction like it was some homeless bum and a bottle of rum..

Later,


As a business partner I don't mean in sales I am just authoring the software for them, the fact you are emailing me directly about this issue in your head you have made up and probably need to have your relapse check by a shrink may be sufficent knowledge.

Quote:
From: mamba
To: lsd25; ptomter; trabis; infomax; bare1runehauge
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:41:47 -0400
Simon,

the GPL is very clear about "derivative work".

A XOOPS Module is "derivative work" of XOOPS which itself is GPL.

And everybody has to follow the GPL. No exceptions.

And we cannot approve any exceptions, because we would violate GPL ourselves.

Please read the FAQ here

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html

and feel free to contact http://www.fsf.org/ or the Software Freedom Law Center:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

If they agree to your reasoning, then I don't have any problems.

Reg. IonCube, of course you can use it in your modules that you distribute. But you need to provide the user/client a link where they can download the source code. This will ensure that you're not violating GPL.

Please note: I am just trying to help you so you are NOT in violation of GPL.

So there is no need to argue with me or the Council.

Please provide us with an email from FSF stating that they are OK with the way you're selling your modules, and then everything is OK.

Michael


Once again at this point you seem a bit ludicrious. Mamba continues to spam this stuff for a few more messages to a legal team that can at this point from his accusation sue XOOPS LLC out of extences cause they are made up none factual claims about GNU..

And you know kids, this email was what start the mamba -- wishcraft bashing like he does when he doesn't get his way like a 2 year old.

edited by ghia: Do not post email addresses of other people!
Resized Image
www.ohloh.net/accounts/226400

Follow, Like & Read:-

twitter.com/SimonXaies
github.com/Chronolabs-Cooperative
facebook.com/SimonSXaies

Mamba

Moderator
Posted on: 2010/6/23 6:24
Mamba
Mamba (Show more)
Moderator
Posts: 10991
Since: 2004/4/23
#92

Re: What a ranker!

Quote:
This is completely incorrect as checked with Open Source specalist lawyers. Also quoting a sperate project that is incorrect in it statment that modules are only covered under the core licencing.

Simon, could you show us a copy of that statement from your lawyer? I would love to see it, so we can ask the http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ to contact your lawyers and clarify it once and for all.

In the meantime please study the responses from FSF lawyer related to GPL issue impacting Joomla and SimpleMachines. Based on the discussion, SimpleMachines recognized that code linked to Joomla code that is GPL has to be GPL as well, and therefore they removed the bridge to Joomla.

Again, I am not interested in arguing with you. Let your lawyers talk to the lawyers from http://www.softwarefreedom.org/, and hopefully they will come to a clear answer.

In the meantime, we will follow what other GPL-based CMS-projects (such as Joomla, Drupal, WordPress) stated about modules and plug-ins that are working with their systems. All of them stated that they have to be GPL-based as well.
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs

ghia

Community Support Member
Posted on: 2010/6/23 8:20
ghia
ghia (Show more)
Community Support Member
Posts: 4954
Since: 2008/7/3 1
#93

Re: What a ranker!

Wishcraft, I think you are trying to blur some concepts.
GPL is not the same as Open Source. Open Source comes with a varity of licenses, which may be looser or more severe then GPL. If we talk here about Open Source, we mean always the GPL.
Our commercial modules is not commercial code, as eg issued by MS.

Therefore I will repeat some definitions.
-1- XOOPS is GPL (and we have no right to change that for all published versions or intentions to change that for future versions)
-2- For the reason that modules tightly integrate to XOOPS and can not be used standalone, they are an integral part of XOOPS and must by consequence be GPL also.
-3- With 'commercial modules' we mean the modules that are not distributed gratis, but are sold. By rule 2 they have to be GPL also. Selling or gratis does not change the facts of what a module is, and thus also not the license.
-4- If you want to bring out modules with another license, then you are in violation of the GPL (and we would have grounds to sue you).
In no way we will promote such modules on our website.

You find relevant pointers in my earlier post about this matter.

The choice is up to you, if you want to comply with your commercial modules to the GPL or not. If not, you have to face the consequences, which are in the first place, removal of the pointers on XOOPS.org to these kinds of modules.

par14h

Just popping in
Posted on: 2010/7/7 3:04
par14h
par14h (Show more)
Just popping in
Posts: 41
Since: 2010/2/24
#94

Re: What a ranker!

Okay, now I'm worried. My neighborhood site is up for a month now, and I"m finally getting neighbors to register. Now I find this thread? What's the fate of Xoops? Do I have reason to be concerned and start studying the systems that I ranked as the Runners-up to Xoops for fear and preperation of Xoops falling flat? Or can I trust that the source of whatever drama all this stemmed from is resolved and Xoops is back on track to being the freaking awesome CMS I hold every faith it will be?

For the record, I find version 2.4.4 to be a darn good platform, where it's only shortcomings are in the fact that people who are less familiar with the system (or the internet) ie, non-geeks, have a hard time navigating the system between the modules. Beyond that, I thank the core dev teamfor a great CMS.

par14h

cadelite

Just popping in
Posted on: 2010/7/7 4:12
cadelite
cadelite (Show more)
Just popping in
Posts: 86
Since: 2008/1/15
#95

Re: What a ranker!

Put it simple.

For paid or commerical modules, the user of the module is required to pay a certain amount/fee (either monthly, yearly or in a lump sum) to the module author for the use of module. In return, the module author grants a right to the user to use the module in his/her XOOPS module. In the same time, under GPL, the module author must give the source code of the paid or commerical module to the user for him/her to modify it in case the module has problems or the user wants to adapt it to other purpose.

However, if the paid or commerical module is completely independent. It means that it can run without the installation of XOOPS or other CMS. Then, it may follow its own licence and may choose not to give the source code of the module to the user even though the user has paid the author an amount as consideration.

However, back to reality, if the author of a commerical or paid module DOES prohibit the user (after he/she paid a fee/amount) from having the source code of the module and from modifying, editing or releasing the source code:

(1) What will XOOPS do? What will other authority do?
(2) What loss (economic, social or legal loss) to the author?
(3) What penalty/compensation will the author suffer from?

If there is no harm or loss to the author of these paid or commerical modules, the user of these paid or commerical modules may not be affected. However, if (1) - (3) is possible, the user of the these commerical or paid modules will be affected and may be prohibited from continuing to use these modules in their XOOPS site.

All the above are my opinion and understanding. If anything above is incorrect, please correct it. Thanks!

Mamba

Moderator
Posted on: 2010/7/7 4:25
Mamba
Mamba (Show more)
Moderator
Posts: 10991
Since: 2004/4/23
#96

Re: What a ranker!

Quote:
Okay, now I'm worried

No need to worry

The development goes forward, XOOPS 2.4.5 should be released early next week, and next versions will follow after that.

Quote:
For the record, I find version 2.4.4 to be a darn good platform

It is, and XOOPS is getting better.
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs

Mamba

Moderator
Posted on: 2010/7/7 4:34
Mamba
Mamba (Show more)
Moderator
Posts: 10991
Since: 2004/4/23
#97

Re: GPL for Commercial modules

Quote:
Put it simple.

For paid or commerical modules, the user of the module is required to pay a certain amount/fee (either monthly, yearly or in a lump sum) to the module author for the use of module.

Please follow response in this thread
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs