1
ManXP
Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/8 16:11

  • ManXP

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 231

  • Since: 2003/8/14


I would like to know, can i sell various addons for XOOPS (such as language packs, themes, etc) without violating licence? Thank you.

2
intel352
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/8 17:24

  • intel352

  • Module Developer

  • Posts: 824

  • Since: 2003/11/23


i believe you *can* sell, but since it depends on xoops, it likely must be licensed as gnu/gpl

that's my understanding. i've heard people say that for gnu/gpl, you can't charge for the product itself, but you can charge for transferring the file (bandwidth), support, etc

3
Herko
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/8 17:31

  • Herko

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4238

  • Since: 2002/2/4 1


You can sell packaging and distribution, but you cant limit the use and distribution of what you're selling to those who you sell it to. So if you have modules and themes you're selling to me at a reasonable price, I am free to offer them to the world for free.

Herko

4
ManXP
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/8 17:38

  • ManXP

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 231

  • Since: 2003/8/14


Thank you Herko, it was helpfull.

5
tom
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/8 22:50

  • tom

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 1359

  • Since: 2002/9/21


Are you looking at selling themes and modules?

If so what types?

6
ManXP
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/9 7:31

  • ManXP

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 231

  • Since: 2003/8/14


Well, i have one theme (ProjectBeta-White) designed by me (and thousands of my website visitors really liked it), but now i'm creating new website with XOOPS and there will be new theme.

Also i am FIRST person which started using XOOPS in Lithuania a lot of timer ago and i made i promotion for XOOPS in my country, so i translated XOOPS into lithuanian and have lithuanian language pack.

Now i'm creating XOOPS lithuanian community.

7
riaanvdb
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/9 15:48

  • riaanvdb

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 114

  • Since: 2004/1/29


Quote:

Herko Coomans wrote:
So if you have modules and themes you're selling to me at a reasonable price, I am free to offer them to the world for free.

Hi Herko, I am not sure if this is accurate, but I could be wrong, (we will need a smarter legal type I am just a programmer ) the GPL/GNU lisence makes provission that you may distribute a add-on to a GPL/GNU product seperately and charge for it and change the licensing if it does not include GPL/GNU code. As long a you do not ship it with the GPL/GNU product. If the person then redistibutes the module and it is not GPL/GNU there might be a licensing infringement.

The .net nuke guys are going through this as well because they have a lot of developers charging for modules.

I would like to see all modules in XOOPS stay GPL/GNU and grow the community. If you are using another module someone developed and it is helping you make money why do you want to charge for a module that could potentially bring more customers to the community and in so doing more developers and more modules?

My 2 cents
Grotmis
Riaan

8
Mithrandir
Re: Addons for sale

GNU/GPL is a license for making Free Software, free as in free to use.

GNU/GPL licensed products may not be sold with limits to what the buyer can do with the code. It may not be delivered without the original credits and it may not be delievered without access to the source code. Also, you cannot restrict the buyer's right to modify the code to his liking.

You can package and sell XOOPS for $500 a pop if you want, but you cannot prevent your buyers from distributing the source code for free. Likewise with modules or themes for XOOPS.

However nice it would be to have modules, themes etc. free of charge, developing them is not free of charge and those costs must be covered somehow.

Not frowning on people charging for modules etc. will not be harmful, I think. If developers charge for the time they spend on developing a module, we may see more modules available as there is more incentive to develop one. Currently, I need a customer paying for a module in order for me to be able to allocate time for it (apart from my personal projects) - which means that some modules, I *could* make, I won't make, because it is spending my time without me getting anything in return apart from recognition. Recognition is nice, but it does not pay my bills.

Add: You are right, however, that modules cannot be released with a more restrictive than the GNU/GPL license because it is a part of a larger GNU/GPL licensed system.

9
intel352
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/9 16:46

  • intel352

  • Module Developer

  • Posts: 824

  • Since: 2003/11/23


riaanvdb seemed pretty accurate in saying that if the addon doesn't include gnu/gpl code, then it doesn't have to be licensed as gnu/gpl

it may depend on the system, but as long as it's own code is separate and pure of gnu/gpl code, then from what i have seen, it can be re-licensed


i know many of the nuke developers that charge for their modules, and restricting the license, are also making sure that their scripts do not include gnu code. they often have to recreate the wheel on some functions, but it's their code straight-up

where i would think the line would get muddled, is in using the db abstraction layer provided with the CMS, i wonder if that is considered to be using gnu/gpl code and thus requiring that the module be gnu/gpl as well.

php itself is gnu/gpl, isn't it? many from-scratch restricted license applications are made using php, and using php functions, so following that model, i would think that using a function provided by the external shell doesn't require a gnu/gpl license, and as such, modules *can* be developed with a restricted license. they just can't copy/duplicate code from the XOOPS core, i guess.


dunno, i'm no authority, but looking at real-world examples, i don't see how a module would be required to be gnu/gpl, if it follows proper guidelines


what do you guys think?

10
Herko
Re: Addons for sale
  • 2004/6/9 16:59

  • Herko

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4238

  • Since: 2002/2/4 1


Quote:
The GNU General Public License
(GPL)

Summary

The GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

In effect, the GPL is a copyright patent that guarantees that the souce code of a software package remains public property over time. The results of this license create a scenario where you have the legal freedom to copy, distribute and/or modify the 'said' software in accordance with your personal or business computing needs. What you cannot do is remove the General Public License from the software, in effect giving everyone else the same freedom to copy, distribute and/or modify the software source code. Free software is not necessarily without cost, and you are also free to charge for distribution of GPL software and / or the inclusion of a warranty or support service with, or without, modifying the software source code yourself. Hence, you cannot sell GPL software, but you can charge a fee for support, warranty, distribution, consultation, dvd-burning, etc.

So, what is the GPL? The GPL is a software patent that, in effect, guarantees public freedom to copy, distribute and/or modify the software with, or without charging a fee subsequent to the clause that removal of the GPL from the said software entails a violation of the patent agreement inherent to the GPL license itself.

(This text is taken from Novell Forge's news pages.)

There's a fine and delicate distinction between modules being 'part of the whole application' and not being part of that whole. This is a very important distiction, because it tells us which modules share the XOOPS core license, and which don't.

The comparison with PHP is a nice example. XOOPS is a PHP application, not part of the PHP application, thus, it isn't obliged to use the license PHP is released under. Use the same comparison with XOOPS modules, and it's easy to see that many are part of the whole application, as they share processes, the module is useless without the core. Thus, they are considered 'part of the whole application' and are by default released under the GNU General Public License 2.0 or an even less restrictive one.

The nuance in this is the determination of whether a module shares the processes of the XOOPS core. Many modules use user authentication, database abstraction etc., and are thus useless without the layer the XOOPS core provides. Not all modules do this however. Some modules (mainly ported apps) have codes that deal with these processes independantly, and can be used without the XOOPS core. They are not bound by the same license as XOOPS is.

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

Login

Username:
Password:

Lost Password? Register now!

Who's Online

53 user(s) are online (26 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 53


more...

Donat-O-Meter

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

Latest GitHub Commits