Quote:

I would say yes.

------------------------------------------

@ aainc:

XOOPSClub
Dear User:
Welcome to the XOOPS Club! This Club has been created for the serious XOOPS users that want to have some extra benefits on the community and at the same time help the future development of this great 00 Content Management System.

are you joking, don't hold your breath waiting for members

Quote:

In my non-legal opinion, that is correct.

And really that is the heart of the matter, I believe. This fact means that the module is still free in the senses that the GPL protects. Companies build whole businesses around distributing and supporting GPL software, by charging for the distribution and the support.

I find the pathological resistence of many people to the idea that money and open source can mix to be simply irrational. Bill Gates may be out to lunch when he tries to suggest that open source software advocates are all communists, but his assertion would literally be true if everyone in open source took the position that trying to build businesses around GPL products and charging for distribution was "twisting the spirit of the GPL"

And Creative Commons is about copyright issues, not about software licensing. There are myriad complications introduced when you're talking about IP related to software, which aren't there when you're talking about IP related to music or text, and aren't addressed in the CC licenses. But I guess you could try and use CC on software products. It would probably not matter much because unless someone took your code and put into a product that they were selling, and you decided to sue them, this is all a matter of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.

Speaking of which, haven't we all had this dicussion (several times) before?

Commissioned Modules:
https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=21663

Paid XOOPS Staff:
https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29824

Reselling XOOPS:
https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29642

XOOPS and money (started as paying for theme development):
https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16996

Future Licensing of XOOPS:
https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26005

I think I'll go write a FAQ entry now.

--Julian

Quote:

What is sad or twisted about this when the GPL license you are referring too actually encourages it (this is a serious question)? If anything is twisted it is the interpretation that any software released under the GPL should automatically mean free of charge. The fact you have this mis perception of the GPL Rhomal is nobodies fault but your own.

Quote:

Via the terms of the GPL you would be fully in your rights to do this (and is exactly the point Catz was trying to make). But ask yourself, what would this really achieve?

As for yourself your account on my site would be deleted, which would nullify all privileges granted to you as a contributing member. This meaning regardless of any contributions you make you would never again get support from myself on AMS, or get access to get early versions.

On the community scale, what do you really hope to gain by undermining a module that is now become quite popular? If you would seriously jeopardies the future development of a module that is used by thousands to satisfy your own misconceived interpretation of a software license, then you are seriously one of the most selfish, self involved, self righteous people I'd ever come across.

I also find the argument that I am just asking the community to fund my own needs to be ridiculous. If this were so, then why has there been 3000 downloads of AMS 2.2 in 2 months, why have there been over 50 separate donations made to support AMS, and why indeed do you use AMS on your own site Rhomal!?! I have been an active XOOPS community member for a few years, and although I personally am not a coder I am trying to better XOOPS for the community by leading a module who's development quite simply costs money. Who is to foot this bill Rhomal? Catz is the only one who has actually tried to provide an alternative funding model for AMS, but unfortunately it is not one I can afford time-wise or financially. AMS is quite simply a module by the community, for the community (not one of the major new features in AMS 2.4 was my idea, even though I funded one third of it from my own back pocket), and for some reason you can't see this. I just happen to be the person who initiated it and is leading the project. I do my very best to conduct myself in a professional, friendly and trustworthy manner, and if you had been around longer than a few months you might be able to see this.

My motives are simply to try and lead a module project in the hope that the the entire XOOPS community can get some use out of. I do not force, or even ask those who do not want to use AMS, or do not agree with the paying money for software idea to contribute anything. I am only asking those who use AMS that CAN afford to contribute to do so. I am also NOT denying access to AMS to those who cannot afford, or choose not to contribute to AMS. In essence I am giving the XOOPS community choice. From where I sit it seems you would be quite prepared to undermine all this, and bring development on AMS to a halt simply to satisfy your own notion of what XOOPS should be despite the repercussions this would have on everyone using AMS and who are wanting to support it. A viewpoint that is undeniably selfish and self self serving. From this you have to ask who is really contributing to the XOOPS community?

Sorry. Did I miss something here? The original post didn't mention AMS and I had to go find out what this was to understand the remaining posts.
Are we even sure the the original post is talking about this module or does he/she have a complaint about omething else?

Did he/she find XOOPS on the www somewhere and was asked to 'donate' fo download it?

Or did I miss an earlier post that references this one?
Confused...again.

Hey pfaulkne,

This news post regarding the donator release of AMS seems to have (again) sparked this thread, as well as as this one.

Quote:
AFAIK, the Creative Commons License forbids use of the software for commercial purposes.

Quote:
Of course, this would speed up answering questions like "Can I use XOOPS for my company website?", because the answer is "No". In fact, the Creative Commons license statement shown at the foot of Xoops.org is thoroughly confusing. Why is it there?

I too think that the election results were very predictable.
I DO NOT, however, think that the election was meant as a "'lets inflate our own ego's' and show how wonderful we are" affair.
I think that the election turned out the way it did because the common XOOPS user is unfamiliar with what's going on in the XOOPS world. They voted for people who they knew of, for whatever reason, from thehttps://xoops.org web site.
I, personally, didn't vote in the election because I've been using XOOPS for far too short a time and have no clue about who's who in the XOOPS world.

I have donated to the XOOPS project because I believe that it is quite worthwhile. I have donated to several other GPL and non-GPL projects as well. I have even "donated" to Microsoft by buying their software instead of pirating it.
Whether you "personally have given a lot of [your] free time because [you] believed in XOOPS [...and...] spent many many hours unpaid to give something back to the community" is moot and has nothing to do with whether XOOPS should or should not legally be under the GPL.

Your comments on what the GPL is are simply misinformed.
Your misunderstanding seems to be with the issue of selling GPL software or software that contains GPL code.
Please see Apple's OSX (using Apple's own public domain Darwin code, itself based on other public domain software) or Redhat, SuSE, et cetra, LINUX (using the LINUX kernel) as examples.

The GPL DOES NOT state that you cannot charge for a download of XOOPS or for XOOPS on a CD.

It DOES NOT state that you cannot charge for GPL software.

It DOES NOT state that you cannot charge for setting up a web site which happens to use XOOPS.

According to the GPL you may charge for software. It is permissable to charge for downloading GPL-covered software as long as that fee covers source and binaries that are available not only electronically but also by mail-order.
A GPL software developer may charge someone for a published version of GPL software on CD or any other media. A developer may charge for support, and even for custom application development using GPL source code.

What the GPL DOES state is that any changes you make to GPL code becomes available to anyone who purchases the modified product, and that they may, in turn, choose to distribute the product for free.

If you are going to make comments regarding legality, like the ones you did in your post, please be very sure of their accuracy.
Less importantly, please also don't make such comments lightly and anonymously.

> Via the terms of the GPL you would be fully in your rights to do this (and is exactly the point Catz was trying to make). But ask yourself, what would this really achieve?

> As for yourself your account on my site would be deleted, which would nullify all privileges granted to you as a contributing member. This meaning regardless of any contributions you make you would never again get support from myself on AMS, or get access to get early versions.

*insert screching of breaks sound here*

wait a min.. you release something under the GPL, charging a fee for such under it (which lets just say you are entitled to do for the sake of this dicussion). But when the GPL does not fit your needs its ok to now throw it out the window and punish per se people who use the GPL themselves? Which we all established they are allowed under the licence you released it under free to do I might add.

I seems to me your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You are debating fairly hard that under the GPL its fine for you to require this fee pre-public release. But when someone chooses to use said licence in a manor fitting with it your going to ban them from your site and throw a tirade?

In effect your saying "I want to use and enforce the rights of the GPL.. until someone uses it in a way I dont like.." Am I the only one who sees a doubble standard with this?

> On the community scale, what do you really hope to gain by undermining a module that is now become quite popular?

Undermine? How so? I think you mean deprive you of income.

> If you would seriously jeopardies the future development of a module that is used by thousands to satisfy your own misconceived interpretation of a software license, then you are seriously one of the most selfish, self involved, self righteous people I'd ever come across.

I am willing to accept from what I have read in this thread you are more or less entitled to charge this fee. I think its against the spirit of open source but thats another topic.

However, posting it on my or anyone elses site will not stop or cripple development of it. Perhaps stop YOU from doing such but certainly someone else will pick it up and carry it forward with or without you.

Something I discovered in my travels is when your 'baby' (be it a web site, business, software, etc) becomes bigger then you, you become a expendable asset in the equasion for good or ill.

> I also find the argument that I am just asking the community to fund my own needs to be ridiculous.

Fund it? No. Reimburst you for this perceived cost? Yes. I get the impression, you seem to think because you paid out some money for this you should be reimbust by the community to some degree. IMO if you didn't you would have released it public and simply do what many other module devs do, put a link in it to your paypal or website for (real) donations.

> If this were so, then why has there been 3000 downloads of AMS 2.2 in 2 months, why have there been over 50 separate donations made to support AMS, and why indeed do you use AMS on your own site Rhomal!?!

Because you released it for free to start? Which I compliment you. That was a very good business decesion. Wet the appitiate then when you have a decent install base they will be more apt to give you your 'donation'. Same reason when M&M/Mars or Coke develop a new drink or candy they hire thousands of ppl to go to all major cities and stand on the corner and give away free samples. Of course they are going to create a buzz/hook some people but by then they have to go to the store and buy it. Again, on a business level I compliment you.

As for myself using it, I admit I fell for the buzz and I thought it was better then the standard news module at first. While its good, to be honest I dont consider it great. In fact if you have a script to go from AMS back to news i'd be happy to do so. For me its no better or worse then the news module. Though the news module has a few quirks I perfer. Nothing against AMS, its just for my needs it does not do much for me the news module did not. Sadly I discovered this after the fact.

> I have been an active XOOPS community member for a few years, and although I personally am not a coder I am trying to better XOOPS for the community by leading a module who's development quite simply costs money. Who is to foot this bill Rhomal?

I run the most popular Neverwinter Nights 2 news/community site. Who foots MY monthy broadband bill? Who pays me for the hours per day I put into the site? Who reimbursts me when I upgrade the hardware for the server or replace a failed device?

Yet do you see me requiring people to pay for my service? Do you even see a link for donations on my page? Why? Becasue I -do- do it for the community. I suck it up and take the hit for the team and frankly I dont cry about it. If you cant afford to do it then I would kindly suggest you hand it to someone who does have the time, resources and such.

> Catz is the only one who has actually tried to provide an alternative funding model for AMS, but unfortunately it is not one I can afford time-wise or financially. *snip chest pounding*

I suggested a shareware model. That IMO is quite viable. A free ver that has a few features removed and a pay for all feature version.

Or do what many others do, in the module put a link to your paypal or other donation method. Seems to work for them or they prob would have stopped doing so awhile ago. *shrugs*

My 2 coppers

Quote:
In order to be crystal clean I'll comment it max shortly. This text

$modversion['license'] = "GPL see LICENSE";

in xoops_version of AMS is lie?!

Or you haven't good thinking before publishing warning?
I have nothing against you personally, and against selected financial model of AMS-development (Mith want money instead of Name and Honor - well, why not?! You want spent money on your own toys - why not?! it's your money and your toys... Somebody wants help you with small piece of money and get "hot" module - why not?! It's freedom of choice)
But you actons (if they will be done) - break freedom and (indirectly) violates GPL (which is your licencing solution) mandatory requirement - "freedom of re-distribution". You action will be targeted on restricting user's freedom - and I'll be first, who sells you FSF.

Quote:
You made commmon mistake. CC isn't one licence, it's a serie of licences
And except SA-NC (share alike - noncommercial) you can find aslo pure SA.
They all have common roots (attribution of original author, permanent distribution conditions) but differ in area of commercial usage