Hallo,


I know that labels are just a part of the packaging and aren't always as important as the contents but regarding one of the issues in this thread I'd just like to say:

Catz wrote:Quote: IMHO Brash's AMS Scheme has always sounded more like a
sponsorship / priveledged users scheme than either a sales or a donation scheme.
Although I havn't followed the threads about AMS's development too closely, I've not understood why you, Brash, chose to use "donation" instead of "sponsorship". I think this might have reduced the controversy a bit.

Regards,

Alan

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you have two main points you want to make in this discussion:

1. The word "donation" is wrong, when it is required
2. The XOOPS Core should be LGPL licensed and not GPL

I think 1. is more or less out-debated now. Arguments for and against have been brought forward and although we don't agree, we can at least agree to disagree (yes, it's a cliché, but unless there are new arguments - and I don't have any more at this time - I don't think we will achieve anything by repeating ourselves)

Point #2 is different, though, as it has been discussed several times, but as far as I can remember, the conclusion has been each time that it is difficult to accurately estimate the impact on the XOOPS system as a whole (Core, Modules and Themes) if the XOOPS license is changed to LGPL.

It can be compared to the Euro discussions in the EU, where pro-Euro people see the advantages, whereas contra-Euro people see the disadvantages. A deficiency in our discussion is that we are not totally clear on what the advantages and disadvantages are - and how the advantages are compared to the disadvantages.

If we can put together a team, who will investigate this and present a small "report" (listing and commenting advantages and disadvantages and ending up in a conclusion) we will be much better off. Of course there will be a quite uncertain report because it is difficult to judge if the possibility of proprietary modules will mean better quality - or whether it will mean fewer modules... I don't have the resources to compile this report, but will certainly read it with a high degree of interest and support the team in the best way, I can.

I see nothing wrong with the word 'donation'. Local charities have been doing the same for as long as I can remember, selling badges, pens, cakes, whatever and asking donations for them, with a recommended minimum amount. Nothing new there.

As for the licencing issue... I've read many postings about this, but most were just personal opinion. I would also like to see real discussions based on studies undertaken on the subject of GPL versus LGPL, and the pros and cons of each in context of the XOOPS core, modules and themes. That would make for an interesting discussion

Rowd

Brash>>
Quote:

The term Donate is missleading and somewhat more complex, in real terms than has been outlined here. To 'Donate' implies an invitation give an unspecified amount of money or other tender, without any obligation for contractual exchange of goods or services.

This is not the case here.

The only similarity is the clause 'unspecified amount'

There is an implied contractual agreement here, that is 'you can only get the module, if you give some (unspecified) money.

Pure an simple, it's a contract, in the most basic of terms.

Most people expect a donation to be voluntary and not tied contactually to any outcome. If Donation becomes a euphomism for puchase, this is regarded as a marketing ploy called 'soft selling' used to lessen the negative effect of a sale.

To be constructive: and answer Brash's comment above.

I think developers should have every opportunity to 'sell' their products, if they calculate this is the best way to fund their development. But lets not try and 'soft sell' and let's drop the word donation.

I suggest a developer operates a 2 tier release:

1- A purchased product that carries an extra value componant, maybe even an extra feature. The extra value will also include priority product support, Good documentation, access to automatic free updates, derestriction of linkbacks, etc.

2- A free product that is released without any of the above in point 1- It has zero developer support (except maybe through peer users) It carries an obligatory linkback to the developers site. There is no notifications of updates and improvements, etc.

None of this is new stuff and is common in software development, but maybe we should take a fresh look at how to do it within the GPL.

So much analysis about pseudo points of law. I like to keep it simple and go by what the author states in their own words. To me it is about the intended spirit of the document/license/law. That is always quite clear to me and I don't need to analyze the details or look for loopholes or conflicts.

So in this case it is required to pay some money to get on the list that lets me download a file before someone that doesn't pay. pretty clear. I don't have to agree with the structure but that is the intended plan and I would go by it. If I don't like the plan they won't see my money.

Of course I could then let anyone I want download the file I paid money for. But that isn't the intended spirit of the plan isn't it? no matter what part of the license I could find to support my actions.

As for an LGPL vs GPL debate, I disagree that it would be interesting at least for me. To me it would be very boring and not solve a thing since there would be one side and the other with nothing being solved except for more details being introduced to cover all the legal hurdles and loopholes. The lawyers and nitpickers would be happy but it would still not change a thing for me. Does the code work or doesn't it...

Why is it so awful to give something for a donation? I mean, why does it go against the word "donation"?

Corporations donate to a charity dinner and because they do so, they get a table at the dinner and a seven-course meal.

Should they put a $2000 price tag on each plate?

Donations to FOSDEM will get you a tshirt, an o'reilly book and other items depending on the amount donated.

Should they instead say "buy a €25 tshirt or a $50 tshirt, book and dinner and support the event"?

I'm not saying that your perceptions are wrong, just trying to establish a precedence, showing that this is not at all uncommon.

The difference is that the charity dinner does not let in people to eat the left-overs and FOSDEM are not handing out tshirts for free after the event (as far as I know, I may be wrong in the latter case)

It may look a little too much like PHP-Nuke's program of the "club" that gets the most recent versions by becoming a member for $100/year and if you are not a member, you will only get that version when the next version is out. However, in this case you have Brash's promise that when a new version is out, it'll be 4-6 weeks before it is released to the general public. You know that and can plan for that - there is no possibility for Brash to extract every bit of dough from one version before releasing the next by extending the development process, because he has obliged himself to release it to the public within a month or so... which I interpret as 4-6 weeks unless major problems come up in that period.

To be fair, I think the people who post regularly on Xoops.org are already making a donation in one way to the module developers. They ask a lot of questions, but they also report bugs, highlight browser and operating system incompatibilities, point out when there are missing buttons, graphics, files or folders (I've experienced all of those). I've even seen cases where the more PHP savvy will dig into the source code, locate the problem, then post a solution in the forum.

Licensing issues aside, I thought this was the underpinning idea of open-source development. All this evaluation work would need to be paid for by a commercial software company that's charging for it's product. That's why, although you pay for Photoshop, you can be 99% certain that everything will work.

I personally don't mind paying for (or 'donating') to be able to use a module as long as it is finished. I would be less inclined to do so if I was still required to donate my time to troubleshoot it on the developer's behalf. I would hope my money would be used to develop the next version, not fix the existing one.

The only other problem I see is, if you're required to donate to get it, how do you know a module is any good?. AMS has a track record and appears to be very well supported. You can see a user demo on the developer's site, but how do you know that the admin controls will provide the features you need?.

I think it would be less of an issue if module developers raised funds by requesting a donation in return for subscription to a support forum. If I installed AMS and really liked it, I would pay a small amount each year for access to support.

Quote:

Ahh yes, good point.

Yes given that most people here actually develop their modules in their spare time and actually earn a living doing something else, it's no wonder that most projects either don't make it off the starting block, end up being never ending beta's or end up getting placed on that back shelf.

My whole point is to allow those who wish to charge for their work and give their source code the protection that it should have and not be tied to someone else code or let people continue giving their modules as open source.

So ask yourself this, does it work?