FB did it again

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:59 am

FB has posted a news article that NSN is violating the GPL rules by providing add-ons that use a different license.

After reading the FAQ of GPL i noticed that add-ons for puke will always be a "borderline case"
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

If he doesn't like that and says everything must be freeware then raven, chatserv, you, me, fb and everyone else has todo the following:

- No commercial license and payment (bye bye club)
- All your code must be GPL (including themes)

So actualy sentinel must be GPL as well.
And doesn't this mean FB needs all our code to get PHP-Nuke a secure and stable system where he can create bugs in ?

You like that idea ?

I don't so CPG-Nuke comes with a GPL note as mentioned here.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

Support bob, drop fb !!!

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

And, of course, he deleted all the comemnts(turned them off actually) when he saw it was a losing battle - we use facts. I have contacted Richard Stallman to get his opinion. I will post it when/if he responds. We can always write our own routines in our scripts to avoid using any of FB's stolen code from Thatware and NSN and others.

Client Joined: Jan 29, 2004 Posts: 624

Besides, nuke itself never really accorded with the GNU licensing according to debian linux legal opinions. Hiya, djmaze, nice seeing you here Smile

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:07 pm

Hiya southern Very Happy

Yeah nuke was before version 6.5 not GPL itself while it should have been since Thatware is GPL.
So in my opinion nuke must always been GPL and since the old versions are still available he can be sued for that.

If someone needs a copy of the comments which FB deleted, i have them:
http://www.cpgnuke.com/downloads/FBvsBob.htm without adds ofcourse Very Happy

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:25 pm

My my... in your opinion is there any requirement in view of this that a non-commercial nuke site must display a copyright notice and link to phpnuke.org which is a commercial site? btw I located my reference for the debian legal stuff:

Quote:

What a shame!

This is the worse thing I saw in many time. A web site called LawMeme which topic is the LAW, copyrights and legal stuff (hosted by the Yale Law School at Yale University) that simply removed the PHP-Nuke copyright notices. I know that some people removes the copyright notice but to see this done by a LAW related site!?!?! This is a call to the those few PHP-Nuke's users that likes to remove the copyrights to think about it and try to respect the hard work that many people did for you. Not to mention that this great system is free. Nothing more... just an advice.

http://www.phpnuke.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5536

http://changelog.complete.org/node/view/7

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00167.html

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: PHPNuke license
From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:20:22 -0500
Cc: phpnuke@packages.debian.org
In-reply-to: <20030228161241.GA11779@christoph.complete.org>
Mail-copies-to: nobody
Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org,phpnuke@packages.debian.org
Old-return-path: <branden@deadbeast.net>
References: <20030228161241.GA11779@christoph.complete.org>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i

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

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
>
> Note from upstream author:
>
> ##############################################################################
> # I M P O R T A N T N O T E #
> ##############################################################################
> # IMPORTANT: I saw many sites that removes the copyright line in the footer #
> # of each page. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE NOR CHANGE/EDIT THAT NOTE. If I #
> # still see this problem happening I'll need to take extreme measures that #
> # can include: to change the PHP-Nuke license, to encrypt some parts of the #
> # code, stop distributing it for free and in an extreme case stop developing #
> # it. The decision is in your hands. #
> # If you do not agreed with this simple rule, delete all PHP-Nuke files #
> # right now and move away from it. Thanks. #
> ##############################################################################
>
> I think this is not good for the same reason as the BSD advertising clause.

Well, it's *worse* than the BSD advertising clause, and since the DFSG
implicitly permits the BSD advertising clause, this analogy isn't
persuasive.

What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it"), against
which Bruce Perens successfully campaigned some years ago.

> The notice is:
>
> "Web site engine's code is Copryight (C) 2002 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights
> Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license."
>
> This would seem to also prohibit modifications and derived works, since a
> proper copyright notice would reflect the status of the modifier.

That is problematic. Also, if we want to pick nits, they are not citing
the GNU GPL very accurately. There should be no slash and they should
probably mention which version of the GNU GPL they mean; practically
everyone uses version 2.

But the license is non-DSFG-free mostly because it makes a restriction
on what types of functional changes can be made (the decision to spew a
copyright notice through a socket is functional in a way that a comment
or blurb in a piece of documentation is not), violating DFSG 3.

We do implicitly accept one narrowly-drawn exception to DFSG 3, and that
is the GNU GPL's 2c). However, PHPNuke's restriction is not the GNU
GPL's 2c, and I think have every right to object to a proliferation of
unremovable spew in what should be Free software, and web content whose
copyright in and of itself belongs to other people.

I'll note that the GNU GPL's 2c), for instance, does not mandate that
the announcement of the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer be
placed into files output or processed by the software, which is what
PHPNuke is doing.

Moreover, the copyright holders of PHPNuke are compelling us as
licensees to impose a "futher restriction" on the exercise by users of
this Debian package of their rights under the GNU GPL. This is not
permitted by GPL clause 6, and therefore the Debian Project "may not
distribute the Program at all." (GPL clause 7)

The PHPNuke license is not DFSG-free, and a release-critical bug should
be filed against it. The software should be dropped from Debian main if
the copyright holder(s) is/are unwilling to relicense it. Plain old GNU
GPL v2 would be fine, with no further restrictions, if the current
copyright holder(s) is/are amenable to that.

--
G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to
branden@debian.org | unlearn old falsehoods.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:28 pm

http://www.nukescripts.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1266&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:44 pm

GPL allows removal of the copyright but, don't expect support if you do.
You don't have to pay phpnuke.org $300 to ask permission for removal of the copyright.

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:11 pm

Well, hey, I wouldn't get support from FB anyway whether I paid his $300 or not, now would I?! I doubt he could even figure out the improvements made over his initial nuke releases, he just seems to want to take credit for the work others have done on nuke not to mention taking money to the bank. None of this bit with FB makes sense- I use Filezilla which is an open source FTP client, you can donate to the developer but you can't remove the copyright... I use NukeSentinel on my site which is open source but donations I may make to the developers don't entitle me to remove the copyright, yet according to FB I can remove his copyright if I donate $300 smackers to him but I won't get support from him either way! And that is funny just thinking of it, Mr. FB, I wanna remove your copyright and I don't wanna pay you $300 but can I have your permission? hahaha

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:08 am

I have a question. When I clicked on Bob's link to the piece of trash posted on FB's site, I actually went to the site (I will not mention the name), but if I type that site into the addy bar, I am redirected to a warez site in france. Does anyone know why?

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:24 am

Strange to be on the safe side I'd run a spyware checker Spybot S&D, Adaware or Spyware Checker. Didn't seem to be any redirects on the site when I was there.

Sells PC To Pay For Divorce Joined: Posts: 5661

okay as i was notified on the story i just published mine...
Topic is Francisco Burzi lies,cheat and steals...
its on...http://www.hitwalker.nl/phpx/html/index.php

registered · Useless Joined: Aug 23, 2002 Posts: 213 Location: Chicago

This is not the first time he has done this and everyone knows about it. Whenever his revenue starts to go down, he starts some s**t like this one to jack his site's traffic once again.
Everyone know that it's people like Bob, Raven, ChatServ, Mikem, Telli, DjMaze (tho he doesn't likes to support PHP-Nuke anymore - taken from CPG-Nuke.com) and many many others who have kept this script alive.

I have always been with PHP-Nuke and not planning to switch for a long time but it's not because of FB, it's because of the community. I love being around people who are around me using this software and supporting it to make my and many people like me lives easier.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:41 pm

okay a few weird things....

that member Rodamon who wrote (on phpnuke.org)...NukeScripts violates PHP-Nuke GPL licensing....

So i thought ,who is he ?
Ok all it says is..

My HomePage: http://www.totsoft.com
All you get looking at whois , is that the registar of that domain is from spain...and likes to stay anonymous.
So i called my brother who lives in spain.

So as he tries to find out who's behind the site he notices a name that pops up and is a guy named "Jordi Canals".
but not secret cause Jordi Canals has a few more websites.
One of them is http://www.jcanals.net

so knowing that we do another search by google and found some nice things !

As search in google... TotSoft Jordi Canals,and you get a few found items..
So just choose...

His name pops up again with this..."Powered by Mirabolà 0.2.63 - Copyright © 2004 by Jordi Canals Partially based on PHP-Nuke."
And some nice cache at ..

Code:

"http://www.google.nl/search?q=cache:Y4fVM_ANFX8J:www.portalespirita.net/modules.php%3Fname%3DDownloads%26d_op%3Dviewdownload%26cid%3D6+TotSoft+Jordi+Canals&hl=nl

So keeping " by Jordi Canals Partially based on PHP-Nuke" in mind you should see the cache and and you will agree that things look a like.
And "Partially based" on..... what does that mean ?

Websites that are his......

http://www.portalespirita.net
http://www.jcanals.net
http://www.akardec.org

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:39 pm

I don't want to go off on a rant or anything, but I'm fairly dismayed that the author of nuke would attack any of his biggest supporters and/or bug fixers. I think that any attack of this nature against Bob (or anyone else that in the long line of major contributors and supporters of the application over these many years) is just wrong and totally uncalled for, regardless of the political, social or personally interpreted economic justifications behind it.

It is one thing to do something like this if you are supporting your own applications without help from others and if there is an actual infringement, but another when you are not and the community is FORCED to seek help and solutions elsewhere and there is no visible infringement.

Further, nobody should be surprised when:
A) The fixes and solutions developed by others are being incorporated into the application by the acts of people that want them.
B) Those doing this work as bug-fixers (and the user community) complain that even years of identifying and fixing known problems, the shipping versions of the applications still do not utilize THESE fixes, nor any other fixes or solutions for that matter, whether developed in-house or not.

These problems (and their corresponding solutions developed by the community at large) are the reason for "forks" being created in the first place....or if you will, either by the bare necessity deemed by users that need solutions or from frustrations and the lack of meaningful and logical development of the application following any defined or otherwise interpreted standards.

If FB were truly interested in evolving Nuke, we'd see a serious source-forge or other type of active CVS development strategy with the involvement of partners instead of a single person dictating the evolutionary development (and those cycles) of the application alone, with no predictable patterns.

I won't go into how disturbing I find this entire situation to be; however, I will say that it pushes me (and I suspect others) closer toward choosing a new and different solution like CPG 9.0 where you can not only see the evolution and defined logical evolutionary paths, you can also participate.

Further, other Nuke alternatives such as Bob's NSN and Raven's Custom Distributions become more and more appealing as a straight up Nuke for Nuke replacement as at least with these (and other forked) solutions you can obtain meaningful support and your input, opinions and comments won't be either completely ignored or in this latest situation, totally shut out (shut off/disabled).

It's one thing to shout complaints at the World about interpreted abuses, it's another thing completely to disable the Worlds' ability to address, fix or in any way to respond to those complaints.

These feelings being documented by me before and now yet again in this latest situation are probably why none of my Nuke add-in creations make it onto phpnuke's website announcements. Instead, I see new announcements about 3 year old blocks and the same old themes being re-released for the 100th time.

My personal feeling is that if FB is going to attack his biggest supporters and contributors, more serious and in-depth thought should be given to changing (our individual and/or collective) decisions to support his efforts by using his application.

I think if everyone put this much effort into either developing a new Portal application (as has been proposed with concept inception development being tossed around by Raven for some time) or by becoming more involved with another newer solution like CPG 9, we'd all end up with not only a good solution, but a mutually happy and respectful community, not only of users, but developers and supporters as well.

Does FB's Latest intrepretation mean that I am now forced to provide NOTICE: By submitting this post, I hereby state that the contents of this post are my personal opinion and in no way should be taken as approved by or condoned by Raven, Bob Marion or ANYONE else, whether named or unnamed. The thoughts published herein are meant as my personal expressions only and therefore the hosts of this site (or any other site that may replicate these remarks in the original and complete form) are and shall always be held harmless from any and all liabilities as a result of displaying, replying to or otherwise republishing or distributing these personal opinions. Per the terms and conditions of this site including the published Copyright notice of, 'The comments are property of their posters', I hereby release the contents of my remarks in entirety for publication, duplication, and distribution anywhere by anyone without harm or liability.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:42 pm

Although I am in agreement Cheers

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:06 pm

LOL FB blocked my IP from his site (he thinks)

I can still login and just use a proxy Laughing

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:10 pm

Mine has never been blocked but he has refused to post any news submissions since about 18 months ago.

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:24 pm

Well i just found another exploit and it's a full path disclosure on his website.

i've setup "my headlines" to a non-existing site name dummy18.com and this is what i recieved:

phpnuke.org wrote:

Warning: fsockopen(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known (is your IPV6 configuration correct? If this error happens all the time, try reconfiguring PHP using --disable-ipv6 option to configure) in /home/virtual/site6/fst/var/www/html/modules/Your_Account/index.php on line 424

Warning: fsockopen(): unable to connect to www.dummy18.com:80 in /home/virtual/site6/fst/var/www/html/modules/Your_Account/index.php on line 424

Nice to see he runs ensim

Better check your release as well for this exploit Wink

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:32 pm

Yep, it's there, but I suppress all messages so I'm safe. It's so sad because these things are so easy to code around when you write the code. But, then again, who's to know what he codes? And as I have said before, the only way any security patches get in are when others (mainly Chat) submits them. FB flat out doesn't care, never did, and probably never will. He openly states that you will get no support from him. Why people support him is beyond me, seriously!

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:07 pm

DJMaze wrote:

LOL FB blocked my IP from his site (he thinks)

I can still login and just use a proxy Laughing

You sure that he blocked you or is this another "NSN has blocked me"? Very Happy

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:44 am

phpnuke.org wrote:

<img src="images\admin\ipban.gif">
You has been banned by the administrator

You see he uses windows to test his ban.

[edit]
The problem with NSN was Sentinel which blocks a whole range of ip's when someone tries to hack.
Say 127.*.*.* got blocked

Now i use a very good proxy server on those sites which can't be traced Laughing

I have nothing to hide and everyone knows my official IP.
A shame those protection systems don't work in both ways:
- blocking a range so others can't visit
- no good trace of original IP so a hacker can always get in
[/edit]

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:06 am

DJMaze wrote:

LOL FB blocked my IP from his site (he thinks)

I can still login and just use a proxy Laughing

Dang, such an honor- I envy you, truly! Smile

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:48 am

southern wrote:

DJMaze wrote:

LOL FB blocked my IP from his site (he thinks)

I can still login and just use a proxy Laughing

Dang, such an honor- I envy you, truly! Smile

It's no honor
It's an LMAO that he needs sentinel but can't integrate it

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:03 am

You mean to say that the 'genius' who invented nuke- i.e. split it off from thatware- can't figure out how to install the best security nuke has?! Amazing! That's like Einstein not knowing what makes things fall. Maybe not so strange given everything I've heard about FB.

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:07 am

LMAO