Can developers legally sell addons created for use with Nuke

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:50 pm

Guardian2003,
I am not trying to argue in ANY way....just to see the point to the end.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that IF it was released as part of a GPL theme....then it is GPL.

If I released a theme that was GPL. Then I released a set of images under copyright that "Oh BTW" these images will work with this theme. I would think those images are still copyrighted.

If those images went out the door (same Zip file....same download) as part of a GPL theme...it would seem to me that they are now GPL.

Dawg

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:05 pm

I didnt mean my post to come across in an argumentative fashion and I certainly didnt take yours in that fashion.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:31 pm

Actualy the images are GPL as well since the theme can't work without it.
And a theme is GPL cos it can't work without nuke.

You get it so far?

If i don't release the full theme for public download then the images are copyrighted by me and you are not allowed to use them either.

If i release the theme.php, theme.html, etc. for the public but WITHOUT the images, then you are still not allowed to use them.

If i released the images in a seperate pack that costs $10, then you're still not allowed to distribute them.

If i released the theme.php and the images in a single archive then everyone may distribute it since the GPL states that anything in a archive is GPL'd. But that doesn't mean you may alter the copyrights as stated by the GPL.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:50 pm

Quote:

this doesn't seem to be the issue you are concerned with - rather you are concerned with your ability to redistribute code

Well not exactly. In the example I gave, suppose that I wrote the code. I had a nice little standalone application. Then I wrote some other code that essentially created a slightly different version that runs under Nuke. It really isn't rocket science to take a simple standalone application and make it run as a module after all. Heck, you could probably stick some switches and tests in it so it could tell how it was running (Nuke or Standalone) and adjust. Suppose I was charging for my application. Does the mere fact of making an integration possible undermine my original licensing and make it GPL? What if someone else developed integration code?

I guess I'm just saying I see things in shades of grey. If I include mainfile.php in the index.php of my application and then call is_user I guess I've gone over the line. Now my whole application is GPL? But what if I write my own is_user? What if I write code that does essentially the same thing and don't include mainfile? If I'm running Nuke on my server and my standalone application too, can I read the nuke_users table from my standalone and use it for determining whether someone is logged in and possibly even their privileges. Can I add some fields to the Nuke users table for my own use if I don't use any of the Nuke code? Can I have my own tables in the same database as the Nuke tables without "polluting" my ability to have my own license? What about PHPBB? If I understand that correctly it's a standalone application that is ported to Nuke. It doesn't need Nuke to run. Does the fact that it's integrated with Nuke mean that they couldn't have a different license than GPL? I don't think so.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:55 pm

djmaze
"Actually the images are GPL as well since the theme can't work without it."

I don't think it matters weather the theme "Needs" the images....

This is why...When you release code...it is what it is. Whether the theme works or not would make no difference.

I would think....(that's scary).... Smile

.....It is all in how it is packaged. Your images, as a download of images only, could be copyrighted by you and protected by those rights. I can not see that how your "Images" would be treated any different than my "Sunset Photos" that I want a jillion dollars for. It is only if they are packaged with a GPL theme do they then become GPL.

I am NO expert on GPL.....one of the reasons I am enjoying this conversation is trying to find an understanding of how it works.

Dawg

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

Let's muddy it even more. In my letter to the OSF I specifically asked if I had a stand alone application, like KISGB is, and I port it to php-nuke, which I have, can I have 2 different licenses and they said of course.

If you develop a theme that only works with a gpl application and you supply images with it instead of just place holders, the theme and the images are now gpl, at least in that release. Since you are the author, you can change the license in the next release, assuming it does not require nuke, but all previous releases are still gpl. Or, you could issue another release and use place holders and pull the images, but you would then have to prove that the images were being used in your new theme and not the old one.

FB, at any time, could decide that his next release is no longer GPL. But, we cannot - rights of ownership. RavenNuke(tm) is gpl and has to be gpl as long as it is core nuke + anything.

However, you cannot take a stand alone non-gpl licensed application and turn it into a nuke addon and make it gpl w/o the expressed written consent of the author. Since Gallery freely offers Gallery as GPL CMS addons, those addons that require nuke are now GPL and that can't be changed. Like it or not.

Site Admin Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 6433

Sorry, fkelly, my post was directed towards the originator, pcnuke, though I tacked on a bit at the end for you. Wink

To address your concern, it depends on whether the Nuke-only version is released first. If the original (i.e. not developed from something else) multi-CMS integration is released first, you can use a different license. To answer your first question, no making an integration possible with a GPL CMS does not undermine your original licensing nor make it GPL, no matter (to answer the second question) who does the integration (although, as Raven pointed out, unless your standalone was some form of GPL that allowed free modification by others, a second party would need to get your permission before doing so).

Since your subsequent questions seem to be corollaries of the first two, I'll leave it at that.

Raven, PLEASE...let's not muddy anything else...no one can see the bottom as it is! Very Happy

Seriously, though, I think you have provided consistently clear explanations on this subject after careful consideration and communications with experts and greatly appreciate that effort (maybe you should charge legal fees for that labor!).

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:28 am

For posterity, I will post the correspondence.

My original letter to the FSF

Gaylen wrote:

From - Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1965
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
From: "Gaylen" <gfraley5@earthlink.net>
To: <gnu@gnu.org>
Subject: Question regarding GPL
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:36:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441

I'm sure you get inundated with questions of this type and for that I
apologize. But, there is so much FUD and confusion in this particular
instance.

phpNuke is the software in question. The basic question is this.

If I create an add-on, module, block, whatever you want to call it, a script
for an all-in-one term, and it is NOT derivative worm, meaning I create my
own code but put it in a wrapper so it can be used with phpnuke but is not
distributed with phpnuke, does it have to be gpl? In other words it is up
to each webmaster whether or not to use it. Am I allowed to put a
restrictive license that says you can use it and modify it for your own use
but you cannot, in turn, distribute it. Further, if phpnuke has a data
abstraction layer, can I make calls to it w/o violating the gpl if I am
allowed to have my own license on my own work.

Regards,

__________________________________________________________________
Gaylen Fraley - Founder / Owner

Their initial Reply

John Sullivan
Program Administrator

Free Software Foundation wrote:

From - Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1965
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Status: U
Return-Path: <www-data@gnu.org>
Received: from rt.gnu.org ([199.232.76.167])
by mx-a065b19.pas.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1cmaCI6Hl3NZFpO0
for <gfraley5@earthlink.net>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1CMAc7-0007wu-0F; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:34:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #212888] Question regarding GPL
From: "John Sullivan via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Reply-To: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
In-Reply-To: <rt-212888@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <rt-3.0.8-212888-678512.5.38416989954861@rt.gnu.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #212888
Managed-by: RT 3.0.8 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
To: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
Cc: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Sender: www-data <www-data@gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:34:43 -0400
X-ELNK-AV: 0

> I'm sure you get inundated with questions of this type and for that I
> apologize. But, there is so much FUD and confusion in this particular
> instance.
>

Hello,

I have forwarded your message to our licensing department
<licensing@gnu.org> who handle such queries. Feel free to contact them
directly in the future with such questions. Let me know if you don't get
a satisfactory reply from them.

--

Sincerely,

John Sullivan
Program Administrator

Free Software Foundation Phone: x23
59 Temple Place, Suite 330 Fax: (617)542-2652
Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Email: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Their second reply

Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation wrote:

From - Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1965
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Status: U
Return-Path: <www-data@gnu.org>
Received: from rt.gnu.org ([199.232.76.167])
by mx-a065b19.pas.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1cmf0u3803NZFpO0
for <gfraley5@earthlink.net>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1CMEx6-00009P-6s
for [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:12:40 -0400
Subject: [gnu.org #212888] Question regarding GPL
From: "Dave Turner via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Reply-To: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
In-Reply-To: <rt-212888@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <rt-3.0.8-212888-678636.13.8437061704821@rt.gnu.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #212888
Managed-by: RT 3.0.8 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
To: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Sender: www-data <www-data@gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:12:40 -0400
X-ELNK-AV: 0

> [gfraley5@earthlink.net - Thu Oct 21 15:41:15 2004]:
>
> I'm sure you get inundated with questions of this type and for that I
> apologize. But, there is so much FUD and confusion in this particular
> instance.
>
> phpNuke is the software in question. The basic question is this.
>
> If I create an add-on, module, block, whatever you want to call it, a
> script for an all-in-one term, and it is NOT derivative worm, meaning
> I create my own code but put it in a wrapper so it can be used with
> phpnuke but is not distributed with phpnuke, does it have to be gpl?

Generally, yes. You are wrapping your code such that you intend that it
combined with the PHPNuke code. When you develop your code, you sit
down with a copy of PHPNuke to test it. And users will use your code by
downloading a copy of PHPNuke and sticking your plugin there.

So, since you're creating a derivative work of PHPNuke, you will need to
licensed it under the terms of the GPL.

> Further, if phpnuke has a data abstraction layer, can I make calls to
> it w/o violating the gpl if I am allowed to have my own license on my
> own work.

I would need to know the technical details there. Can you explain this
in technical terms? Short code snippets would be helpful.

--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation

My follow-up letter

Gaylen wrote:

From - Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1965
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
From: "Gaylen" <gfraley5@earthlink.net>
To: <licensing@fsf.org>
References: <rt-3.0.8-212888-678636.13.8437061704821@rt.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #212888] Question regarding GPL
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:01:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441

A follow-up question, please.

What if I write a stand-alone application which is NOT GPL. But I then give
it a 'nuke-wrapper' if you will. Since it was first a stand-alone but was
adapted for nuke users, then is it still derivative work? It does need nuke
to run but has been adapted for its use.

__________________________________________________________________
Gaylen Fraley - Founder / Owner

Their reply to my follow-up letter

Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer wrote:

From - Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1965
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Status: U
Return-Path: <www-data@gnu.org>
Received: from rt.gnu.org ([199.232.76.167])
by mx-a065b19.pas.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1cnkla5yb3NZFpO1
for <gfraley5@earthlink.net>; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1CNKO7-0002Lw-1x
for [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:13:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #212888] Question regarding GPL
From: "novalis@fsf.org via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Reply-To: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
In-Reply-To: <rt-212888@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <rt-3.0.8-212888-679780.15.8108635069242@rt.gnu.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #212888
Managed-by: RT 3.0.8 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
To: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Sender: www-data <www-data@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:13:03 -0400
X-ELNK-AV: 0

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 19:05 -0400, Gaylen via RT wrote:
> REPLIES GO TO REQUESTORS BY DEFAULT.
>
> <URL: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] >
>
> A follow-up question, please.
>
> What if I write a stand-alone application which is NOT GPL. But I then give
> it a 'nuke-wrapper' if you will. Since it was first a stand-alone but was
> adapted for nuke users, then is it still derivative work? It does need nuke
> to run but has been adapted for its use.

When you distribute it alone, you can license it as you want. But when
you distribute it with the wrapper, you will need to license it under
the GPL.

--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:25 am

So, according to that, my earlier assumption was incorrect that if you distribute it first as a non-GPL licensed standalone OR if you distribute multi-CMS version it wouldn't need to be GPL.

It's simply how you distribute it - whether it is distributed with code that works with a GPL script, not when and not whether it also works with other CMSs. In order to have / keep a non-GPL license, you would have to distribute the CMS wrapper / integration separately from the standalone, and the integration would be GPL.

Thanks again, Raven!

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:51 am

Exactly. It's all in the wrapper. Even if you distributed it first with nuke, let's say, it's GPL. Then you decide to go stand-alone. The stand-alone version can have a Private License.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:21 am

Hmm here's an idea to make you code non-GPL Very Happy

1. Create a /modules/NAME/index.php under the GPL that has the following:

Code:

<?php


if (is_set($_GET['page']) && file_exists('modules/NAME/'.$_GET['page'].'.php')) {


    require('header.php');


    include('modules/NAME/'.$_GET['page'].'.php');


    require('footer.php');


} else {


    require('header.php');


    echo 'yes i\'m a module';


    require('footer.php');


}

2. Write a wrapper file that calls php-nuke stuff.

3. Write all other code under a different license and sell it

This is completely legal because the module can run without your code and the other code is just code.
You must release them seperatly though.

That way KISGB keeps the license it deserves no matter if the overlaying application is GPL or not.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:43 am

The premise is great! And I started down that path, kinda-sorta, when I did my port. My main problem with KISGB was that it started out as more of an excersice and I threw programming standards pretty much to the wind. I did not like any of the guestbooks I saw and like most noobies to the Internet, I wanted a guestbook. I didn't even have MySQL installed yet so that's why I went with a file based system. So, I have "wrapped" the nuke version in various ways. It needs to be completely rewritten/over-hauled to be more efficient and standard. Something with this kind of wrapper would definitely be useful. I would give anything to have more time and energy to do all the projects I have in mind!

registered · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:32 am

First unless you are a lawyer - licenses of any type can be pretty hard to dissect for the average individual. One of the purposes of this article was to provide a simple and basic outline that would show people within the Nuke community where they stand legally within the boundries of freely released php-nuke scripts. Below is a basic summary, but not an entirety, of the laws on FREELY released Php-Nuke scripts, themes, addons, ect. These facts are bases from a legal stand point of research and not from or of opinions. Thanks to everyone for their comments on this issue. (Raven if this summary is not completely correct, could you please revise the areas that need it, because I see no edit links in the forum, signed in as a member)

------------------------------ Summary ------------------------------------

Topic: Can developers legally sell addons created for use with Php-Nuke?
(Again we are not talking about copyright here)

If a 3rd party Php-Nuke addon is created and FREELY released in some way or form to the public:
(Php-Nuke addon means = The Php-Nuke CMS is required for the addon to work, operate, or be used)

1. From that point on it is ruled by only GPL/GNU & no other licenses.
2. It is then free software to everyone and can be altered & distributed.

On the developers side of view:
------------------------------------
(The words "You & I" are used only as examples here)

1. You may ask money for anything as long as the amount is reasonable (time spend, hosting/bandwidth costs)

2. You may ask money for additional support, documentation or anything else that doesn't need php-nuke to run.

3. The code must be GPL since it needs GPL software to run

4. Anyone else may freely distribute and modify your 3rd party software

5. If you encoded the source with Zend, BCompiler, eAccelerator or anything else and someone requests the plain source you must give it to him

6. If you develop a stand alone application, like KISGB for example, and then port it to php-nuke, which has been done, Then you can have 2 different licenses. One for the stan alone and one for the php-nuke script, which would be GPL/GNU

Quote: It's all in the wrapper. Even if you distributed it first with Php-Nuke, let's say, it's GPL. Then you decide to go stand-alone. The stand-alone version can have a Private License.

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

A good example of making money from GPL software is RedHat which distributes Linux for free but receives money for anything else they do.

Themes: If you develop a theme that only works with a gpl application and you supply images with it instead of just place holders, the theme and the images are now gpl, at least in that release. Since you are the author, you can change the license in the next release, assuming it does not require nuke, but all previous releases are still gpl. Or, you could issue another release and use place holders and pull the images, but you would then have to prove that the images were being used in your new theme and not the old one.

NOTE: Someone may ask you to develop code for him to use in his nuke and pay you for that. This is completely legal but the code remains GPL so both, the client and the developer, may decide to release it for free to the public or not.

Example: I design a theme for someone and he pays me $100 for it. The theme.php is GPL but the images are not since the images can work properly without nuke. In this case i am free to release the theme.php and *.html files but not the images.

-------- Image issue followup ----------

Actualy the images talked about above are GPL as well, since the theme can't work without it. And a theme is GPL because it can't work without nuke.

You get it so far?

If i don't release the full theme for public download then the images are copyrighted by me and you are not allowed to use them either.

If i release the theme.php, theme.html, etc. for the public but WITHOUT the images, then you are still not allowed to use them.

If i released the images in a seperate pack that costs $10, then you're still not allowed to distribute them.

If i released the theme.php and the images in a single archive then everyone may distribute it since the GPL states that anything in a archive is GPL'd. But that doesn't mean you may alter the copyrights as stated by the GPL.

Also, make sure the author released it in some form (i.e. if she made it publicly available via download or posting of the code, even for a fee). If the code was developed under contract with no agreement to distribute publicly or with an agreement that it would not be distributed publicly, you could be in trouble if you try to distribute it.

In a theme example, if you and a 3rd party agreed that the theme could be released OR there was no agreement that it would not be released, you could distribute it. But no one could force any party to distribute a theme they created for his own use just because it only works with PHP-Nuke, nor could they force him or allow a purchaser to distribute code that was developed under an agreement not to be made public, regardless of whether or not in only ran under PHP-Nuke.

Site Examples:
----------------------------
NOTE: The following example websites ARE allowed to ask a small fee to compensate the bandwidth and development costs, and each remark is 100% correct. Don't contact the author or start a spam against these websites either, you have been warned to gain our respect.

- hitwalker.nl offers archives "as is" fully compliant to GPL, no issues here

- autothemes.com the amount is reasonable but the license is non-gpl which is a violation, you may freely redistribute the archives without going to court.

(again thanks to Raven, DjMaze, and everyone who did research and brought these legal facts to the front for all in the Nuke community.)

pcn

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:13 am

Dawg wrote:

It is only if they are packaged with a GPL theme do they then become GPL.

Correct, you did understand my post. Only if you release the images with the theme.php they become GPL.

This is because the GPL states that anything inside a archive must be GPL.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:22 am

Good summup pcnuke but maybe put some explanations in there cos i don't think the average noob will understand it.
Let alone all those people who sell stuff vs the people that request a 'reasonable' payment for bandwidth and support.

NOTE: The following example websites ARE allowed to ask a small fee to compensate the bandwidth and development costs, and each remark is 100% correct.
Don't contact the author or start a spam against these websites either, you have been warned to gain our respect.

- hitwalker.nl offers archives "as is" fully compliant to GPL, no issues here

- autothemes.com the ammount is reasonable but the license is non-gpl which is a violation, you may freely redistribute the archives without going to court.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:27 am

darn no [edit] button.

I wanted to add that there are many more websites that ask payment. If you dislike that then offer the archives for download yourself.

If a archive violates the GPL then feel free to redistribute as well but do take the responsibility yourself by knowing the license and have a good case against the author.
However do respect him for the work that he has done and he does deserve a donation for it, no matter the license is at fault (he can always fix that if you talk to him NICELY)

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:52 am

djmaze

Ya maybe when we can do that with an EDIT link

You are more on top of that area than me I think, perhaps you could do a little addon for that area, which raven could edit to include it to the bottom of the above summary

I would like to see a nice final summary done eventually - then maybe convert it all over into a module titled something like GPL or Licenses, with links and such to all licenses, html links, add some graphics ect

So basically any person in the Nuke community could easily be informed from all sites that include a module such as this. I understand there are many links in many Nuke websites to licensing information, but not in a real understandable terminology in most websites Menus. That would be the concept for the module - so the average JOE could easily understand the basic rule outline. Plus site owners could list what scripts, themes, ect, are free or not and why, so people can understand better.

pcn

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:13 am

Okay, okay! The EDIT button is restored! Laughing

Regular Joined: Jun 15, 2005 Posts: 78 Location: AR

What about the PHPBB themes that come with nuke themes?

What if I did what Bob has done and gave instructions on code to add to make it work with nuke. ex. The core file edits... I can give you a theme.php (for free) with no major changes for the theme and then sell a zip with the HTML and the images for the theme. couldn't I?

When It all comes down to it I think we all know that our work will be distributed with or without consent. It really doesn't matter. This is one reason I have stopped creating themes. The only thing that I do is private party stuff. I have gone to a one on one basis and I am done dealing with the general public.

One thing I don't see is how you can resell copyrighted material.

What I think is that We should get on with this project CMS that we have all been talking about and create it under our own guidelines. With a closed developement. That way there are certain guidelines that developers would have to fallow. That would eliminate so many vulnerabilities. I would really like to see Raven, Bob, and Chatserv come up with a CMS...

I guess I could go on forever on this topic... For now I guess you know where I stand....

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:38 am

I totally disagree with you Xiode. In my opinion it seems you've lost the purpose of the GPL.
Linus Torvalds recently announced (again) what the GPL is and how it gets abused as an "crusade" by the FSF and some developers.
Read it at: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Why should you be allowed to sell stuff under a different license while all other stuff is free?
Are you the only one that spend time and effort in design and coding, and the others didn't?

GPL is about: Work free, get free aka "an eye for an eye"

So FB designs the core for free and you the theme. So what's the whole point?

Xiode wrote:

What I think is that We should get on with this project CMS that we have all been talking about and create it under our own guidelines. With a closed developement. That way there are certain guidelines that developers would have to fallow. That would eliminate so many vulnerabilities.

Yeah right, Windows = closed source = no vulnerabilities ROTFL

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:43 am

Would you say that forks of Nuke where the code has been mostly rehashed and reworked are therefore basing their code on phpnuke and thus should not be able to charge for it?

If that's the case then it works to the detriment of open source because less good projects modules and addons would be developed. If some one develops a good mod then they should have a right to charge for it in order to provide adequate support.

Just because one person sees fit to do outstanding work and give their time and effort free does not mean that everyone else has to do the same?

I've read, reread and reread the GPL and spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fathom it - but it just doesn't make sense. Remember the case of the lawyer firm that removed the phpnuke byline but said it was OK because the credits were still in the code?

Ravenuke is based on phpnuke but the levels of support provided are vastly different and what's the point in owning software that can't be fixed? More to the point what's the point in having access to open source software that can be continually hacked and taken down.

And before anyone points it out that's exactly why I removed the phpnuke credits from my site because it was continually becoming a target for vandals doing a google search.

Raven, this has been an old argument for us both but I continue to support the line that if people want to charge for their efforts and provide a support level pursuant to that charge then more power to them.

It's my contention that more damage is done to the open source movement by half baked add on modules that never get followed through to making them work properly and that's what causes more traffic to overworked support forums.

FB based phpnuke on thatware - where's the credits for that? If he didn't do that we wouldn't have this argument.

In the past it's been common knowledge that FB has incorporated other peoples hard work into his next "all powerful" release which has then been totally patched up by those who take the time to make sure it works properly.

The GPL is nothing. It's only a name and a byword for professionalism and self respect between endeavouring programmers and contributors.

Any lawyer would be able to pull it to bits and quote incident after incident where it has been flagrantly abused and ignored.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:02 pm

@storebuilder
We never said that you are not allowed to ask money. [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
The issue is that others may release your code for free.

If you build good add-ons people pay for it cos they know it's worth it.
If you build crappy add-ons people distribute it.

That's the whole intention of GPL, but who respects eachother these days?
Should the GPL be changed to "you must" instead of "you should"?

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:11 pm

Isn't that what happens with the existing "club" (if it still exists).

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:39 pm

Another clarification needed...

Many websites may attach additional terms to a Downloads section on a website and then may have you agree to these additional terms prior to being able to download an item. If these additional terms stated are outside of the GPL rules, in effect that website owner has no rights in using these additioanal controls that he may be trying to put on the Php-Nuke scripts. This to would be outside the statutes of the GPL wouldnt it, so their additioanl terms would be in effect... NULL & VOID.

GPL rules would still apply & only GPL rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. From that point on it is ruled by only GPL/GNU & no other licenses.
2. It is then free software to everyone and can be altered & distributed.

pcn

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:58 pm

Incorrect, you may add additional notes to your GPL.
The gpl faq explains which notes are allowed.

example: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

But this is in case of source code releases.
The actual outputted HTML (browser view) is NOT gpl. The output is fully copyrighted by you or anyone else. These outputs mostly have an CC (Creative Commons) license.

BTW i've put the summary in a seperate topic Wink