Can developers legally sell addons created for use with Nuke

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:29 pm

WD-40 wrote:

All functions reside within their own files, making use of external template files that use PHP-Nuke/PostNuke's $bgcolor1,2,3,4 plus additional function addition to your account module to copy changes to players db plus a menu link to teams manager.

As i mentioned many times:

1. release your code under your own license
2. release the external template files in a SEPERATE file under GPL

Regular Joined: Dec 29, 2005 Posts: 62

There's nothing important to me within PHP-Nuke except wanting to still provide the community, however as you stated above... I'm going to kill it and announce it's closing shortly which isn't a big deal to me, just means higher prices to end-users and more profit for the company.

Thanks for the info bud, guess this is the end of the road for me, take care of yourself.

ps - more labor, higher prices; strict license, closed advertising, more costs...

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:10 pm

djmaze wrote:

WD-40 wrote:

All functions reside within their own files, making use of external template files that use PHP-Nuke/PostNuke's $bgcolor1,2,3,4 plus additional function addition to your account module to copy changes to players db plus a menu link to teams manager.

As i mentioned many times:

1. release your code under your own license
2. release the external template files in a SEPERATE file under GPL

Not sure how this post got inserted above my last post, as it wasn't there 2 mins ago...

Never seen any of your statements however Raven explained this already in post above.

I'm not personally upset, just don't wish to support PHP-Nuke anymore which was planned for the future anyways. Just now versus later...

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:11 pm

WD-40 wrote:

This is wrong and to those of us that have spent hundreds of hours to be ripped off isn't right.

WD-40 wrote:

I'm going to kill it and announce it's closing shortly which isn't a big deal to me, just means higher prices to end-users and more profit for the company.

You didn't get it, do you?
GPL = non-profit. If you wanted to make profit you shouldn't have been here at all or be smart enough to gain profit from freeware just like RedHat does.
Does FB, ChatServ, Raven, me and many others get ripped off just because they spend many hours on open source?

My question to you: How you wanna make profit/run a business when you can't get or understand a license?
Because when you write code you must proove its yours and not from someone else or you get screwed anyway.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:50 pm

Like Nike said, "Just do it." and I have been for quite some time now.

This is an issue that many have discussed which the freedom foundation has even highlighted for those that can't read however your still promoting the mis-use of the GNU/GPL license.

As I said, I'm not debating... just wanted to know what's promoted within the PHP-Nuke community and have been waiting for this for quite some time. I just thank god for all the delays in development, knew he was watching over me.

You may want to head over to Mambo/Joomla! sites and mention this to them.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:25 am

not only mambo/joomla, also: postnuke, xaraja, drupal, etc. etc.
When something needs it to run it is GPL. That's the whole point FSF wants to do, not what GNU's intention was.

However there are exceptions on GPL so that you may build commercial products that run with GPL.
I've explained limited for php-nuke how that works and this is different compared to products that run on the linux lernel. The FSF also explains this.
It's all about libraries.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:11 pm

If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in.
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
Yes.

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.

In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.

I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?
No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.
What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?
The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.
The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the license that applies to your copy.

What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?
If the libraries that you link with fall within the following exception in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

then you don't have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them. Thus, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions.

If you want your program to link against a library not covered by that exception, you need to add your own exception, wholly outside of the GPL. This copyright notice and license notice give permission to link with the program FOO:

Copyright (C) yyyy <name of copyright holder>

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA

Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of ABC give you permission to combine ABC program with free software programs or libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the standard release of DEF under the XYZ license (or modified versions of such code, with unchanged license). You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL for ABC and the licenses of the other code concerned, provided that you include the source code of that other code when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of source code.

Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which carries forward this exception.

Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright holder--so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the copyright holders of those programs.

When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same exception for their code--it is their choice whether to do so.

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

These are the most common faq's regarding the GNU/GPL that I thought might help answer a few questions.

I guess through-out time, we've developed our own sense of the GNU/GPL on how we use it, therefore creating our future indepedent software license.

The best thing I can come up with now to resolve these issues for the continous development of commerical products for PHP-Nuke/PostNuke would be a SDK release under the LGPL.

What I done w/ NM06 was creation of basic functions to use within external templates that end-users build for their integration. This was part of my freedom expression not limiting the end-users to authors vision however enables such creation.

I'm sure this pretty much protects me from such violations in comparison to the source Emerica and I share from Peter.

Besides community users, use of PHP-Nuke/PostNuke enables 3PDs to focus on their core functionality however due to recent patch changes this has caused an unlikely event amongst many developers.

The purpose for me is to provide an affordable alternative to my other commerical products that may share similiar source/functions and/or presence. The reason I continue use is my contribute back to the community to where I first restarted with server-side programming.

Not that I want to however I have never had a problem in these regards and for most part respect others as they respect me plus all end-users seem to have no problems with such and respect all restrictions. Your right, it's time for a check-up and make sure your investment is protected.

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:57 am

Not sure even the SDK will provide this alternative after thinking some more.

Sounds just like a border-line issue that may fall into category of data structure. Perhaps the only safety-net would be for a complete external class with group of available functions that can be redesigned within external templates within your program.

Though this will probably lead to many issues and complaints plus unauthorized copies floating around from open source templates/addons floating around however as you've said, those that are truly interested will make a purchase which are the customers you want.

If I'm using a private license, calling a function that is within the GNU/GPL license. Does that function and all other below functions need to be released under GNU/GPL as well?

Guess I'm wondering how far up the pipe does this spider really go? Honestly never worried too much about my protection as I know how piracy goes anyways. The more unavailable your product becomes to general public, faster it get's upped to those rapidshares...

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

I have been reading over this. I have realized that most in the community are out for the free. Sad thing is that with GPL I can rename everything in PHPNuke to Jackboo and redistribute it under the GPL and and put my name all over it and be just fine. It's open source right?

If anyone is interested.... Check this out. http://www.neocrome.net/ I think you will like what you find. I do so far. I am going to start recommending it.

Later Nuke....

registered · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:58 pm

Yes, but you would still have to keep in the copyrights for phpNuke too Wink

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:36 pm

I'm closing shop as well, with upcoming launch of "Vödu" framework released under the New BSD license permits use for commerical development.

Your welcome to all past releases, actually prefer for my name to be removed from such copyrights/license.

Take care and god bless!

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:03 am

Not sure if this was covered lots of reading in there haha, Sorry to rehash a great topic.

I wanna build apps that don't require any cms, but isn't standalone. (doesn't require any nuke variables/functions($db etc)).

So in essence my wrappers would incoporate the cms to my app. Of course I understand the wrapper would be GPL and what not.

Am I on the right path here.

registered · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:03 am

Sounds like it.

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

floppydrivez, Not sure if your statement is accurate or if I missed something. Just to be sure, as long as your application does NOT need nuke to work, you do not have to be GPL. We're not talking about snippets of code from nuke, but you only have to maintain GPL if you actually need the nuke engine, if you will, for your application to work.