From: mamba
To: ptomter; lsd25
Subject: GPL and Your modules
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:36:27 -0400
Has the GPL issue been resolved?

Please understand that we cannot support XOOPS modules that violate GPL.

Please let me know ASAP.

Michael

From: Simon Roberts [mailto:lsd25]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:48
To: mamba; ptomter
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
All of chronolabs modules on www.chronolabs.org.au will remain GPL..

The modules on www.defense.io are not part essentially of chronolabs core business, they are per the commerical paid modules category on www.xoops.org repository.

From: mamba
To: lsd25; ptomter
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:47:48 -0400
And the paid modules are what I am talking about.

As I said before, by not giving your customers the code, or at least letting them know where they can download the module code, you're in violation of GPL with your paid modules!

Please read this FAQ on Drupal,

http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7

especially questions 7, 8, 9

which is very clear about what you can and cannot do with modules based on Drupal (and the same applies for XOOPS).

Bottom line - if you distribute a XOOPS module, regardless if it's paid or not, you have to provide (or offer to download) its source code, so the user (or client, if it's paid) is able to modify the code if he desires that!

Otherwise you're violating the GPL, which then makes the right that we as XOOPS give you to create/modify XOOPS code and to make derivative work based on XOOPS (i.e. modules) invalid and thus illegal to distribute your work. For example, Instant-Zero, when they were selling their modules, they included the source code.

Again, please read this FAQ on Drupal,

http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7

especially questions 7, 8, 9, which explain very well what I'm talking about.

Please let me know if this violation has been resolved, or if you plan to resolve it and by when.

Michael

From: Simon Roberts [mailto:lsd25]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:52
To: mambaX7; ptomter
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
I am sorry mamba - commerical code as per www.whmcs.com licensing and hundreds of millions of other titles are compiled there are no terms on the xoops.org site that defines this and anyway we use a licensing code system which requires a simple removal if the code is distributed.

Unfortunately you do not speak on behalf of the XOOPS Council you are actin on your own accord. And having you define terms to me after i was the only one developing xoops from 2004 - 2005 when the project collapsed I really thought you could see you need at least some modules.

Unfortunately mamba you can goto the drupal project if you like there terms better.

From: mamba
To: lsd25; ptomter
CC: runeher; trabis; infomax
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:10:12 -0400
Simon,

I am not interested in arguing as these are not my rules!

If you develop a stand alone system, you can do whatever YOU want - you can encrypt your modules like WHMCS does, and you have every right to do it.

But this is GPL, and the rules are very clear there. These are not my rules, and it doesn't matter if this is XOOPS, Joomla, or Drupal - the GPL license has the same rules for everybody. Drupal did a very good job explaining them and you need to follow it, or you're violating GPL. And we cannot promote modules on XOOPS that are violating GPL.

Simon, sorry, there is no way around it.

Please get a lawyer who understands GPL and can advise you on these issues and can make sure that you're not violating GPL.

Michael

From: Simon Roberts [mailto:lsd25]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:19
To: mambaX7; ptomter; Ricardo Costa; D. J.; xoops-doc-team; sb-2212
Subject: FW: GPL and Your modules

Well you just did email a lawyer..

My business partners frilogg are a large group of Norwegian lawyers that fund web design. IonCube is a standard PHP compiler not an encryptor, it is performance boost for the code being an a machine language ever since i was a young boy playing Freeware GPL and GNU titles like Alley Cat.. I new the difference between the commerical code DOS 3.1 and Alley cat.. Here let me draw a quick diagram for you.

Freeware = GPL & GNU
Commerical Module = Independent Commercial License.

Since XOOPS Supports commerical code .. ie: http://www.xoops.org/modules/repository/viewcat.php?cid=118

You hit the flaming option mamba like a many of the poeple i met at the old man home in brisbane where poeple like you leave programmers like me on the street fending for financials, now who suggested to start flaming me all of a sudden without any introduction like it was some homeless bum and a bottle of rum..

Later,

From: mamba
To: lsd25; ptomter; trabis; infomax; bare1runehauge
Subject: RE: GPL and Your modules
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:41:47 -0400
Simon,

the GPL is very clear about "derivative work".

A XOOPS Module is "derivative work" of XOOPS which itself is GPL.

And everybody has to follow the GPL. No exceptions.

And we cannot approve any exceptions, because we would violate GPL ourselves.

Please read the FAQ here

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html

and feel free to contact http://www.fsf.org/ or the Software Freedom Law Center:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

If they agree to your reasoning, then I don't have any problems.

Reg. IonCube, of course you can use it in your modules that you distribute. But you need to provide the user/client a link where they can download the source code. This will ensure that you're not violating GPL.

Please note: I am just trying to help you so you are NOT in violation of GPL.

So there is no need to argue with me or the Council.

Please provide us with an email from FSF stating that they are OK with the way you're selling your modules, and then everything is OK.

Michael

This is completely incorrect as checked with Open Source specalist lawyers. Also quoting a sperate project that is incorrect in it statment that modules are only covered under the core licencing.

Okay, now I'm worried

For the record, I find version 2.4.4 to be a darn good platform

Put it simple.

For paid or commerical modules, the user of the module is required to pay a certain amount/fee (either monthly, yearly or in a lump sum) to the module author for the use of module.