Hello,
Firstly just to congratulate you guys on this forum, absolutely brilliant!! Can anybody tell me what type of license this is released under?
Thankyou
look here
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=2314.0
Hello
Thanks for your pointer. I did read it and I did'nt manage to find a clear answer. Is this forum open source software in the same way as oscommerce is.
Thanks
SMF has its own license, created for them, its open source in definition (as you can see the source code) but it needs its own license to protect itself, i think if you have license issues you have to contact
[email protected] or something or one of the project managers, Jeff, David, there in red when online.
http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php
It doesn't exactly fit the Open Source definition, but... to an extent it does, considering PHP cannot be compiled.
-[Unknown]
heh, you're coming round to my interperetation.
See, [unkown] isn't as stubborn as we all yhought :o
GPL version 3 should be available soon. Hopefully that will make things easier :)
Never seemed stubborn to me, he seemed nice and helpful and still is.
Quote from: jack on December 04, 2004, 08:38:18 PM
heh, you're coming round to my interperetation.
See, [unkown] isn't as stubborn as we all yhought :o
I'm stubborn when people argue ineffectively. If you say, "You must allow redistribution" and I say, "but that's only caused us problems" (and list a few of them), and you respond with "But you must!!!11"... well, I'm not going to cave :P.
I'm kidding, but the point is that there are reasons we don't use the GPL.
Quote
GPL version 3 should be available soon. Hopefully that will make things easier :)
Well, I don't mean the GPL. I don't expect we'll go back to the GPL, specifically because people think "GPL" means "public domain", even as much as it does not. What I meant was that our license *could be argued* to fit the Open Source definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) with minor changes. I know you're going to say no, but here's how:
Free redistribution... we could be convinced to allow verbatim redistribution in an aggregation, as long as it was unchanged. Currently we don't, but this is the only modification. The only other problem is derived works, which is kinda fixed by four, since we do allow patch files and PHP has no binary distributable form.
Of course, the argument would undoubtably be lost. Really, it needs to be derivable to fit the definition. We've just had too many (in fact, all but like one) bad experiences with redistribution.
-[Unknown]
Redistrabuting, is this refering to the use of SMF built into portals and such or just general passing along with even a modification to the source code, or are you refering to other things that im not thinking about, its a true shame that smf has to protect itself from things behind licenses, but aslong s its free to use on my site i will quite happly use it and help out here if i can, plus im trying to make a language pack (Klingon (star trek)) that should be cool, but theres many words that arent easy to translate, as klingon is a far from full language.
Well, I mean distributing the source code or a package with SMF's source code (changed or not) without our permission.
-[Unknown]
Here is my question to anybody who is knowledgeable to definitely answer this. If I took a version of Linux and adjusted the source code to make my own improvements I understand I can do this with my name on it but anybody is free to do the same wiht my product, to take it and improve it. This is what I understand to be "open source".
You can do this with truly open source code, so if you have taken source code from another forum that is open source, then by its definition cannot someone take your source code and improve it or modify it into another similar product in the same way?
That is what I am asking. What are the rules about that and the rules about PHP as it is truly open source.
In the way that Suse and Redhat have taken the code and modified it and then support it.....
Quote from: zeno on December 04, 2004, 09:13:38 PM
Here is my question to anybody who is knowledgeable to definitely answer this. If I took a version of Linux and adjusted the source code to make my own improvements I understand I can do this with my name on it but anybody is free to do the same wiht my product, to take it and improve it. This is what I understand to be "open source".
Yes and no. The problem is that a lot of people think they can say that the whole project, and all the files in it (including those they didn't modify at all) are now copyrighted by them; they cannot. The changes would be yours, and the new project would be maintained by you... but the original copyrights would still be there, and could not be replaced.
PHP, as an example, is not GPL. It is BSD. Source code written in PHP, linked with PEAR or not, does not need to be BSD or GPL or even open source. A great example is vBulletin.
-[Unknown]
So then would I be right in understanding that if you took something from an open source project you cannot copywrite it by the definition of the license...
I guess I'm talking about code that is originally open source, am I right in understanding that this code cannot be copywrited because of its license, which is why linux is able to be copied and readjusted like redhat and suse, and in the same way that open office was copied and used by Sun but now Sun Microsystems cannot actually copywrite it because the code they used was covered by the Open Source license.
I basically thought that the rules were:
If your code you used to make anythign came from Open Source, then it is quite ok but then anybody can copy it, and alter it..
And if you made something from scratch, then you personally own that copywrite as you explained above..
Am I anywhere close to having the correct understanding? This is an area that seems to be unclear ot many people. But it is an important area I think.
Specific to my question, it is related to the interest I have in this forum for our business. I am asking specifically about licensing to ask if I am allowed to adjust it to our requirements if needed only for our own business use?
Here is what I want to use it for:
We only want small forum where designers and our clients can come together upload files and upload pictures. Like for example if someone is designing one outline for a customer and customer accepts I want to upload the jpeg on the Job Thread so the next designer or developer can see it and see all the comments. We spent along time adjusting PHPBB then discovered yours has 4/5ths of all the criteria we need. So I wanted to find out if we are allowed to adjust it to suit our needs? If it is within the license agreement.
We also wanted to upload files to a communal area. Kind of like a project management system without the extras. Hence all my questions
I dont know what anybody else thinks but I have not come across a simple project management system that can keep all our comments in one area, along with images eg. like different images different designs have done for one project put them all together for a communal look!! The two Project Management softwares that are also on Fantastico seem too unweildy and unmagable and have tons of things that are not needed.
A simple forum with the right modifcations seems to be the best project management system for a small design and development company like ours?
Any comments or does anybody know anything better to use?
No, all code is ALWAYS copyrighted. Everything. The thing is, code written by John is always copyright by John, or if he was an employee or contracted worker, whoever he was working for.
So, if John works for Apache, his code is copyright by Apache. However, if someone forks that code... it's STILL copyright by Apache. It will *NEVER* stop being copyright by Apache, unless those rights are BOUGHT from Apache. This is under ANY license - BSD, GPL, etc.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer. Please consult a lawyer for more information and clarification before you act upon anything I have said here.
The license allows you to modify the software, and to redistribute your modifications. We wouldn't dream of disallowing that! You just can't redistribute the software pre-modified.
-[Unknown]
Quote from: [Unknown] on December 04, 2004, 09:03:17 PM
Well, I mean distributing the source code or a package with SMF's source code (changed or not) without our permission.
-[Unknown]
Hmmm.... I am hoping this does not mean adding SimpleMachines into a phpnuke downloads area, but having the download link point to the downloads page here...does it? If so, I need to go take the SMF download link out of our webmaster resources area.
peace
Wolf
Well, I'm not sure if it's technically okay or not... you may wish to ask Jeff Lewis... but, as long as it links to the download page, it should be fine.
The reason that's preferred is because:
- you get the latest release.
- they can view the license and see the site.
And etc...
-[Unknown]
There's no reason why anyone can't link to the SMF download here, surely? That's just silly, it's got nothing to do with distribution of source.
Cheers,
Damian
There's already a link in the copyright to the site, I don't see that putting another link on a site would be a problem, but as [Unknown] says, check with Jeff :)
Quote from: [Unknown] on December 04, 2004, 08:49:28 PMI'm kidding, but the point is that there are reasons we don't use the GPL.Quote
I (believe I) know the reasons you moved from GPL, and I support that decision.
I'm not sure what point I was trying to make last night ::)
QuoteGPL version 3 should be available soon. Hopefully that will make things easier :)
I meant there that it would make things easier in regards to the specific licensing hoops we had to jump through for the Cppermine bridge. GPLv2 just ceases to work effectivley with modern scripting languages. V2 is designed with a discernable difference between source-code and object-code.
As it is, a workable solution was found, so everyone's happy :)
Quote from: [Unknown] on December 04, 2004, 09:17:35 PMPHP, as an example, is not GPL. It is BSD. Source code written in PHP, linked with PEAR or not, does not need to be BSD or GPL or even open source. A great example is vBulletin.
That is a property that also exists in the GPL.
If I write some C code in emacs (under the GPL) and compile it with GCC (GPL), the code is still my code - I could release the resulting program as a binary-only non-free package, just as long as I don't link it with any GPL libraries.
I know, but if you were to link it with PEAR (and PEAR was GPL, which it is not) then you would be in trouble.
-[Unknown]
This obviously is a complex issue. I suppose to some degree because it is programming it is different than the copyright issue surrounding a book or music.
Someone said that this forum was taken from another forum, if so then was that original forum open source, and so then would that follow that part of this forum is actually copywrited by previous designers who made the original core of this design?
And in turn could someone come alone and take the core of this product alter it and then put their label on it with another name?
I am trying to find out for example if we created something and released it under open source like for example an email client, but say we released under open source, then can anybody take it, adjust it then give us no credit for it?
I believe it's still very much up to the license. IIRC if you release something under open source the standard license still means that if people redistribute your product they have to keep things such as copyright intact. Even then licenses will differ depending on what you want people to do with your product - for example our one here prohibits redistribution.
As for this being taken from another forum. SMF was "built from" YaBBSE. However, probably 90%+ of the SMF code is a complete rewrite so theres next to no original code in it. Also, the creators of YaBBSE (Jeff and Joesph) are also the project managers here - basically SMF is the "official" upgrade from YaBBSE - and certainly doesn't have any copyright implications.
Hope this helps and is accurate
There's a lot to be explained, but the license was CHANGED by the owners (Zef Hemel, Jeff Lewis, Joseph Fung, and many others), and so no - you cannot fork this by your logic. Even if you could, there would only be small portions of it - say a comment here, a line there - which you could fork. Most of it you could not.
It's copyright (rights to copy) not write. Sorry, just a pet peeve.
Quote from: zeno on December 05, 2004, 06:00:01 PM
I am trying to find out for example if we created something and released it under open source like for example an email client, but say we released under open source, then can anybody take it, adjust it then give us no credit for it?
They cannot, but they think they can. If you license it under the GPL, people will do this. I take that as a given. This is one of the primary reasons we don't use the GPL - because it is asking for work for our lawyer.
-[Unknown]
Hi
So my understanding is you took a clone of an open source licensed product, eg. yabb then adjusted it to a certain degree, and then you have put your own license on it.
So initially it was a complete clone, but as it has evolved as you say alot of the code has changed.
So when you initially cloned the original open source product what license were you able to put on it then?
So again it comes down to my question which is have you done the exact same thing that Sun Microsystems have done with open office, and suse have done with linux?
So then therefore by my calculation if we did somethin gin open source to just promote our name, ok, then anybody can take our work and put their own private license on it, like you have done....
Can anybody tell me if this is correct?
Quote from: zeno on December 05, 2004, 10:56:40 PM
So my understanding is you took a clone of an open source licensed product, eg. yabb then adjusted it to a certain degree, and then you have put your own license on it.
No. That's like understanding that Microsoft took a clone of Windows 95 and released it as XP.
If you're going to continue ignoring my assertions, I'm just going to ignore your questions. No. This is not GPL. You cannot fork it. I'm sorry.
You're beginning to annoy me by ignoring my answers and trying to prove your very wrong point. If you do not understand copyright law, please consult a competent lawyer.
Edit: And, if you are trying to get to the point where you fork this software, you can be sure you will be hearing from our lawyer. And it won't be a Christmas card, either. To be frank, I am currently under the impression that you are either trying to steal this software, trying to prove that we broke some law (which we did not), or are simply a troll.
-[Unknown]
I am not ignoring your answers, I am asking, you produced a clone of an open source product, that is stated in your literature, so now I am asking is this possible to then adjust it to some degree, which is what you have done, and then you have put on it your own license.
My question is at what stage did you put your own license on the clone? My understanding from reading the forum is that the early stage was using the identical engine that was an open source product under the open source lincense, so I am asking is that then when you put your own license on it.
If this is true, then what is to stop anybody doing the same to our open source product that we wish to develop to promote our name.
And is this the same as what sun microsystems have done and what suse linux have done?
I am sorry that you are annoyed at my lack of understanding.
Perhaps let someone else expain I do understand copyright law, but I am asking at what stage are you putting copywrite on your work.
For example if someone made a clone and changed one small part of the code, is that then enough for them to slap their own copyrite on it?
Thanks
Possibly zeno is referring to the original Yabb compared to the subsequent YabbSE and then SMF?
I have no idea, was Yabb by the same developers as YabbSE, and if so would it even count seeing as they are written in different languages? Possibly I am not helping to clear this up as I'd intended ;)
Cheers,
Damian
idigital, not that I know of. YaBB is being made by a completely different team. YaBB SE was just a "port" to PHP and MySQL by some of the developers, which are not on the team anymore. That's what I heard :P
Quote from: zeno on December 05, 2004, 11:08:15 PM
I am not ignoring your answers, I am asking, you produced a clone of an open source product
This assertion is incorrect.
Quotethat is stated in your literature
None of mine, and if it is it needs to be corrected.
Quoteso now I am asking is this possible to then adjust it to some degree, which is what you have done, and then you have put on it your own license.
If you were to have an open source project, and then agree to have its license changed, then yes it could be changed. The owners have to change it, which is what was done here. As I said three times now.
QuoteMy question is at what stage did you put your own license on the clone?
It is impossible for me to answer that question. It's like asking, since you only need to eat one gram a year, how many grams do you need in your whole lifetime? I must eat more than one gram a year. Your basic premise is wrong.
QuoteMy understanding from reading the forum is that the early stage was using the identical engine that was an open source product under the open source lincense, so I am asking is that then when you put your own license on it.
YaBB SE 1.5.0 was open source and GPL. Its owners decided, after many legal wrong doings of third parties, to move to a non-GPL license. This meeting and discussion took several months, and involved quite a few people. YaBB SE 1.5.1 was released under this new license - by YaBB SE's owners. This is not a clone of YaBB SE, you've got just about everything you can get wrong... wrong.
QuoteIf this is true, then what is to stop anybody doing the same to our open source product that we wish to develop to promote our name.
But it's not.
QuoteAnd is this the same as what sun microsystems have done and what suse linux have done?
I have no idea what you are talking about. However, I will refence another thing Sun has done - OpenOffice and StarOffice. They are basically identical, but because the same people are the owners, they can release one under a different license. If you own something, if you wrote it, if you have all the rights, you can release it under a thousand licenses.
QuoteFor example if someone made a clone and changed one small part of the code, is that then enough for them to slap their own copyrite on it?
I will say it for the at least eigth time. You CANNOT claim a copyright on someone else's work. You cannot claim our work, we cannot claim yours. No matter what measure of code they change (1% or 60%), they cannot change the copyright of YOUR work. And you cannot change the copyrights of ours.
Again, I urge you to seek legal counsel. I am not a lawyer, and you do not seem to have the facts straight. I will not be held responsible for anything you do or do not do from your knowledge or lack thereof in copyright law, and I am telling you now that even if I were to spend an hour trying to explain it to you, you would still need to see a competent and licensed lawyer.
The original developers of YaBB (notably Zef Hemel) were also involved in YaBB SE's license change. Not that it matters, because the code was all rewritten from scratch... sigh. I'm getting very tired of repeating myself.
-[Unknown]
P.S. I assure you I am not a "troll", I assure you I am only interested in finding a clear answer to my question of how you get from open source software to your own private license.
That is at the bottom of my question, I am not a programmer but I employ programmers. My interest is for our own commercial and open source projects we are wanting to get into. So I am only asking you how did you do it.
So is it still the case that even though licenses were changed, this product began life as a purely open source product.
Becuase no matter how many license changes or versions later or no matter how many people added bits, chopped bits, it is still evolved from the original pure open source version.
That seems to be correct from my understanding at least which is what I am asking about. I can understand copyrites being protected by my understanding even after carefully reading what you have written is that this product evolved from an open source product even if the vast majority of code has changed....
Quote from: [Unknown] on December 05, 2004, 11:17:52 PMAgain, I urge you to seek legal counsel. I am not a lawyer, and you do not seem to have the facts straight. I will not be held responsible for anything you do or do not do from your knowledge or lack thereof in copyright law, and I am telling you now that even if I were to spend an hour trying to explain it to you, you would still need to see a competent and licensed lawyer.
The original developers of YaBB (notably Zef Hemel) were also involved in YaBB SE's license change. Not that it matters, because the code was all rewritten from scratch... sigh. I'm getting very tired of repeating myself.
-[Unknown]
I think it is time to close this rollercoaster thread. It is as senseless for someone to be asking the SMF team to offer legal guidance as it is for me to ask a plumber to do brain surgery.
There are other sources of information regarding copyright law. I think it is time for zeno to go find some of those sources.
I have already answered your question twice or three times, zeno. And even so, until you see an actual lawyer, I would hope you're not going to act on anything I said or might say after this point.
Tick, tock, locked... was that how it went?
-[Unknown]