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

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

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 .

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 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.