What is the type of license this software is released under?

[[Unknown]]

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]

[zeno]

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?

[Grudge]

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

[[Unknown]]

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.

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]

[zeno]

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?

[[Unknown]]

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]

[zeno]

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

[idigital]

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

[Kirby]

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

[[Unknown]]

I am not ignoring your answers, I am asking, you produced a clone of an open source product

This assertion is incorrect.

that is stated in your literature

None of mine, and if it is it needs to be corrected.

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.

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.

My 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.

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.

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.

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.

But it's not.

And 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.

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?

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]

[zeno]

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.

[zeno]

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....

[Amacythe]

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]

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.

[[Unknown]]

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]