Licensing Questions (Was: Re: SMF to attend O' Reilly's OSCON)

[therebel]

Hi,

I read this post : http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php

The point can be made that Simple Machines software isn't Open Source as described by the OSI

Smf becomes open source?

Greetings

[Fustrate]

If you actually read all of that page, it clearly states why SMF is not 'open source' as defined by OSI. They then go on to describe what their license means, and why it's done that way.

Imagine if you made a famous painting. Someone else comes along and changes the hair color of one of the people in your art piece, and tries to sell it as their own. Sooner or later there are hundreds of *slightly* different versions of your painting out there, and there's nothing you can do about it.

That's why SMF is licensed the way it is.

[therebel]

If you actually read all of that page, it clearly states why SMF is not 'open source' as defined by OSI. They then go on to describe what their license means, and why it's done that way.

Imagine if you made a famous painting. Someone else comes along and changes the hair color of one of the people in your art piece, and tries to sell it as their own. Sooner or later there are hundreds of *slightly* different versions of your painting out there, and there's nothing you can do about it.

That's why SMF is licensed the way it is.

Hello,
Joomla is open source and there are not hundreds of copies.
Ubuntu is open source and there are not hundreds of copies. It is necessary to stop being naïve.

If smf is not open source, i don't understand his presence to Portland in an open source convention, it is little as this Microsoft presented Windows vista in an open source convention ......

I repeat my question, smf goes you it to become open source?

Greetings

[Enc0der]

If you don't like SMF's license you are not forced to use it.
Please go away.

[Fustrate]

Can you not see the source code of SMF? Can you not go change every text string to "RING RING RING RING RING RING RING, BANANAPHOOOOONE!!!" in every language file? Can you not change Admin.php, Subs-Admin.php and Security.php to let anyone you want into your admin panel? That's what open source is all about. You can change anything you want about it.

Just don't go remove all of the security and sell it as SMF 3.0.

Is it really that hard to understand? They allow you so much freedom to do what you want to, yet you complain about something that really doesn't matter to anyone unless they want to cause trouble?

So let's just be happy that we have SMF, it's free, and (at least in my liberal book) it's open source.

[metallica48423]

Please lets not turn this into a personal attack on either side. 

This thread is not for discussion on our licensing.  I reccommend SMF Feedback and Discussion for general discussion.

enc0der: appreciate the support, just please don't step over the line

[Fustrate]

Are bananaphone references still allowed in this thread?

I apologize if I came off rude, by the way. 1:50 AM and I haven't slept well in the past 9 months (you don't want to see why or maybe you do! Google "pyoderma gangrenosum", not for the faint of heart)

[therebel]

Can you not see the source code of SMF? Can you not go change every text string to "RING RING RING RING RING RING RING, BANANAPHOOOOONE!!!" in every language file? Can you not change Admin.php, Subs-Admin.php and Security.php to let anyone you want into your admin panel? That's what open source is all about. You can change anything you want about it.

Just don't go remove all of the security and sell it as SMF 3.0.

Is it really that hard to understand? They allow you so much freedom to do what you want to, yet you complain about something that really doesn't matter to anyone unless they want to cause trouble?

So let's just be happy that we have SMF, it's free, and (at least in my liberal book) it's open source.

Very interesting.

Definition Open source (source: hxxp:www.opensource.org/ [nonactive]) : Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source and to build bridges among different constituencies in the open-source community.

One of our most important activities is as a standards body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the good of the community. The Open Source Initiative Approved License trademark and program creates a nexus of trust around which developers, users, corporations and governments can organize open-source cooperation.

And

Just don't go remove all of the security and sell it as SMF 3.0.

Not exactly http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php

You can modify the source code, distribute instructions to modify it, you can view the code and suggest improvements to it.

SMF it's free but not open source, and

suggest improvements to it.

Is not still true because the team banished from the members when they post corrections. That is why I am amazed to see smf has an open source convention and for what I allow to ask if smf is going to pass open source. I do not question the license smf.

Greetings

[metallica48423]

Is not still true because the team banished from the members when they post corrections

I'm not quite sure what makes you think that.  Theres several members who post bug/feature reports/requests, and i don't recall anyone being 'banished' for sharing their opinion. 

But this topic really isn't the place for that discussion.  I'd like to keep this topic on topic. If you'd be willing, please start a topic regarding your concerns in SMF Feedback and Discussion

[HecKel]

The discussion is really interesting, I suggest one split to these messages and continue in other place. I really am interested on this "parallel" discussion

[metallica48423]

Thats a good idea.  Unfortunately I can't split in this board.  I'll have someone split it

[therebel]

A passage in the open source for smf is planned?

[Enc0der]

yet you complain about something that really doesn't matter to anyone unless they want to cause trouble

I'm pretty sure this is the issue here, btw.

[HoTmetal]

Wow this topic went in a direction I didn't expect. I think many people misunderstand SMF's license and the reasoning behind it. Its true, Open Source requires redistribution, and SMF's license allows for redistribution, but requires written permission first. Our primary reason is consistency, and security. You really can't compare SMF to Ubuntu. One is an Operating System and not very portable (unless its on a live CD) the other is a web application.

I wouldn't even go as far to compare SMF to Joomla, but since it was the example brought up and its a web application I'll run with it. Again all we require for distribution is keep the SMF package current(update within one week), keep the footer in place, and keep the initial package unmodified. There are many company's right now with written permission. Look as SMF's security history compared other forum software, I'd love to think we have the best Dev team on the net (& I feel we do) but a big part of keeping your forums safe is keeping them current. There are many hosts out there that have these 2 click install scripts, installing old versions of websoftware. I see people here all the time because some host still has YabbSE as a free install and it hasn't been supported in how long? We feel this is a progressive way of looking at software and in fact I'll go on record to say we've been asked numerous times by other company's for permission to use our license.

As for an OSI License, I would love to talk about that, but as metallica has said, we should split the topic & keep this one on task.

[metallica48423]

I agree with Rick. 

For the record, I didn't mean to sound as if its not up for discussion.  I think theres plenty of good discussion to be had on that, however, this isn't the place for it.

[HecKel]

Now about the OTHER offtopic (it is double post to help when you split the topic )

Seeing SMF as a single software, their license are very good and I cannot complain, but when we see SMF as a web application that CAN be connected to other applications their license starts to be a problem..., I remember that you stopped support Joomla's bridge and I know that GeSHi was removed from MODs area. Looking for my own problems, I didn't care about Joomla, I never used and I don't pretend to use, but GeSHi is a PROBLEM in my community (we are a programming community...).

I don't know anything about licenses but in my opinion the actual license that SMF use restricts a little bit the 3rd party development, and I don't think that is a good path to follow...

[青山 素子]

Topic has been split.

I remember that you stopped support Joomla's bridge and I know that GeSHi was removed from MODs area. Looking for my own problems, I didn't care about Joomla, I never used and I don't pretend to use, but GeSHi is a PROBLEM in my community (we are a programming community...).

This isn't really the right area, but I'd like to address this for the other readers. The Joomla! support was stopped because that project specifically stated that no module can be anything other than licensed under the GPL or a GPL compatible license. The bridge was not one of these things, and we couldn't reconcile their license stance. We didn't want to be doing something that was against their view of the license, so we stopped development of the bridge. Anyone else is free to make their own bridge, we aren't stopping them. In fact, JoomlaHacks was supporting a bridge until recently.

As for the GeSHi plugin, the last version on the site was corrupted and wouldn't install, and the creator of the modification decided to drop development. You are welcome to write your own version if you like.

I don't know anything about licenses but in my opinion the actual license that SMF use restricts a little bit the 3rd party development, and I don't think that is a good path to follow...

You say you don't know anything about licenses but then go on to criticize the SMF license? Also, our license doesn't restrict 3rd party development. All it says is that you can't redistribute SMF in any manner. It says nothing about your own code. You are free to develop themes and mods and do whatever you wish for them. Likewise for bridges with other software.

[HecKel]

I think you mistunderstand me, it wasn't a critic since I don't know anything about license but was just a simple comment through what I read above.

Thus I had noticed, SMF license is incompatible with GPL license, so if I want to create some thing that will integrate SMF and other software I have to guarantee that I wont have any leak on license's compatibility.

But where is the problem? In SMF license? In other software license? In my opinion is not any problem BUT could create issues whom want to create something under some license.

I really had some problem about GeSHi, but if you say that I can create my own MOD without any problem I'll really try to do it since I'll do it for my community so I'll upload to SMF as well

And just to clarify and finish my message (in my AWFUL English ), the critic was to the licenses itself and not to SMF. When I had the problem with GeSHi my other forum's moderators said that the problem was GPL license and not SMF license, SMF license don't restrict the other connected softwares but GPL does.

[SA™]

whats GeSHi plugin?

[HecKel]

Just a plugin that do the same as code tags but can highlight the code in some specific language (that you specify on the tag).

[SA™]

yeah i just saw it on google well GeSHi anyway

[青山 素子]

Thus I had noticed, SMF license is incompatible with GPL license, so if I want to create some thing that will integrate SMF and other software I have to guarantee that I wont have any leak on license's compatibility.

Yep, but that's the situation in software licensing in general. Luckily, with most of the popular Open Source and open source licenses, the terms apply on distribution, so mingle the code all you want as long as you don't distribute it to others. (The SMF license is this way except for the copyright display requirement.

Note that GPLv3 has new terms that can prevent even that. Basically, in some cases, using a component licensed under the GPLv3 to create your page could be considered distribution, and you may need to make your full source available because of that. I suggest reading the actual license (or at least the FAQ for it) for a bit better and more accurate description.

But where is the problem? In SMF license? In other software license? In my opinion is not any problem BUT could create issues whom want to create something under some license.

The problem is in the intersection of the two licenses. If they have incompatible terms, then there will be a conflict. Unfortunately, despite being billed as a very open license, the GPL is very very restrictive (to developers).

And just to clarify and finish my message (in my AWFUL English ), the critic was to the licenses itself and not to SMF. When I had the problem with GeSHi my other forum's moderators said that the problem was GPL license and not SMF license, SMF license don't restrict the other connected softwares but GPL does.

I know I'll be flamed, but that is basically it. The GPL is, in some ways, viral. Although there are "compatible" licenses, when code is licensed under these and then distributed in a GPL product, all the code together is under the GPL.

The problem then is that GPL code won't go into a license that has different restrictions (no redistribution or modified redistribution in the case of SMF) it doesn't want. In terms of GeSHi itself, the actual documentation specifically says you can't use it outside of GPL licensed code. That means that you'll need to ask permission to see if you can use it in an SMF mod if you want to distribute your mod. (If you just use it on your own and distribute without the GeSHi component, it shouldn't be a problem.) In fact, it might be worthwhile to find a highlighter that is under a less restrictive license and then you can distribute without a problem.


I personally discourage using the GPL for web-based software. Although it can apply, it does so in ways that you might not think that can cause issues (the SMF/Joomla bridge situation being one) since it is written with a view on traditional compiled software. There are many other licenses out there that are very good, many of them even OSI-approved if you care about that.

[Grudge]

it should be noted that just because the license of SMF is not OSI approved it does not mean it is not open source. We have not submitted our licence to osi for approval so of course it is not approved - it does not however mean it is incompatible with the open source mantra.

[青山 素子]

it should be noted that just because the license of SMF is not OSI approved it does not mean it is not open source. We have not submitted our licence to osi for approval so of course it is not approved - it does not however mean it is incompatible with the open source mantra.

Actually, we do fall on the "redistribution of some kind must be allowed" part currently. Of course, the OSI definition is a bit controversial in some areas and it isn't the sole definition of "open source".

[karlbenson]

Just a slight correction regarding Geshismf.

The main reason why the GeshiSMF mod was removed is due to the addendum at the bottom of its GPL license:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs.

So the issue isn't with the GPL, but the addendum.

[therebel]

Hi

@rickC:
It was indicated that smf could not be open source because of the problems of distribution, ubuntu and joomla are a very good example of open source with a distribution which puts nobody concerns, knowing that joomla as smf is a Web application.

Look as SMF's security history compared other forum software, I'd love to think we have the best Dev team on the net (& I feel we do) but a big part of keeping your forums safe is keeping them current.

Vbulletin/IPB/Mybb/FSB/Icebb and the security stops in smf because if we look at the themes or at mods, that becomes catastrophic in security.....

@Motoko-chan:
To stop a bridge because of a problem of license demonstrates well that the license smf is a true problem and that she cannot be likened to the open source. Moreover it is what what blocks the developpement of quite a lot of bridge with the current cms.....

@all:
When I answered the announcement of rickC, it was a reaction based on it made present smf to an open  source convention while we are still far from seeing smf as a Web open application source, of or my question of origin:

SMF plans it to cross under open license source? If not, its presence to OSCON is ambiguous, far from me the idea to question the license, but smf and open source do not make good housework for me.

it's my opinion 

Greetings

[青山 素子]

@Motoko-chan:
To stop a bridge because of a problem of license demonstrates well that the license smf is a true problem and that she cannot be likened to the open source. Moreover it is what what blocks the developpement of quite a lot of bridge with the current cms.....

No, it means there is a problem with the intersection of the licenses. It does not indicate SMF is a problem. For instance, the BSD license offers no trouble with integration. The GPL with a permissive clause is no problem either. The problem lay in the way Joomla! saw the license terms.


Now, stop your trolling, MkC or you will be banned from here again. You are evading a ban and that is enough to justify it, so don't push your luck. Also, you aren't one to speak since you don't respect SMF's license anyway based on the altered copyright on your site. I suggest fixing that before we contact your hosting provider over it (we'd much prefer a nice fix over involving other parties).

[therebel]

Hi,

No, it means there is a problem with the intersection of the licenses. It does not indicate SMF is a problem. For instance, the BSD license offers no trouble with integration. The GPL with a permissive clause is no problem either. The problem lay in the way Joomla! saw the license terms.

Oki, But smf being present in an open source convention, is that is planned a change of license towards the open source?

Now, stop your trolling, MkC or you will be banned from here again. You are evading a ban and that is enough to justify it, so don't push your luck. Also, you aren't one to speak since you don't respect SMF's license anyway based on the altered copyright on your site. I suggest fixing that before we contact your hosting provider over it (we'd much prefer a nice fix over involving other parties).

Forgiveness?
In what made references you?
There is no change, regrettably your information is erroneous, to notice by you even.
For any additional information, I remain at your disposal if need be.

Greetings

[青山 素子]

(In a rare public notice...)

therebel has been banned from this site for ban evasion and trolling.

Now, the people actually concerned can move this topic along.

[doumdoum]

(In a rare public notice...)

therebel has been banned from this site for ban evasion and trolling.

Now, the people actually concerned can move this topic along.

Quelle perte de temps la pose du ban, faut grandir un peu.
Pas très professionnel cette attitude, quel dommage.....

MkC


Which waste of time the installation of the banns, needs to increase little.
Not very professional this attitude, which damage.....

MkC

[Ben_S]

Yawn

[Fustrate]

Come, Ronald, I smell a troll in the girls' lavatory!

We can close this now...

[青山 素子]

Come, Ronald, I smell a troll in the girls' lavatory!

LOL. Guess what comes up #1 on a search in Google for that phrase?

I'll leave this open for those genuinely interested and close later if there trolls keep smashing in.

[Fustrate]

Come, Ronald, I smell a troll in the girls' lavatory!

LOL. Guess what comes up #1 on a search in Google for that phrase?

I'll leave this open for those genuinely interested and close later if there trolls keep smashing in.

SMF once again shows that it's #1!