SMF is not GPL!

[Tom]

As far as I'm concerned, SMF works for what we need.  Leave it alone.  Remember the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."?  It applies here.

Here we are with a community of users powered by SMF and it is performing nicely.  It even survived the dreaded "SlashDot Effect" without even making the server sweat under the pressure.  As far as I'm concerned, it works and it does what needs to be done; create a forum.

[Predator]

Well spoken Tom,

to create forums and start giving support to the overcoming members should be one of the main goals beside all the other things.

[stingrey]

Just to add SMF virtually flies along compared to VB especially in the Admin area.

[[Unknown]]

anything you modifu automaticly becomes property od Lewis Media.

You may wish to reread the license or contact a lawyer to gain a better understanding of the license.

You can, but someone desides what way is it going to be.

You can also modify Mambo as you wish, but someone else decides the way it is going to be...

-[Unknown]

[mic]

i would just like to publicly acknowledge the efforts of the SMF devs and their supporters/users.

They have always been suportive of Mambo and working to create an integration between our two projects.
I know they've been nudging us for a while to move to SMF.

They also have been providing us assistance in the use of SMF as we get used to it.

So kudos to SMF and its community.

Well also in replayng this (my) answer also to Joseph Fung and Unkown (both from SMF): why is it so complicated to become an answer from teh developers (or others) from SMF if i want to know only one answer to a question concerning the SMF lisence?
If this would be truth

They have always been suportive of Mambo and working to create an integration between our two projects

why Joseph Fung is not able to answer, even he recieved 4 emails from me - and already read them!

So Mr. Fung, maybe you can answer here or give me an answer by email?
Because reading emails but not answering is not that kind of support i understand ..

michael

mic (MGFi)

[attitude]

You may wish to reread the license or contact a lawyer to gain a better understanding of the license.

Hm, there was some changes in this licence, since I've read it last time. The thing with property have been changed, and now Lewis Media have non-exlusive right (earlier they automaticly owned all the modifications). Redistribution without permission is still not allowed... If it canges, maybe it could be GPL compatibile.

You can, but someone desides what way is it going to be.

My piont is that I can modifu Mambo and give it to my friend. That is freedom. Not in SMF case, when I have to ask LM...
The fact is that SMF is not free (or open source) software, and that is my point.

Someone got me wrong here. I support everything and I don't want to bother anyone. I'm just expresing my point of view in goal to make things clear from start. I want to use free software anywhere and that sould be main goal for all of us.
Of course, I will not stop supporting the crew, and I'll stand active in future. Community is in the first place! Mods, if any of my posts cause loss of time and energy delete it

[Kindred]

attitude...  I think you are confused.

SMF is free... it costs nothing.
Any modifications you make may be distributed freely...  as mods.

The only restrictions are:
1) You may not remove or change the SMF copyright form the forum pages.
2) You may not sell SMF in any way
3) You may not modify the SMF code and distribute it...


So, what is the problem that you seem so vehement about?  (personally, I hate VB, IPB and phpbb, all)

because you can't make a change to the code and then sell it as your own?  You can't do that in mambo, either...

[BSD]

SMF is very nice forum but is published under not quite GPL spirit licence. I have nothing against licences that are not GPL, I myself prefer BSD licence, but SMF licence is non-free and thus in opposition to the idea of this community. Let me explain why. All you have to do is take a look at it to realize that something is not OK. If you make a modification of SMF code and decide to publish it you may not do that without express written consent of Lewis Media:

c. Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express written consent from Lewis Media.

That is enough to make you reconsider using SMF if you think to make real Free/Open source community.

Now for Free...I guess a lot of people everywhere in the world, just the same as over here in Serbia, mix terms. Thou we in Srrbia should not mix because we have two different terms. So, FREE here means FREEDOM and NOT(!!) the PRICE. Something may be free of charge but still not FREE as in term of FREEDOM. Just as RMS said:

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Something may be Open sourced in the meaning that you have access to the code but that is not enough to be OS GPLed. In order that software is realy community free it must satisfy these 4(3) terms:

    *  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.



@spacemonkey

I'd suggest using XMB forum which I myself have been using for a few years. It is both Free and Open, adjustable and works great for big communities. I administer one big community on http://www.emulationgalaxy.co.yu/emuforums/ which, at this point, has over 4000 members. Take a look at: http://www.xmbforum.com/ or at it's derivate: http://www.xmbxtreme.com/ If you need any help with it I'd be glad to help.

[d3vlabs]

SMF and Mambo are very closely related in my book. It's a natural Forum solution for anyone looking for a fully functional BBS to integrate with Mambo (dont take me wrong, SMF holds it own just fine standalone) and they have one of the most closest communities in the open source scene. And now look what you done, you got [Unknown] and Kindred even posting here explaining their licensing system.

[BSD]

Well, sorry for that but if you are saying that we are to make free and opet community we are to use real free and open software. I had no intention to make problems in the community.

[attitude]

@BSD
You've done documentation job for me Thanks

It is clear from quoted parts of licence what am I talking about. Price is not the point, it's freedom and that should be clear. Nobody is talking about selling and profit. SMF philosophy is not good for the community.

because you can't make a change to the code and then sell it as your own?   You can't do that in mambo, either...

Yes I can. GPL allows me to do taht. Only condition is that modifications must be released under GPL. Nothing stops me to sell it If I want.

they have one of the most closest communities in the open source scene

How can they have open source community when SMF is NOT open source???

Mambo+SMF is not free combination, and it also is not good for community. Sorry, but that is the fast also

[Kindred]

attitude...


so, to you, freedom (of software) is the ability to take someone else's work and claim it as your own?

There are plenty of people out in the SMF world who SELL templates for SMF.

Modification packages (mods) are distributed FREELY with no charge, and are sometimes rolled into the next revision...    How is that limiting?
Mods ARE modifications to the SMF source, "in mini". You can't distribute the entire source, but you can distribute the mod packages which, by their nature contain parts of the source...

So you can not change the license... (once again, we get back to the claiming someone else's work...)
So you can not sell/distribute the SMF source (once again, we get back to the claiming someone else's work...)

I think I see a pattern here...

[BSD]

Wow there! Please do read what I've posted before attitude about the definition of freedom and why SMF is by no mean in the spirit of freedom.

[stingrey]

We have made a decision to use SMF to power our forums and so far have been very happy with its performance - it handled a slashdotting without a hickup.
For us the only other alternative is VBB. 


This is not the place to argue the semantics of the realtive openness of SMF.
I think the SMF forums wuold be a better place for that.

[BSD]

Ok, as you wish. My point was that SMF is by no means free software. And VBB is neither. I have nothing to say to guys from SMF. Their licence is by no means my concert for I don't use thier software so I don't really care.  I just thought that you wanted to use real free/open software for this community. No hard feelings, use whatever makes you happy but take care what you call free/open.

[attitude]

@Kindred
Read the GPL and read you post after that. You'll see where you are wrong

I forgot one thing. Imagine that Mambo licence is like SMF's. Developers that are doing this would not be in position to start what is started here. Is that our goal? No, if you ask me.
This is the problem that SMF developers should ask themselves. It is not hard to presume what will happen to code that they've done, if situation becomes like it is now with Mambo.
I think that this is enough for anybody to get the point.

As BSD said, no hard feelings, we are talking about freedom

[[Unknown]]

Forks can be good, and forks can be bad.  I think we're all seeing the good part of a fork.  If the world turned around and I was away for a year (it would take both at least) and this resulted in SMF no longer being free, the first thing I would do would be to fork it, and I'm sure I would have the explicit permission.  For more information on this, please see the forum on simplemachines.org.

-[Unknown]

I think most of the points I already mentioned in this paragraph are very valid - specifically, if you ened any more clarification on the license, this is not the right place to discuss it.

And, as I understand the GPL you cannot sell GPL licensed software except by charging a copying fee.  You still have to provide the source code for free in some way, in my limited and legally unlicensed understanding.  But, this isn't really the place to discuss that either - please consult a properly licensed lawyer for a better understanding of the GPL.

-[Unknown]

[BSD]

Quite sure the theme isn't whether SMF licence is good or bad for the community but the thing that it is not a free licence. If we are to use free/open software for the community we should use realy free/open software. SMF is great piece of software and it would be even better if there wasn't that nonfree part in it's licence. And sure you can sell things published under GPL.

[attitude]

You can sell GPL software. Even RMS says sell it and make money if you can

[gram]

Not sure this will be a welcome post....

This conversation has the potential to cause additional fractions within this community.  We are not all going to agree as to whether the inclusion or use of GPL"free" software should be the standard.  To pursue the goal of using only GPL software is a major mistake that is in fact exclusive of great groups and individuals who can support this initiative.

If we pursue this even further, MySQL is not "free" by the definitions presented here.  We would need to swing OSM over to using something like PostGRE to fully comply with this mandate.

I don't personally care what forum software is used here, as long as it fulfills its mandate and purpose for this community.  The software used by this community to fulfill its goals is not relevant to its stated goals.

If we attach these type of exclusive goals onto this project, we are going to fracture it again.  There are numerous 3pd's out there that provide great software that extend the usability and adoption of OSM which is non-GPL.  They have thus far been accepted by this community, and this type of initiative could (and most likely would) destroy the continued adoption and growth of OSM as those 3pd's would begin to focus their efforts toward CMS's that would not label them as the "problem", "enemy", or as being "wrong"(as apposed to what I perceive attitudes definition of right to be).

A good number of the folks who support this community also write software that is not GPL, and that by some of the definitions presented here should not be included in this community.

This project should remain an inclusive, rather than an exclusive initiative.  Use MySQL because it makes sense to use, SMF because it is the right application for the community (features, benefits, etc.. --NOT licensing).  Decisions to adopt other software for either inclusion into the community, or to support this community should be based on applicability, with an eye toward best licensing (clearly GPL wins here).  Not based on Licensing first, then applicability.

And one final note, we are not developing a solution based on SMF, we using it to support the community.  If we were developing a solution, more of this discussion (so far) would be germaine.

Apologies to any offended by this post (sincerely, I don't want to start an argument), I just want to see OSM move forward without the restrictions and loss of community this type of mandate could bring to bear.

GRAM

[toubkal]

Are we all going to have to throw away Microsoft XP when using mambo?

All forms of licence have their place. Just because we support OS GPL software does not mean that we must use it in all situations.

SMF seems to be doing a great job at the moment - very swift.

[BSD]

Like I told you, use what you will I could not care less. I myself prefer BSD Licence to any other as the only really free/open licence and that is my problem but as a member of FSF Associate and a member of BSD community  I couldn't notice that term free is used in a wrong way. Don't speak about really free community while using/promoting non-free software. It is the matter of principles. It seems that principles are something really doubtful in these times. Too bad.

If we just use some software that fulfills some goal we might end up using closed source software if it fulfills our goals, right? Btw, it would be much better if CMS ran on PostrgreSQL which is far better database than MySQL but that is different question.

I dont't care to make a fraction here because I've already spent too many hours working on Mambo and working for the community and I'll keep doing that in days that are comming. I just stand up to my principles. And yes, I'd most certainly throw away anything produced by Microsoft not only while using Mambo but all the way but that my problem, again.

[gram]

Your points are noted BSD, and quite frankly even if we do not agree, I respect your right to your own opinions.

Let me drill down just a little bit here, as I think it will be productive for all of us, but particularly you and I moving forward.

Lets start with the definition of "free".  Its an interesting topic, and one that I have found several differing opinions on the definitions of.  Since I live in the US(only saying this because I have found this definition can vary by geography), my definition is derived from the english language publication "webster's dictionary".  They define free (only including first two definitions as they seem most relevant):
"Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
Not controlled by obligation or the will of another"

By this definition, we could assume that the use of GPL (if it were truly free) would allow me to include GPL code into my software products, claim them as my own and move forward.  The GPL excludes that usage, and I suspect this may be why you prefer the bsd license (I agree).

Unfortunately, the GPL also excludes using GPL software as component, or library to any non-GPL software.  This is also a restriction of freedom, and one causes many to use the lesser GPL to avoid.  In fact, were it not for the $ambo exclusion of this particular part of the GPL, 3pd developers could not legally create software that ran under $ambo with also making thier own software GPL (thus being forced - not free- to use the same license and not one of thier own choosing).

My point is simply this, while the use of the word "free" in the definitions provided by the GNU are applicable, they also need clarification as they only address specific freedoms and do not grant complete freedom.  To use the word "free" in the GNU context requires also stating that it is the GNU definition of free, and not the definition generally held by everyone who might use that word.

The GNU is not sacred or authoritative with regard to the use of the word free, unless you also state the thier definition is the one you are using.  Otherwise the word free is left to be defined by ones own undestandings of the word, which understandibly varies from individual to individual.  Your definition is not wrong, nor is mine.  You do not have a superior definition (the GNU), you have an alternative one.

Others in this conversation have alluded to the word free as defining the cost of the software, which is also a correct usage of the word, and one commonly used.

My experience has taught me that english definitions of words often do not transalte well into other languages, as they are typically dependent upon english concepts that may or may not even exist in another language.  So maybe this is a culteral difference, which might explain a lot of this.

The same pricinciples apply to the GNU's usage of the word "open".  I personally use that word to simply mean that the code is not compiled, and that I can edit and/or change it.  I realize others have differing ideas of what this word means with regard to software.  My definition is not wrong, once again it is alternative and appropriate.  It is also not exclusive as I accept that my definition may not be the same as yours.

Now, as to principles.  I hold myself to be a person of high moral character, and one who believes in principles that adhere to fairness and equailty for all.  I do not need, nor do I want my ideals or moral values to be dictated by anyone other than myself.  My parents taught me the difference between right and wrong and I understand it well.  If I choose not to align myself with all the princiiples expounded by the GNU, that does not mean that my principles are questionable or suspect.  For whatever it is worth, I respect the GNU with regard to the licensing it maintains, and abide by the principles of the GNU whenever I use GPL software.  Its thier license, and if I choose to use software governed by it then I must play by thier rules.  I have released software under the GNU/GPL and expect others to do the same with that software.

My goal is to play/work fairly with all other individuals/entities I interact with.  If its thier software, and they did the work required to produce it, they get to set the terms for its usage.  If I don't like the terms, I simply do not use it.  I don't believe I should exclude products released under less than GPL licensing simply based on license terms.  I choose instead to evaluate software by applicability to my need.  I use a lot of comercial software, and a lot of open/free(your definition)/GPL software.  Each serves its own purpose.

I hope we can agree to disagree on this one, you seem like a very decent individual and I like the fact that you adhere to principles you believe in.  I just don't want to be dismissed or dissaproved if my prinicples are not exactly the same as yours are.

Thanks,

GRAM

[BSD]

It is nice to know that there are people out there with whom I may go into coversation on licences problem without going into flame. I also need to clarify a few things. As a student of Law I see FREEDOM in terms defined by GNU and GPL or BSD licence. I don't say that all of us ought to live under the definitions of GNU. I wouldn't be using FreeBSD and promoting BSD philosophy if I lived in the GNU way, would I? We may all have different view on freedom but legaly speaking free is defined in certain way in GPL and when we speak of freedom of software we are to have in our mind GPL. I don't say that their way is the best, BSD is better if you ask me, but $ambo is published under GPL, our community is full of GNU spirit and  I just thought that it might not be good to use something published under licence that opposes GPL, nothing more.

I don't mind anything you  said but still I can not agree that non-free/open software is to be used here. I respect you opinion and yes, I agree that we disagree on this. I understand that you try to find the best application for your needs no matter if it's free or not and I respect that. I'm by no means "man of one book" and I hope that my words are not seen as an attack on other ppls opinion.

[gram]

Thanks BSD 

I enjoyed tthe conversation.

GRAM

[BSD]

Same here.

[attitude]

Freedom could be deifferent for individuals, but there are some basics that are accepted form community. OK, I respect other opinions, but some things simply talk for themselves, as SMF philosofy. Let me be specific and say that I have no intent to start community dividing or anything like that.

I only need one answer. What would happen if mambo code was released under licence that is similar to the SMF's?

[gram]

I only need one answer. What would happen if mambo code was released under licence that is similar to the SMF's?

We would have no interest in continuing development for it like we do with Mambo.  We would (if we chose to) simply use it for its intended purpose.

GRAM

[TheSaint]

I'll just be glad so long as we don't have to re-register for phpbb, IPB or the like if we decide to move away from SMF. Registration and setting up your profile twice isn't a whole lot of fun. We already had to do it thanks to the Miro folks. Let's try to avoid it again right-o?

[BSD]

Re-registering the least problem because members tables from MySQL may be converted to wahtever you want.