CPG Dragonfly™ CMS

Jason · Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 1

I NOW im a noob but rather safe then sorry... Very Happy

Are you allowed to use Dragonfly for a company's webpage or is it only for "private" (ie no commersial) usage ??

I will not charge the company anything for setting up this excellent software!!

Mystic · Joined: Jun 25, 2004 Posts: 1309 Location: Spokane, WA USA

Click on the "GNU GPL" and "Code Credits" links at the bottom of the website. It tells you everything you need to know.

Essentially, as long as you don't claim it as your work, and leave the required credits for the hardwork of others in place, I believe you can use it wherever you'd like.

Of course, I can't speak for the Dev team, but that's my understanding of things.

Phoenix · Joined: Apr 19, 2004 Posts: 8729 Location: Netizen

The requirement for credits is simple courtesy and its presence on your site is a requirement to receive support here Smile

In a nutshell, GNU/GPL means you are free to use the code but must not sell it. There are a few other ramifications but, as Mystic said, it's basically all there in the links. There are several other discussions about charging for installation, like setting up a custom website for someone etc.

TheElf · Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 17 Location: Hungary

To may best knowledge one might even sell the software but should allow free copying it and make the source accessible. (Linux is GPLed, and all software that depends on linux kernel should be GPLed as well, yet people sell linux distributions, etc.)

Joe_Fission · Joined: Jun 22, 2004 Posts: 127 Location: Alberta, Canada

You can sell GPL software as long as you claim you're not charging for the software itself. If you create a CD with the software on it, then you might be able to charge a nominal fee for CD creation (of course, the fee has to be reasonable... you can't put something like Dragonfly on a CD and charge $500 for CD duplication... that won't fly)... or if you provide support for said package and usually charge for that service, then you can also build that cost into the price for the package. However, you cannot charge for the software itself.

The difference with Linux distributions is that the ones that are sold sometimes come with some sort of pay-for-use software bundled in, or an elaborate help service, or printed manuals or something. The Linux distribution itself (minus all of the pay-for-use software) is free and is usually available for free download.

TheElf · Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 17 Location: Hungary

The trick is here: All these pay to use software depend on linux kernel or other GPLed software, to include GPLed part, link to GPLed code, or depend on GPLed code in any way would mean, you should GPL your code as well, these pay to use extras are problematic. (Know a software developer who got a lawsuit against him started by a competitor for such stuff, and thanks to the lawsuit he lost an important customer to the said competitor... It was about billing software that should be unmodifiable by the client by some laws, so cannot be GPLed. Instead of a linux based solution this way a windows based system won. This is why I prefer BSD licences myself) GPL attaches itself to a software like a virus, as some old explanation says.

My other problem is the "any later version" part for using GPL licences. Remember the SCO case? When they supported open source, most people trusted them. When some position is empty at Free Software Foundation, people choose from such nice and trusted people. But what happens, if sitautions change, and people who can release GPL legally in name of Free Software Foundation get asked by supporters to change some of the rules. Who know what GPL 3 / 4 could become. Giving up freedom to decide about your work permanently, to people you don't know yet isn't much different than trusting certain american telco by contributing to Unix. You sincerely hope and almost certain that it will be good. But something happened by Unix, and GNU born, and with GNU the lincencing is just as much ended up in one hand... Except it works for the code like CPGnuke too.

This, and the attitude, that sometimes says if it is open source it is automatically better even when prooven otherwise makes me think often and think hard about what I use. And often I decide one competiting software is good for one situation other is better at other. This is why I prefer to have servers that run BSDs, linux, windows... Vbulletin, dragonflycms, xoops, etc.

DJ Maze

www.gnu.org/licenses/g...rogramToGL

Jeruvy · Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 1433 Location: Canada

Well I like TheElf's explaination it covers most bases very well.

GPL means you cannot sell it without giving credit (and perhaps profit sharing) to the original owners.

You may use this on a company/commercial website provided your give credit as is already configured. If you remove the credit we refuse to support you.

Does that answer your questions? (assuming you've reviewed the links posted above)

Smile

Let us know what you think.

BlueSteel · Joined: Nov 15, 2005 Posts: 14 Location: Australia

Question.. problem... delemour... unclear

the thing is that If I's like to attempt to build up a system od collected mods,modules and blocks based and written using and set version of CPGNuke .. then you state that I should place the credits where they are due...

but there comes the conundrum....
cpgnuke uses source from varous authors .. inclusung coppermine,phpnuke,phpbb and many many others

So.. I'm asking why doesn't cpgnuke state all of these copywrites in there distro of hacked changed modidied improved or cut down versions there of

my question is where do you draw the line in exactly how far back you go... If any work i do is based on cpgnuke 9.0.6.1 or what ever.. then shouldn't i state that its familytree so to speak.. all the way back.. or how far back do i state...
in a manner of speaking wouldn't i have to go right back to php and mysql licences as thats where its all started... and even for any other technoligy used there in ag: gif,swf,Java ,cron ... as without these services there would be no cpgnuke or anything....

I'm sorry if i seem a bit think... but i'm really in a quagmire of thoughts of veven writting or modifying adding anything that may put me in hot water...

The thing is even worse on commercial portals,cms's .. cause you only get a licence to use their software and don't own it...

When I look at CPG Nuke i do see and recognise many many hands of work involved... so why doesn't cpgnuke state the source code that everything is based on in their licence as (from what i've read ) should be stated ... even now you've gone to the extent of taking it from phpbb based to cpgbb or what ever... and none of this is stated in the licence texts..

Can say phpbb eventually state that your breaking their licence .. or coppermine or any of the changed software...

Another question is just how much or little is necessory priot to not having to state earlier licences...

So I hope you can see why i'm so confused.... because if i take someones module and change it to better suit my site and keep the copywrite messages at the bottom... and then someone wants to get an exact copy of what modules etc that i have on my site.. and i give it to them.. then it revokes your licence agreement... I currently run several sites with varous portals.. and CPG Nuke is one of them .. its a great system.. but all systems need tweaking changing etc to fit into place nicely

Sorry for babbling on here .. just extreamly confused....

DJ Maze

There's a difference in the actual license and a credits document.
If you read the GPL it states you're not allowed to modify the license (and it's a damn good reason), instead you should give credit where credit is due.

Like:
dragonflycms.org/credits.html
dragonflycms.org/Wiki/id=22.html
dragonflycms.org/Wiki/id=24.html
dragonflycms.org/cvs/h...ndex.php?v
dragonflycms.org/cvs/h...ndex.php?v

So if you modify a file then you add your copyright along with the others.

Jeruvy · Joined: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 1433 Location: Canada

Essentially:

You may modify it to your liking, and then you own copyright. However the work you modified has conditions on that modification that you should follow (usually either credit the original basis or some such task)to ensure you do not violate the license.

In most cases you cannot remove a previous license from code that you use, which is why so much credit is still given to the phpnuke authors with regard to dragonfly.

As for adding copyright as DJMaze stated is really vague. You change the copyright, but this doesn't give you any 'ownership', simply a 'right' to claim as your art. If contested then you may find that your claim is valid or not, but this is best left to be answered by someone well versed in copyright law in your country, and prefereably the law of the country of the original work. Maybe even a international copyright lawyer.

So in layspeak Wink

You modify it, then it's your copyright. It doesn't alter or change the license (unless stipulated in the license that it does) requirements or the original licensor's rights to their art. So if you keep a note like "Originally based on ABC's Code or Module" and any other conditions stipulated in the license (yes you have to read it) then you fine to do what you like.

GPL and CC were designed to allow people to collaborate, not take ownership.

Hope that's clear.

djdevon3 · Joined: Aug 05, 2004 Posts: 4365

I believe all the old phpbb stuff and even stuff like tablesort are given credits in the core files. They aren't openly advertised in the footer link to code credits or anything like that because the list would be a mile long. Credit is usually given where it's due. I don't claim copyrights on any of my modules because they are all based off of someone elses modules. But I generally give credit in the read me or somewhere in the actual code like a simple comment line //code by maze//

Sometimes I do forget to give credit and it's not on purpose it's just that I'm so darn busy sometimes that I miss it. I usually come back in later versions of a theme or module and add it in when I remember.

GPL is one of the best things to happen to open-source. I love the concept. I never even heard of it before I started getting involved with cpgnuke.

Question? Will sony or first4internet have to pay restitution or something to GPL for using open-source works illegally from LAME? Is GPL an actual organization that tracks violations and can bring lawsuits? If they can I hope they take a chunk out of first4's butt.

tsykoduk · Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 103 Location: a Chair

Quote:

Is GPL an actual organization that tracks violations and can bring lawsuits?

Nope - but the EFF, OSDL and others take a dim view of breaking the GPL.

When the GPL is broken, the original author usally teams up with one of the above and... well just read groklaw Smile

speedyvista · Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Posts: 2

To comment on something said.. yes the thread is dead and old, and I hate dredging it up, but you can charge for GPL software, whatever the heck you want. The 'charging for installation media' is simply not true. If i wanted to sell Dragonfly for $500, thats perfectly fine and dandy

from GPL FAQ

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

CPG Dragonfly™ CMS

DedicatedNow