Is it allowed for DF to make a special exception the the GPL that was imposed on them by being a folk of Nuke and bundling GPL code of CPG-BB, Coppermine, smarty etc?

It seems doubtful that this is allowed since it is essentially a subversion of the main point of GPL and copy-left.

yes because Dragonfly is not a fork of phpnuke cpgnuke was

I may be wrong but thats how i interpret it.

Dragonfly is a fork of phpnuke. Just because they changed their name from cpgnuke to Dragonfly doesn't mean it magically stopped being a fork. Even though it's heavily modified Dragonfly was still based on cpgnuke and thus phpnuke.

Phpnuke used a GPL license and this cms was required to inherit that license as well as the licenses from smarty, coppermine, and phpbb. All of which were GPL anyway so they were good choices to bring into the cms.

Crayon? Yeah you're such a .... go find a well and fall in it.

djdevon3 wrote:

Crayon? Yeah you're such a .... go find a well and fall in it.

You've had sufficient warnings about abuse and flaming - it drew the response (since deleted) that you expected - no more.

So is DragonFly a fork of PHPNuke or not? Because if it is a fork surely that means you're not at liberty to grant the special exception quoted on the previous page?

How about you guys go READ the GPL....

Then go review the actual license. Then learn the difference between a license and a copyright. Understand a license is not a copyright is not a license.

DragonflyCMS could easily become a FOR SALE product, but of course they'd still have to distribute source, so it's value is quite subjective which is the IDEA behind the open source movement.

Another thing is DragonflyCMS could move to a closed-source license as long as the GPL in the existing code is not abused. Think MySQL if you cannot think of this working.

You could also dual-license DragonflyCMS one with a GPL type license and another commercial license.

GPL leaves your options wide open...too open for some people who think they have a right or ownership of code. Really you don't, it's free nobody owns it.

CPGNuke was based on php-nuke and was a derivative.

However, to achieve higher goals most parts of the core are written over and those are still GPL.

The additional quote is allowed by GNU/GPL as seen on their FAQ page.
Since our index.php is the entrance and the core is ours we are allowed to add that note to it.

If the core was still php-nuke we couldn't.

edit: Maze has answered the question while I was posting. Thanks again for actually answering a question.

A good source of 'info' about the issues involved in GPL licenses and links with software that is not released under the same license is the furore over the SMF Joomla bridge (ie a bit of software produced by SMF that linked their forum software with Joomla CMS).

Here is a starter (massive debate - lots of posts,threads, prognostications etc on different sites) www.simplemachines.org...pic=184557

I haven't kept in touch with the issues after first reading about them so I don't know if they ever reached a satisfactory conclusion.

Yes, the question on SMF/Joomla was answered - they split

Joomla is GPL - SMF, whilst free, is not GPL but a private licence - both parties couldn't reconcile that difference.