Miscellaneous ⇒ Licenses, GPL & Violations :: Archives ⇒ the licenses with the new modules :: Archived ⇒ Community Forums ⇒ CPG Dragonfly™ CMS
Forum IndexLicenses, GPL & Violations

Archived ⇒ the licenses with the new modules


So mainly spoken you're not realy concerned about the GPL but more about the project itself where GPL is just a license to force Opensource just like many other licenses do.

I know about Mambo/Joomla, Drupal and many others but we are different in many approaches and ideas.
For example as you can see the sourcecode is poorly documented. This is mostly on purpose since we wanted to write a good documentation, see Microsoft SDK where you don't have to dive into the sourcecode but know enough thru the documentation.

Commenting sourcecode in PHP can reduce script execution by 150% since files are doubled in size and the PHP preprocessor needs to strip the comments on every request.
This is different then in languages like C++ or Java where it gets compiled first and then EXEcuted.

For this same reason whe had to invent a documentation system similar to php.net and msdn.microsoft.com. It is still not finnished but works dragonflycms.org/Fix_Quotes

Mambo/Joomla and Drupal have a API reference but is based on file comments using a file parser as seen on api.joomla.org/

If you want to attract developers these API's are not usefull nor is ours.

The main issue is that we started as php-nuke derivative and Dragonfly is still evolving into something new and fresh but trying not to make it harder for the average php savvy.

We are NOT attractive for big companies nor does Joomla or Drupal, you have to stay with the fact that the current PHP 4 state is not fast enough to handle a big load of visitors unless it's purely aimed to handle information.

Test results show that all these CMS are slow and a pain in resource abuse.

Regarding news and information about a project then Joomla is the worst example since most information was based to attract visitors to become a user but what they were providing was nothing more then Mambo 4.5 with some small adjustments.
Shure their website is properly layed out with loads of information but the system itself is less then usefull to get a big load.

Dragonfly is fast but undocumented so the conclusion is that each CMS has its downsides.

Same deal is with any software, you must put place priorities with the people you have and promote the software thru its advantages or it will not survive.

We've decided for ease of use, speed and security.
Microsoft decided ease of use and documentation.
Mambo decided security and documentation.
PHP-Nuke relies on the userbase and newbies.

And there are shure many more to list here.

Yes we know our bad point is infotainment and promotion but that is not our main priority since Dragonfly was designed for communities not a 'business'

Games, soccer, movies, tv series. those are community driven websites to share game stats, soccer team news/facts or a movie sequal.

Another issue: How many CMS use UTF-8 and if they did, who has properly implemented it?
It's already taking me months to design a UTF-8 system to get around all issues that arise while using it.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Fedora 25 / Apache 2.4.27 / MariaDB 10.1.26 / PHP 7.1.10 / Mercurial


Maze when I get my new computer I'm going to make a video tutorial / manual on every aspect of dragonfly. I can do the easy stuff first then move into the intermediate aspects of theme and simple module/db design. Would doing that be a good or bad thing for the cms? I can do with it no problem. My question is should I?

Also am I violating any Dragonfly license by selling themes? I only sell themes that I've created. They all start out as cpgnuke though. I would never want to violate a DF license or offend anyone in the community. If I have or ever do step out of bounds I hope someone corrects me because as of now I'm just going with the flow.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Linux/1.3.33/4.4/4.3.11


FYI - Download Pro IS covered under the GPL, as it is an module of a GPL'ed program

It relies upon so much of Dragonfly to operate, it cannot be seen as a separate program. It uses users, groups, authentication, database connections, shared database space etc..

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.


What do we mean by connecting together?

if the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program.


Hmm... they are separate script files - that probably does not apply

If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.


Yeah, that fits. They are designed to run together.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.


Looks like the Nail.

Complex data structures are in fact exchanged via script system calls. There are no 'command line' parameters exchanged (or, http GET/POST commands). DownloadsPro grabs it's data straight from the database, using Dragonfly's database connector.

DownloadsPro is covered under the GPL.

QED Smile

(all quotes taken from The GPL FAQ)

For a Good Time
For a Bad Time
For a Geeky Time

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
OS X 10.8.2.1/3.9/8.2/1.0alpha/Next Gen


tsykoduk wrote
If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.


Yeah, that fits. They are designed to run together.

index.php wrote
Linking CPG Dragonfly™ CMS statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
combined work based on CPG Dragonfly CMS. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of CPG Dragonfly CMS give you
permission to link CPG Dragonfly CMS with independent modules that communicate with
CPG Dragonfly CMS solely through the CPG-Core interface, regardless of the license
terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the
resulting combined work under terms of your choice, provided that
every copy of the combined work is accompanied by a complete copy of
the source code of CPG Dragonfly CMS (the version of CPG Dragonfly CMS used to produce the
combined work), being distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License plus this exception. An independent module is a module
which is not derived from or based on CPG Dragonfly CMS.

Note that people who make modified versions of CPG Dragonfly CMS are not obligated
to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is
their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives
permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
carries forward this exception.
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-f...dInterface

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Fedora 25 / Apache 2.4.27 / MariaDB 10.1.26 / PHP 7.1.10 / Mercurial


djdevon3 wrote
Also am I violating any Dragonfly license by selling themes? I only sell themes that I've created. They all start out as cpgnuke though. I would never want to violate a DF license or offend anyone in the community. If I have or ever do step out of bounds I hope someone corrects me because as of now I'm just going with the flow.


Under the GPL - you can sell GPL'ed software.

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.)


GPL Faq again. Smile

For a Good Time
For a Bad Time
For a Geeky Time

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
OS X 10.8.2.1/3.9/8.2/1.0alpha/Next Gen


Yeah... I have seen that exception before. I would argue that DownloadsPro is not an 'independent module'. It cannot function on it's own - it's not independent, and is using the entire core really a 'controlled interface'?

I dunno.. that's a really grey area. Is it a controlled interface, or is it just free reign?

It's hard to say which side a Judge would come down on..

For a Good Time
For a Bad Time
For a Geeky Time

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
OS X 10.8.2.1/3.9/8.2/1.0alpha/Next Gen


GPL FAQ wrote
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in.

It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.


Again from GPL FAQ

As have already been pointed out, Downloads Pro is not simply a stand-alone project that is interacting with Dragonfly by external calls, it is intimately intertwined with the data structure of Dragonfly. It cannot operate on its own and has been created, by design, to be a plugin for Dragonfly CMS.

If this is a true statement, which I believe it is, Then Downloads Pro must be released under the GPL.

- |\\/|ystic

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Ubuntu 14.04.1/Apache 2/5.5.38/5.5.9/9.4.0.0


Mystic wrote
If this is a true statement, which I believe it is, Then Downloads Pro must be released under the GPL.

If so, then i will take it offline and keep it for personal use only since the way you all explain the GPL it's impossible to provide exclusive modules to Dragonfly users and everyone is free to use the modules in any other software.
No problem here since the old Downloads module still exists.

With that said i want to know how strict you all want to take the GPL path.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Fedora 25 / Apache 2.4.27 / MariaDB 10.1.26 / PHP 7.1.10 / Mercurial


Why can't you just release the code, have it GPU and still sell a shareware version if you need to.

Why does it matter if another CMS decides to port the module?...

As i see it, thats the only issue here, that you're not wanting to share the work openly, and if that is the case, then why bother working on an opensource project in the first place?...

I fail to see why that can be an issue, because really Dragonfly is based on phpnuke, and you're kinda saying ' we can do it, but others can't with our work ' . Thats how i read it, but feel free to correct me anywhere i'm wrong, i'd prefer to be wrong.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
XP / 2.0 / 5.1 / 5.2 / none


t31os wrote
I fail to see why that can be an issue, because really Dragonfly is based on phpnuke, and you're kinda saying ' we can do it, but others can't with our work ' . Thats how i read it, but feel free to correct me anywhere i'm wrong, i'd prefer to be wrong.


We are working opensource and under GPL so anyone is allowed to use Dragonfly code.

Downloads Pro is also opensource and anyone is allowed to get ideas from the source. We just disallow copy/pasting it into another CMS.
Here's a sumup why it's not GPL:
- exclusivity to Dragonfly users
- prevent forum spam from people requesting support derivative works
- prevent the use of our trademarks and names to promote the derivatives

This last point is not controlled by GPL and can only be requested. Any derivative may promote their product with "Designed by Trevor and DJMaze" although we have nothing to do with the derivative.
Other opensource licenses do have an clausule regarding the use of names.

We don't dislike GPL but the GPL itself is a real mess, go google for questions about GPL and you will notice thousands of people interpret the GPL in their own way and GNU doesn't provide support either.
The FSF is the only place to request answers about issues created by the GPL itself but they are not independent and always promote GPL.

If we are not allowed to give Dragonfly users exclusivity with opensource modules which they may freely modify but not distribute to keep development properly on one place then i'm forced to remove all our exlusive designs and only develop/provide the current core without any planned add-ons.

Then my development will go to MOO with its own OpenSource license which prevents all issues ever raised by GPL and protects everyone his name. My connection with dragonfly will then only be administrative but no coding of new features only bugfixing.

Don't get me wrong but protection of your name/nick is important, GPL doesn't restrict this so anyone may design a derivative theme for Mambo and tag it "designed by t31os" and then t31os receives questions why it is not working in Mambo.
Or the other way round that you must sue him because the person doesn't provide any credit at all to graphics from t31os.

The same deal happens with modules and it's not because you are so smart, it's because many users don't have a clue at all where to get support since so many people provide a archive/derivative for download.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Fedora 25 / Apache 2.4.27 / MariaDB 10.1.26 / PHP 7.1.10 / Mercurial


DJMaze wrote
If we are not allowed to give Dragonfly users exclusivity with opensource modules which they may freely modify but not distribute to keep development properly on one place then i'm forced to remove all our exlusive designs and only develop/provide the current core without any planned add-ons.

Then my development will go to MOO with its own OpenSource license which prevents all issues ever raised by GPL and protects everyone his name. My connection with dragonfly will then only be administrative but no coding of new features only bugfixing.


Not to sound like an {expletive removed}, but that seems like alot like a threat. "Either we do it my way, or I head for the highway!"

So the only REAL reason you don't want to release Downloads Pro under GPL is because you don't want people coming here asking for support for other CMS', correct? The include the credits but not a direct link, or where the credits and link are normally displayed add "Support only for Dragonfly".

Problem solved.

Edit: Seems DJMaze did put his threat to reality, Downloads PRO has been removed from the Downloads here. Nice tactics.

Andreas Rönnqvist
www.omegaproject.se
[OmegaProject] Founder

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Linux/Apache 2.0.52(Unix)/4.0.23/4.3.10-2/Dragonfly 9.0.6.1


It's not a threat, i will just rearange my priorities.
Can't speak for Trevor but he has been notified about this topic.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Fedora 25 / Apache 2.4.27 / MariaDB 10.1.26 / PHP 7.1.10 / Mercurial


Wow.

I am really sorry to see a discussion about a license cause this kind of animosity. I was under the impression that it was a friendly chat.

As Downloads Pro has been removed from general consumption, do I need to remove it from my site?

I'm not trying to attack, flame, incite or any-other-bloody-thing, just honestly curious. I do respect the license that code is released under - legal or otherwise. This is why I use industry standard licenses - like copyleft. It's just easier. Smile

Actually - forget that. Until this has been resolved, I will just disable it on my dragonfly site.

For a Good Time
For a Bad Time
For a Geeky Time

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
OS X 10.8.2.1/3.9/8.2/1.0alpha/Next Gen


Well i must still be missing the point.

Why does it matter if its exclusive to Dragonfly users or not?... the module is good don't get me wrong, but i'm sure there's great alternatives and other coders that can do it for other CMS projects.

Forum spam, thats what moderators are for is it not?..... i'm guessing it begs that question as to why not just take on more volunteers for moderating forum topics, coz i know there's been alot of people frequenting the forums that are easily willing to help with things like this, and i can't say this forum is not use to misplaced posts by now, i mean how many times do you see the phpnuke or coppermine questions popup?...... i can't say i see them enough to say ' The moderators must really ache from all the clicking they have to do '.

As to the trademarks and use of names for promotion of forks, i can't see how this is as HUGE an issue as its made out to be, but then i've never seen any real examples of people exploiting this, so perhaps you could give me a link for one?

Personally if someone slapped ' theme designed by t31os ' onto a shabby theme, or a real good one, i wouldnt be at all bothered. Its if that individual performed bad practice using my alias then i'd have an issue, but then i'd be in a position to sue them for impersonating another person surely?.....

I can see how you're trying to protect yourself and the users, but ultimately we've all lost, a good example is the already apparent removal of the module from the downloads.

Is the work really that important to be picky?......

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
XP / 2.0 / 5.1 / 5.2 / none


It's not perminantly removed, it's deactivated untill everyone agrees about what can and what can't be done.

Since there's still the GPL Downloads module there's no need to put more people into these license issues regarding Dragonfly, themes and modules.

Server specs (Server OS / Apache / MySQL / PHP / DragonflyCMS):
Fedora 25 / Apache 2.4.27 / MariaDB 10.1.26 / PHP 7.1.10 / Mercurial

All times are UTC