furthermore.com once again, sorry

[pina]

i just have one simple question about the furthermore.com/GPL license... i've just read @ mamboserver.com that

2. The code in question is a derived work of existing GPL code and therefore must remain GPL.

if i got this right, part of the Mambo Open Source is GPL licensed by some other guy not in Mambo's dev team and this code is part of the frontpage code, which is used in Miro's proprietary software too i suppose, at least that's what it seems from the demo!

don't get me wrong, I'm not appointing any finger and this might be a totally misunderstood by me, but if that part of the code is GPL, shouldn't Miro's MamboCMS proprietary software be GPL OpenSource distributed?!?

Cheers

p.s. and btw, i've noticed that the furthermore demo as you can see @ http://www.literatigroup.com/further...al/Itemid,157/ is running akolegal component without any credit being due to it's programmer, but that is also done @ http://www.radiobosna.net/ webmastered by one of the Mambo developers... I'm just curious about this because i've seen some fuss about the credits @ http://www.mamboportal.com/... i repeat, I'm not pointing any finger, I'm just really confused with this duality of criteria as I'm relatively new to the Open Source world. sorry for the long p.s.

[alterego]

If my understanding is correct...

A lot of people get the 'credits' confused with the copyright notices inside the code. It's generally specified that you may remove the visible credits, just not the actual copyright info in the source code. It's the source code that counts. Some people want a very clean, uncluttered appearance; and they may actually have a special place on the site to give credit where credit is due. So they edit out the obvious footers and such. But the source code's copyrights are to remain intact. It's against the GPL to disturb those.

[pina]

oh, ok, i just got confused about that because last week (i think), @ http://www.mamboportal.com/, there was an article about some gaming team that were using mambo and some gpl components on their site and mamboportal's admin seem very upset because they had taken off the credits lines and incentivated mambo users to send them emails to make them give the credit to the programmers and that's not the only case i've seen there, it's quite common in fact.

[Admin]

Mambo and Mambo CMS
Please note, that 'our' Open Source Mambo has nothing to do with the MamboCMS Miro is selling. Some years ago, there was only one commercial Mambo. At this time Miro decided to split up the development. I guess this was done to had some kind of demo version for the large commercial Mambo. The smaller version was licensed under the GPL and got the name Mambo Open Source (or MOS). This is why only this line of the development process is real GPL.

Furthermore
Please don't get confused and stay calm. The code parts which Connolly claims are GPL and there's no proof it really could be copyrighted. In 4.5.1 these codesnippets have been recoded already, although there was no need for it. But now with the new parameter system the frontpage component is even more powerfull.

Powerd by's lines
You all could follow the dispute with the german gaming clan ocrana recently on Mamboportal. Please note, that it is not forbidden to remove Powered by lines in GPL programs. You can see dozens of websites doing so on Mamble.com. That fact I got upset about ocrana was that they are telling everybody they had coded the cms and all the components in their forums.

Hope I could help you a little bit..

[pixelsoul]

personally i think it's just a marketing scheme of some guy who does not have any skill himself, he's trying to sell some products where others have worked for hard and then claims he made so many adjustments, while it's only a large piece of fancy text which does not give anything about new features...

Also his claims of all the big headlines on wednesday have never appeared, wonder why

[Casper]

Also it should be noted that Connolly is distributing Mambo from his site:
http://www.literatigroup.com/further...e/ascdesc,ASC/

In case he takes down this link I have attached a screenshot as well.

By providing Mambo available for download he must have agreed to (from the GPL):

Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

So, basically Connolly by providing a download link for Mambo on his site has accepted the GNU/GPL license and therefore accepts that the code in question is also GPL.

[X-F4CT0R]

Originally Posted by Casper

Also it should be noted that Connolly is distributing Mambo from his site:
http://www.literatigroup.com/further...e/ascdesc,ASC/

In case he takes down this link I have attached a screenshot as well.

By providing Mambo available for download he must have agreed to (from the GPL):

Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

So, basically Connolly by providing a download link for Mambo on his site has accepted the GNU/GPL license and therefore accepts that the code in question is also GPL.

It's kind of funny, but I too have a screenshot of that for that purpose....

Anyways, this matter will be hopefully fixed soon and you Casper, should go back to work on 4.5.1 Mr!

[fuzzybuster]

From what I can see this is a storm in a teacup.

A friend of mine who is an intellectual property lawyer believes it's a case of a client (Mr. Connolly) misunderstanding the nitty gritty of copy left, derivative rights and creative commons license. This misunderstanding could have been avoided if he'd actually bothered to read about how this works.

We've only just this week seen another example of a site that has been built where, it appears, the client had been led to believe the code was "their property".

In reality, whether the code is from a GPL source or original code, it never belongs to someone who has purchased services from a web developer. For example, you only need to read the 1988 Patents, Design and Copyright Act (UK) or equivalent.

In effect, according to my advice, IF, and only IF Mr. Connolly had coded this disputed code himself could he legally take any action. If he did not code it himself then it is a matter for the developer to take this path. Some countries allow a developer to sign over copyright however, new legislation is moving to make this illegal.

Left or right, you only ever have a license to use it.

[X-F4CT0R]

Originally Posted by fuzzybuster

From what I can see this is a storm in a teacup.

A friend of mine who is an intellectual property lawyer believes it's a case of a client (Mr. Connolly) misunderstanding the nitty gritty of copy left, derivative rights and creative commons license. This misunderstanding could have been avoided if he'd actually bothered to read about how this works.

We've only just this week seen another example of a site that has been built where, it appears, the client had been led to believe the code was "their property".

In reality, whether the code is from a GPL source or original code, it never belongs to someone who has purchased services from a web developer. For example, you only need to read the 1988 Patents, Design and Copyright Act (UK) or equivalent.

In effect, according to my advice, IF, and only IF Mr. Connolly had coded this disputed code himself could he legally take any action. If he did not code it himself then it is a matter for the developer to take this path. Some countries allow a developer to sign over copyright however, new legislation is moving to make this illegal.

Left or right, you only ever have a license to use it.

I can't talk about this in public, but there is a lot more to it than that. Feel free to contact me via email at arnes@allmambo.com

MSN: radiobosna@msn.com

Or call me on the phone 315.463.2750 and I will explain to you a bit more what's going on and why Mr. Connolly is doing this.

[unity]

Originally Posted by fuzzybuster

From what I can see this is a storm in a teacup.

A friend of mine who is an intellectual property lawyer believes it's a case of a client (Mr. Connolly) misunderstanding the nitty gritty of copy left, derivative rights and creative commons license. This misunderstanding could have been avoided if he'd actually bothered to read about how this works.

We've only just this week seen another example of a site that has been built where, it appears, the client had been led to believe the code was "their property".

In reality, whether the code is from a GPL source or original code, it never belongs to someone who has purchased services from a web developer. For example, you only need to read the 1988 Patents, Design and Copyright Act (UK) or equivalent.

In effect, according to my advice, IF, and only IF Mr. Connolly had coded this disputed code himself could he legally take any action. If he did not code it himself then it is a matter for the developer to take this path. Some countries allow a developer to sign over copyright however, new legislation is moving to make this illegal.

Left or right, you only ever have a license to use it.

I think it would not be unfair to take the view, based on his original claim, his demands as revealed in the official statement made at Mamboserver.com and the arguments he endeavoured to put forward over several days in this and other forums, that Mr Connolly's understanding of copyright law is somewhat rudimentary and lacking in any real depth.

I think that's probably as much as needs to be said on the subject of Mr Connolly for the time being.

On a more general note I have, for a while, beeing working on a general guide to copyright and intellectual property rights aimed at template designers - for a variety of reasons, which the article explores, templates are rather a complex issue to deal with in copyright terms and area in which misundstandings can easily arise.

In light of the problems of the last week, and with the assistance of a specialist IP lawyer I'll be extending this article to look at questions arising from the development of components, modules and hacks/patches with the aim of providing sufficient information to the community to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings.