36 replies to this topic

[cannuck1964]

Quote

I don't have the source code of his add-ons but we do have correspondence of him stating that the GPL license and the copyrights of developers are not being violated. This correspondence will obviously go against him if violations are indeed occurring and found.

So if anyone writes that they are not contravening the GPL all is ok?


if his auction module uses the following :

• Admin controlled Store Logo
  
• CKeditor (WYSIWYG)
  
• Information Pages Controlled from Admin
  
• Custom Auctions Module (Copy Writed)
  
• Header Tags SEO
  
• SEO URL's Pro

lets break it down as he is saying this entire work can not be transferred (which also means that the cart isself can not be copied again, an issue with the GPL)

Admin controlled Store Logo -- standard osC logic, is this used to move the store logo to the auction service?

CKeditor (WYSIWYG) -- standard GPL released editor, (it may use the BSD licence)

Information Pages Controlled from Admin -- another module developed and using all of the standard osC logic.

Custom Auctions Module (Copy Writed) -- his custom module, now, here he states it is a module, which in osC is generally managed by the osC code. and unless it is totally stand a lone in its logic must maintain the GPL as well from the GPL license creep....

Header Tags SEO  -- another standard module written years ago by Linda McGrath now involved with the Zen project (last I looked)

SEO URL's Pro  --  Again another GPL contribution.


I find it very difficult to believe this is the case, i went there before and he had many such things in place for other so called "his license"  contributions.

Are you proposing some one buy it and review it and see if there are really GPL issues involved rather then just taking his word for it (especially given some of the controversy surrounding this individual).

I am sure I am not the only developer who feels this way on the subject.

cheers

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

cannuck1964, on 19 May 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

So if anyone writes that they are not contravening the GPL all is ok?

If we have confirmation and assurance that no violations are occurring and we have no reports that prove otherwise, yes - that is enough. This correspondence will obviously help us with legal aid when a reported violation has been confirmed.

I don't know how he has coded his Add-Ons however whoever has received his complete solutions can redistribute the GPL parts without concern. If his Auction Add-On has been coded in a way that does not use GPL code, he is free to choose the licensing and terms for his work which his customers must abide by.

[Biancoblu]

@Harald Ponce de Leon

Harald Ponce de Leon, on 19 May 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Hi Isa..



Please bring the Add-Ons to our attention and we will look into it.

This also has to be addressed on a case-by-case basis as when Add-Ons for one commercial service are allowed (eg, payment modules), Add-Ons for other similar services must also be allowed. The important issue is that the source code for v2.x Add-Ons must be GPL or compatible license. If the Add-On is just a text file pointing to a website, then no - that is not allowed.

Kind regards,

Hi Harald

I see no way of reporting and addon so I'll post it here. (also see attached thumb)
http://addons.oscommerce.com/info/8781

It's the "If you would like it installed for you, it can be ordered from.....site in question" that perplexes me.

Forum rules 1.2 state:

Quote

Commercial postings and advertisements are not allowed. If you wish to promote a commercial solution or service to the community please review our Corporate Partnership program.

I understand that this rule covers both posts and signatures, so my question is does it cover addons? To be entirely honest the way that addon is formulated clearly leads to a commercial product, or at least to the installation of such, all that from a member that does not pay, and never has paid, any kind sponsorship plan whatsoever, whilst still gathering clients from this forum.

I just wanted to know if that is acceptable to you.
Thanks.

Attached Files

•  osc200513.jpg   62.25K   19 downloads

[Jack_mcs]

Biancoblu, on 20 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

I understand that this rule covers both posts and signatures, so my question is does it cover addons? To be entirely honest the way that addon is formulated clearly leads to a commercial product, or at least to the installation of such, all that from a member that does not pay, and never has paid, any kind sponsorship plan whatsoever, whilst still gathering clients from this forum.

I don't know what the policy is for the addons and mentioning installation of it but I have been noticing that mention on many addons. In fact, there is one that doesn't even have the addon uploaded. You have to go to his site to download it. So I assumed that was OK to do. It might be one of the things that Harold mentioned as falling through the cracks. If he says it is against the rules, then I certainly won't do it.

However, your statement above does bother me. Do you have the slightest idea how long it takes to code and maintain an addon? Look at my addons, their popularity and the support I offer here. If that isn't paying, I don't know what is. If others want to pay to sponsor the package that is their choice but I would argue that in most cases, what I offer in time and effort far outweighs any sponsorshop payment and helps keep the oscommerce package alive and prospering. There is nothing preventing you from installing the package yourself. And, if you do and you get stuck, I will help. But not everyone is able or willing to do that - thus that statement.

[Biancoblu]

Jack_mcs, on 20 May 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

I don't know what the policy is for the addons and mentioning installation

neither do I, hence my post.

Jack_mcs, on 20 May 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

there is one that doesn't even have the addon uploaded. You have to go to his site to download it.

That is obviously unacceptable, imho.

Jack_mcs, on 20 May 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

However, your statement above does bother me. Do you have the slightest idea how long it takes to code and maintain an addon? Look at my addons, their popularity and the support I offer here. If that isn't paying, I don't know what is. If others want to pay to sponsor the package that is their choice but I would argue that in most cases, what I offer in time and effort far outweighs any sponsorshop payment and helps keep the oscommerce package alive and prospering. There is nothing preventing you from installing the package yourself. And, if you do and you get stuck, I will help. But not everyone is able or willing to do that - thus that statement.

What bothers me is the fact that professionals like you seemingly don't find it useful, or necessary, to support this project even though they have been making money for years  out of it, and even though the cheapest sponsorship plan costs as little as 10 Euros per month. Moreover, they post into their addons what I personally see as commercial advertisements.
I simply asked if that was allowed ot not.

I never questioned the quality of your work as I am not competent to do that, I am sure others would do that a lot better than myself, and I never questioned the quality of your support either.

[Jack_mcs]

Biancoblu, on 20 May 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

What bothers me is the fact that professionals like you seemingly don't find it useful, or necessary, to support this project even though they have been making money for years  out of it, and even though the cheapest sponsorship plan costs as little as 10 Euros per month. Moreover, they post into their addons what I personally see as commercial advertisements.
I simply asked if that was allowed ot not.

I never questioned the quality of your work as I am not competent to do that, I am sure others would do that a lot better than myself, and I never questioned the quality of your support either.

I guess we have different definitions of support. In my mind, I support more than the majority of members. If it weren't for addons and the free help given here, the package would not ever be successfull.

I dodn't mean to say you were questioning my work or support, just that you were igorning it in your determination of what is considered support of oscommerce.

[joli1811]

Hi All,

Well just what I said earlier guess the pandoras box has now been opened !!

How to make a rules that fits all cases is not going to be possible the only thing that will work is the common sense of all members and maybe a definition of working in the interest of the community.  no doubt in my mind that the work and time that Jack has put into the community is worth more than any sponsorship plan actually I think it is guys like him that keep the community alive.

This is really a case in my opinion of what Harald said earlier.

"Again, not each issue brought to our attention is a black and white issue. This is why "may" is used and not "will".

So lets hope common sense prevails over any attempt to impose black and white rules in a world that is not black and white.

Just to many rules everywhere nowadays and no common sense.

Regards
John

[Mark Evans]

cannuck1964, on 19 May 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

Are you proposing some one buy it and review it and see if there are really GPL issues involved rather then just taking his word for it (especially given some of the controversy surrounding this individual).

I'm more than happy to test this if someone has purchased an addon from this individual then send it over and I'll review it for any violations and will happily upload it to the addons section

[Biancoblu]

@joli1811

joli1811, on 20 May 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Hi All,

Well just what I said earlier guess the pandoras box has now been opened !!

How to make a rules that fits all cases is not going to be possible the only thing that will work is the common sense of all members and maybe a definition of working in the interest of the community.  no doubt in my mind that the work and time that Jack has put into the community is worth more than any sponsorship plan actually I think it is guys like him that keep the community alive.

This is really a case in my opinion of what Harald said earlier.

"Again, not each issue brought to our attention is a black and white issue. This is why "may" is used and not "will".

So lets hope common sense prevails over any attempt to impose black and white rules in a world that is not black and white.

Just to many rules everywhere nowadays and no common sense.

Regards
John

I never questioned Jack's work and the time he's put in here, all I asked is "is it allowed to post commercial adverts into addon descriptions".
Surely you understand that if some members are denied posting commercial adverts whether in posts or sigs whilst others are allowed it in addons descriptions, there must be something wrong, or not?


@Harald Ponce de Leon
just making sure get to read this.

Edited by Biancoblu, Yesterday, 05:59 PM.

[joli1811]

Biancoblu, on 20 May 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

@joli1811


I never questioned Jack's work and the time he's put in here, all I asked is "is it allowed to post commercial adverts into addon descriptions".
Surely you understand that if some members are denied posting commercial adverts whether in posts or sigs whilst others are allowed it in addons descriptions, there must be something wrong, or not?

Hi Isabella,

I understand perfectly what you mean and agree that you have a made a good point that was going to be made sooner or later by somebody either with good intentions or bad intentions yours being as I see it with good intentions.

That there is something wrong I agree but not with Jacks offer of installation help !
Here comes the common sense who better to help somebody with an installation than Jack the creator of the addon lot better than some unknown freelancer.
Think it is actually an nice service offer.

I for one, after having thought a while about Haralds reply,  would say lets keep the lid on the box and leave it to the discretion of the team to decide what crosses that grey line the word he used  in a slightly different context was "MAY act " small word but nice meaning.

At the end of the day I do think rules should be used as guide lines but not as infallible truths.

@multimixer

It's good also that they are in such a "vague" form with no point systems and such, I trust the forum moderators will use them with caution researching each case carefully
PS: should not have been slaps point system  I meant to say spanking point system

Bye the way my history lessons always taught me that Switzerland was renowned for being neutral so not sure which planet Laurent is on at the minute.

Regards
John



@Harald Ponce de Leon
just making sure get to read this.

[Biancoblu]

@joli1811

I just believe in there being a rule that is followed by everybody, how fairer than that can you get?

I agree that nothing is black or white, but if for example the rules clearly state that "commercial adverts aren't allowed either in posts, signatures, or addons" then that is clear and then people are free to follow the rules or not, then take the risk of possibly being reprimanded. The same applies to the opposite. ie: if the rules state that "commercial adverts ARE allowed", so much the better for those benefiting it.

At present there are no rules regarding addons, hence my asking.

Quote

Bye the way my history lessons always taught me that Switzerland was renowned for being neutral so not sure which planet Laurent is on at the minute.

it's actually quite simple, Laurent has been (for a while now) on the "I hate BIancoblu" planet.

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

This topic is temporarily locked and will re-open tomorrow for further discussion.

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi All..

This topic was locked last night due to inappropriate behaviour. Several postings in this topic were removed and Laurent (foxp2) received a 48 hour suspension and final warning due to his behaviour.

Criticism is welcome and can be part of a good discussion as long as it is constructive and progresses the discussion further. "Name calling" and "personal vendettas" not only stop the discussion from progressing, it is also inappropriate and intolerable in this community.

Please also do not judge someone for not being a Community Sponsor. Community Sponsorship is not a requirement. Community members are welcome to provide value by other means (Add-Ons, support in the forum, feedback, ...).

Back on topic.

• Commercial advertisements are not allowed in Add-On descriptions. Developers are however welcome to promote their commercial services and donation links in the documentation inside their Add-On download package.
  
• Add-Ons must have code and functionality included.
  
• Functional demos or light versions are also welcome as long as the code for the functional parts are included.
  
• Add-Ons without code or require an external download for functionality are not allowed.

Edited by Harald Ponce de Leon, Today, 12:00 PM.

[Jack_mcs]

Harald Ponce de Leon, on 21 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Functional demos or light versions are also welcome as long as the code for the functional parts are included.

The "light version" is not clear to me. Does this mean that part of an addon can be excluded? For example, one of my addons has a reports section with five reports. Are you saying that could be changed to four reports and have the fifth say something like, "Only available in the paid package."? I'm no expert in open source law but doesn't that violate it? Or am I missing the point entirely?

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Jack_mcs, on 21 May 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

The "light version" is not clear to me. Does this mean that part of an addon can be excluded? For example, one of my addons has a reports section with five reports. Are you saying that could be changed to four reports and have the fifth say something like, "Only available in the paid package."? I'm no expert in open source law but doesn't that violate it? Or am I missing the point entirely?

If the code in the fifth report uses GPL code, then the fifth report must also be licensed under the GPL.

[altoid]

Harald Ponce de Leon, on 21 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Back on topic.

• Commercial advertisements are not allowed in Add-On descriptions. Developers are however welcome to promote their commercial services and donation links in the documentation inside their Add-On download package.

I support this particular provision, specifically to promoting commercial services links in the documentation side.  

I've seen where several developers do this and it's gives a shop owner the option to have the add on installed for them.  

Maybe the shop owner doesn't have the time/nor skill to do the install.   Why not permit the code author to offer an install for fee.  I've chatted with some shop owners who are very happy to have that install done for them.

At the same time, others (like me) like to do-it-yourself and here's this open source add on set to go.  So I am seeing win/win in all this.

[altoid]

deleted....double post error

Edited by altoid, Today, 01:29 PM.