Zikula Community

• Slugger
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Mar 11, 2003
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1104

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 05:49 AM

  The GPL and copyleft is not backed by much case law so I expect this subject to generate more opinions and anecdotes than factual answers. That's OK. I can get all the legal advice I could ever want from my lawyers and, after all is said and done about this subject, their advice is not cast in stone either.
  
  There are several open source projects I have found that have slipped into obscurity. These are projects which, for lack of interest, have been abandoned and never developed past alpha or beta. Not PostNuke beta (CRS, this one's for you!) but real beta. I'm talking about projects that failed to generate any open source momentum.
  
  My partner and I can afford to take risks but we do not do so blindly. We were thinking it might make sense to "rescue" some of these better concepts from their open source hell. Open source did not support them and, with no indication that will change, we wouldn't expect things to be different. That is to say, at least until they get past the conceptual hurdle.
  
  We can afford the risk but, if we are going to spend the time and money to bring these concepts to life, we would want to get a reasonable return on our investment. What other option is there? Without someone taking a risk, these projects are doing nothing.
  
  Our goal would not necessarily be to keep the projects from returning to open source but we would first want to cover our investment with a comparable return that we would get from another investment of similar risk. We've even pushed around the idea of dedicating a portion of all future proceeds, if any, to support worthy open source projects.
  
  This is not trying to justify a way to make a fast buck on the back of some poor suck who couldn't finish what they started. There are easier and less risky ways to make money. We are not bottom feeders but we are aware that Coke, Jello, Post-Its and many other "brands" we take for granted did not make it on their first go around.
  
  What do you think? If you are against this idea I'm interested in why you think the world would be better off if these projects remain abandoned as each of them has been for years.
  
  X

  • 
  •  
• HalbrookTech
  
  

  • Rank: Developer
  • Registered: Dec 31, 1969
  • Last visit: Jun 01, 2010
  • Posts: 6859

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 06:04 AM

  I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand things:
  
  1. If it's GPL, it must stay GPL (And hence open source) if it's not GPL, then it depends on the licence it is under, as it is theoretically possible to have OSS that isn't required by licence to stay OSS. I know the BBS I ran back in teh day was OSS, but not free. I paid 80 and got the C++ code. To me, that's Open Source.
  2. You can charge whatever you want for it, regardless of if it's GPL or not, however, if it's GPL, there's no way to stop someone from buying it and redistributing it.
  
  To make your $ back:
  
  1. Get a web hosting reseller account, i've seen em start as low as $9, but the good ones run in the $30+/mo range, and offer hosting packages tied to the project.
  2. Sell support contracts.
  3. Sell the software, hopefully enough people will pay you for it before it leaks out.
  4. Find someone interested in the app that is willing to at least partially foot the bill for the project. That's how pnGroups, pnFirstVisit came about. I was paid to write them, and since they were not only GPL'd but the client wanted to pursue the possibility of adding them to the core, I essentially split the costs with him (i.e. gave him a discounted rate).
  
  --
  Home Page | Find on Facebook | Follow on Twitter
  

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Freshman
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 85

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 06:08 AM

  I don't really have an opinion or advice on the legal side, but I am wondering what shape the code in these projects is in. It could be easier to start from scratch and focus on good code rather than take a project that is in shambles and try to peice it together. On the other hand if you have a good base to start from and if the project had good name recognition then it might be worthwile to pick up this dead project. In the end I guess it all boils down to wether or not the product satisfies some need in a market that is not already saturated. i.e. I hope you are not reffering to another dead CMS!

  • 
  •  
• Slugger
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Mar 11, 2003
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1104

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 06:36 AM

  Zoom.

  I don't really have an opinion or advice on the legal side, but I am wondering what shape the code in these projects is in. It could be easier to start from scratch and focus on good code rather than take a project that is in shambles and try to peice it together. On the other hand if you have a good base to start from and if the project had good name recognition then it might be worthwile to pick up this dead project. In the end I guess it all boils down to wether or not the product satisfies some need in a market that is not already saturated. i.e. I hope you are not reffering to another dead CMS!

  
  
  No reference to a CMS... I actually see that as saturated! I'm talking about ambitious modules that were either ahead of their time or too ambitious for those who originally took them on.
  
  You are right that the code in some of these may leave a lot to be desired. We can assume no mainenance or debugging has been going on and, obviously, they are immature and often very much incomplete. On the other hand, strict interpretation of GPL, such as Michael alludes to, does not consider such issues relevant.
  
  The GPL hardliners claim that anything that has sipped from the GPL well is, and must always remain, GPL. I'm not so sure I want to buy into that strict interpretation since so much, of what some of us may logically refer to as prior art, is not valid or relevant in a legal sense.
  
  Slugger

  • 
  •  
• HalbrookTech
  
  

  • Rank: Developer
  • Registered: Dec 31, 1969
  • Last visit: Jun 01, 2010
  • Posts: 6859

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 06:54 AM

  Slugger

  The GPL hardliners claim that anything that has sipped from the GPL well is, and must always remain, GPL. I'm not so sure I want to buy into that strict interpretation since so much, of what some of us may logically refer to as prior art, is not valid or relevant in a legal sense.

  
  
  Obviously, since I argue for the side of developers keeping their modules/themes/ect not GPL, I don't think it's anything that touches GPL, but if it is a GPL project, it must stay a GPL project.
  
  --
  Home Page | Find on Facebook | Follow on Twitter
  

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  

  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 124

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 07:07 AM

  mhalbrook

  I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand things:
  
  1. If it's GPL, it must stay GPL (And hence open source) if it's not GPL, then it depends on the licence it is under, as it is theoretically possible to have OSS that isn't required by licence to stay OSS.

  
  
  An interesting read:
  
  Licensing HOWTO
  
  A link within that paper talks about changing a license. I would read this whole section, well read the whole paper too :)
  
  Changing an existing license
  
  Not being offered as legal advice :)

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Freshman
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 85

  Posted: Dec 16, 2004 - 07:45 AM

  Maybe the best approach would be to take the good ideas you find and do a rewrite so all the code is yours. On the other hand maybe you can devise a good profit model while working within the GPL. I know a lot of devs are scared of open source because they think their ideas will just be stolen, but honestly I think it is the service and expertise that can be offered by the dev of a system that gives them a unique access to the market that other will not have. The little script kiddies that try to make a buck off others work usually get very little credibility and never break out of the cheap-skate market.

  • 
  •  
• Slugger
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Mar 11, 2003
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1104

  Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 06:54 PM

  I'll read your reference Larry. Thanks for the link.
  
  This is interesting stuff. The idea that open source, which is supposed to promote collaborative development, can sometimes stifle development, as well. When something is GPL'd and abandoned, it isn't clear how the GPL promotes development.
  
  Slugger

  • 
  •  
• HalbrookTech
  
  

  • Rank: Developer
  • Registered: Dec 31, 1969
  • Last visit: Jun 01, 2010
  • Posts: 6859

  Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 10:31 PM

  It isn't clear? The GPL would seem to indicate that it's okay for someone to pick up and continue with it to me.
  
  --
  Home Page | Find on Facebook | Follow on Twitter
  

  • 
  •  
• Lobos
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Dec 02, 2002
  • Last visit: Apr 30, 2010
  • Posts: 1474

  Posted: Dec 18, 2004 - 12:55 AM

  Slugger

  I'll read your reference Larry. Thanks for the link.
  
  This is interesting stuff. The idea that open source, which is supposed to promote collaborative development, can sometimes stifle development, as well. When something is GPL'd and abandoned, it isn't clear how the GPL promotes development.
  
  Slugger

  
  
  Like Mhal said, you shouldn't have trouble picking up this project as it is GPL and that is what GPL is all about - hell you don't have to stop at dead projects either, you could grab a perfectly healthy project and start working on it as well if you really wanted to.
  
  Now from the gist your previous comments it seems that you wish to change the license for the code, but I don't think this is possible due to the same rights expressed in my first paragraph. Remember it is all protected under the GPL, be it incomplete or complete - if it was possible to change a license from GPL what would be the use of it? This would mean you could take Postnuke or any other GPL project and close it's source.
  
  -Lobos
  
  --
  -Lobos
  Professional PHP Framework Services: Concept, Development and Deployment

  • 
  •  
• Slugger
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Mar 11, 2003
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1104

  Posted: Dec 19, 2004 - 06:09 AM

  Of course you can maintain the status quo-that is implicit.
  
  But picking up a "dead" project and taking it private is a different story. In my hypothetical, a "dead" project would be one that never got past beta and has been abandoned. Is it better to leave it dead or pick it up? Specifically, is the GPL a disincentive for private investors to come to the project's "rescue"?
  
  If so, what is your interpretation of the stated purpose of the GPL, is leaving a project dead consistent with that purpose, and why is that a good thing?
  
  If not, what is the incentive for investors to risk capital to take a project, that the open source community has abandoned, to the point that the community (or "market") finds it attractive?
  
  Slugger

  • 
  •  
• Lobos
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Dec 02, 2002
  • Last visit: Apr 30, 2010
  • Posts: 1474

  Posted: Dec 19, 2004 - 09:12 AM

  Slugger

  
  If so, what is your interpretation of the stated purpose of the GPL, is leaving a project dead consistent with that purpose, and why is that a good thing?
  

  
  
  Good or bad it is the way it is, and not my interpretation of the GPL, but THE interpretation of the GPL - once you eat the apple and drink the wine there is no turning back...
  

  Slugger

  
  If not, what is the incentive for investors to risk capital to take a project, that the open source community has abandoned, to the point that the community (or "market") finds it attractive?
  

  
  
  What is the incentive for people to design commercial themes and make commercial modules for postnuke? It is the add-on/service incentive that come to my mind.
  
  In my opinion the best approach here would be to develop the exisitng software to a state of highly "lite" function and to create commercial enhancements around this lite core - ie people can download the lite software for free with the option to buy enhancements - kind of like how postnuke now works with themes and modules.
  
  -Lobos
  
  --
  -Lobos
  Professional PHP Framework Services: Concept, Development and Deployment

  • 
  •  
• Slugger
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Mar 11, 2003
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1104

  Posted: Dec 22, 2004 - 05:19 PM

  Hi Lobos,
  
  Sorry for overlooking this and not replying but what can I say? Why would anyone want to be crucified for helping a dead project get back on its feet? I know I wouldn't. Sometimes projects die for a reason. Usually it's for lack of resources. I see no reason why anyone would want to bust their head to provide those resources? I should have my head examined for thinking this coule be a good idea.
  
  Slugger

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Softmore
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 367

  Posted: Dec 24, 2004 - 07:09 AM

  I think often times the original developer just runs out of time or has more pressing matters to come up and therefore the module, program, or application must go by the wayside. I have seen an application or two on SourceForge.net where the original author has put the program up for adoption by someone because they have had other things come along in life that they must address. One such program I saw had to be put up for adoption becuase the author was heading off to med school and there certainly isn't an abundance of free time for anyone who attends med school.
  
  I too have had some thoughts about taking some items that seem to have gone by the wayside and getting an interest stirred back in them again. At least that is my thinking as I proceed working on my very own first PostNuke module. Figured I would learn from the ground up first about module making and then once I know what I am doing, or at least think I know what I am doing , then branch out and see what I can do to help those lost programs along.
  
  At this time I do plan to place a donate button on my site once I get my first official module rolled out. I haven't thought too far ahead in terms of what to do about any of the lost programs, perhaps just leave things with the donate button and let the spirit of the community determine if it is something they feel like contributing to use.
  
  I realize perhaps this is not the same perspective you have in terms of attempting to recoup your investment in time to tackle lost programs. There certainly isn't anything wrong with wanting to receive something for the efforts. Perhaps the best advice I can give you is to look at the actual program, think about its intended audicence, and from that consider the possibility of relying strictly on free will donatioins or doing something else like has been suggested, creating a lite version that is GPL and then make plug-ins or add-ons which target a specific purpose or audience and make those commercial items. There are any number of ways to go about obtaining money for the efforts and still keeping the core program GPL, the success of the effort just depends on who would use the program and selecting the method that fits in with the audience and what they would be willing to do.
  
  Hope this helps. I realize it rambles a bit but at least for this writing I just tried to convey my thoughts and what is on my mind and hope it makes sense.

  • 
  •  
• Lobos
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Dec 02, 2002
  • Last visit: Apr 30, 2010
  • Posts: 1474

  Posted: Dec 24, 2004 - 03:51 PM

  irasmith

  ...consider the possibility of relying strictly on free will donatioins...

  
  From previous experience, trust me, all you will get from donations is cents, if that...
  
  --
  -Lobos
  Professional PHP Framework Services: Concept, Development and Deployment

  • 
  •  
•  
•  

Users on-line

• mazdev

This list is based on users active over the last 60 minutes.