By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,678 Members | 1,146 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,678 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Wanted: PHP public domain projects

P: n/a
Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?

I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.

So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
PHP material out there.

A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
software.

I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.

So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/

This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(

There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.

Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
27 Replies


P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:
Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?

I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.

So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
PHP material out there.

A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
software.

I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.

So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/

This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(

There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.

Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Just to clarify thing the GNU GPL license is to free your code, not to
limit it, GPL allows anyone to change or use your code, the only thing
it will not allow you to do is to locked it, i.e. close source it
you really should read : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

a side note : if you release your code into the public domain i can take
your code & use it in my closed source program, the GNU GPL comes to
ensure that i will not ever do such a thing, its a "copyleft license"
that comes to give you freedom rather then take it from you.
Jul 17 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>" <"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>"> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?

I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.

So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
PHP material out there.

A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
software.

I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.

So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/

This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(

There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.

Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.


Just to clarify thing the GNU GPL license is to free your code, not to
limit it [...]


To clarify further: it copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full
rights to use it in an unrestricted fashion.
GPL allows anyone to change or use your code, the only thing
it will not allow you to do is to locked it, i.e. close source it [...]
A highly restrictive conditon that places limitations on using GPL code
in a commercial environment.

In particular it becomes practically impossible to deploy the code within
a company which wants to customise the code to include their own secret
business logic - and then deploy that code in a binary format to their
customers.

I *don't* want to erect barriers for others to wishing to interface with
my code.

I want to make the process as simple and painless as possible.
you really should read : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
You really should stop patronising me.
a side note : if you release your code into the public domain i can take
your code & use it in my closed source program [...]
That's fine by me ;-)
[...] the GNU GPL comes to ensure that i will not ever do such a thing,
....so it restricts your users in how they can use your code.
its a "copyleft license" that comes to give you freedom rather then
take it from you.


It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #3

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:
It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.


Ok well, just make a website, and put all of your code there, anyone
will be free to download it.

Of course it's quite sympathic for your users, but still, are you happy
that most of those who'll leech the code will ever thank you for the
money they'll make with the code you made?

I think that's why so many people use GPL, well, my point of view.

NRN,
S.
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident.
That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein
Jul 17 '05 #4

P: n/a
Sebastian Lauwers <da***********@nospam.9online.fr> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:

It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.


Ok well, just make a website, and put all of your code there, anyone
will be free to download it.

Of course it's quite sympathic for your users, but still, are you happy
that most of those who'll leech the code will ever thank you for the
money they'll make with the code you made?

I think that's why so many people use GPL, well, my point of view.


It doesn't seem logical.

If you put your code in the public domain, you won't make much money from
your users - unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

If you GPL your code, you won't make much money from your users either -
unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

Not much difference there.

I suspect the appeal of the GPL is that it gives the authors full
ownership and control over their own code under copyright law.

For instance, the GPL /does/ allow is distributing the copyrighted code
under other kinds of restrictive licenses.

That's what the MySQL folk do. They distribute their code as GPL code
"Our software is 100% GPL" - (so that it's practically unusable in a
commercial environment) - and then charge for commercial licenses under
different terms (which also have their restrictions - but happen to allow
redistribution of modified versions without revealing the source code -
something businesses care about, but the GPL forbids.

They can do this because they retain copyright and ownership of their
code - and are not themselves obliged to follow the terms of the GPL -
as most of their users are.

Commercial users can't make much use of the GPL version because of the
restrictions in the license - and the original authors have full rights
over the code - so they can make money by flogging businesses a commercial
version - and none of their users can compete with them in this area -
since their license conditions forbid it.

These days people GPL code just for the sake of inter-operating
with all the other GPL code out there. If your code is not
under the GPL, you can't link with many other people's code -
because the license conditions forbid it.

Whatever the appeal, I don't think it has much to do with freedom.

GPL code is *copyrighted* - and the license restricts numerous
rights to the original authors of the code, which puts them in
a privilidged position to sell their software to businesses
under different licenses.

Authors who want their code to be free tend not impose conditions
and restrictions on their users by copyrighting the code and
retaining full control over it.

One of the irritating things about the GPL is that it *pretends*
to be free.

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price"

GPL software does *not* give users freedom. It *copyrights* the
software and then *restricts* the activities users can perform.

"By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee
your freedom to share and change free software - to make sure the
software is free for all its users."

It fails miserably. The users are not free - as illustrated by the
case of MySQL - where the GPL'd software is sold under a less restrictive
license to businesses who find the restrictions of the GPL too onerous.
So much for free software.

If you want software to be free, the course of action is obvious -
put the software into the public domain so that everyone can use it.

Don't *copyright* the software and then *prohibit* other people from
doing what they like with your code with a *restrictive* license.

The GPL "freedom" hypocrisy is why I refer to such software as
"Fake Free Software". Fortunately, fake free software is easy
to spot - just look for the "copyright" symbol.

Anyway - enough of my "freedom" rant ;-)

Has anyone apart from me got any *genuinely* free PHP software - that
isn't yet "infected" with a Gnu license - or some other bunch of
copyright conditions and restrictions?

I would be particularly interested in CMS components or libraries.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #5

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:
"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>" <"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>"> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:


Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?

I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.

So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
PHP material out there.

A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
software.

I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.

So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/

This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(

There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.

Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.


Just to clarify thing the GNU GPL license is to free your code, not to
limit it [...]

To clarify further: it copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full
rights to use it in an unrestricted fashion.

GPL allows anyone to change or use your code, the only thing
it will not allow you to do is to locked it, i.e. close source it [...]

A highly restrictive conditon that places limitations on using GPL code
in a commercial environment.

In particular it becomes practically impossible to deploy the code within
a company which wants to customise the code to include their own secret
business logic - and then deploy that code in a binary format to their
customers.

I *don't* want to erect barriers for others to wishing to interface with
my code.

I want to make the process as simple and painless as possible.

you really should read : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

You really should stop patronising me.

a side note : if you release your code into the public domain i can take
your code & use it in my closed source program [...]

That's fine by me ;-)

[...] the GNU GPL comes to ensure that i will not ever do such a thing,

...so it restricts your users in how they can use your code.

its a "copyleft license" that comes to give you freedom rather then
take it from you.

It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.


I'm sorry if you felt like i was patronizing you, i wasn't.

When i release my code for everyone to use, it will be ONLY GPL for the
simple reason that it gives me the power to ensure that everyone who
uses my code will contribute back to the public by including my code in
their software & releasing it GPL'ed too. That way all can profit and
not just the one that "exploited" my code to build his commercial software.

You can claim it isn't true but every programmer seeks recognition. By
releasing my code GPLed I let people know that I wrote that code! if you
give your code in public domain fashion i for example am not even
obligated by law to mention that you are the author of the code, hack i
can even say i wrote that myself, now do you think that's fair ?

in fact the only reason the gpl was invented is to not allow people to
use it in closed source projects, not to limit you in any way, thats why
i wrote you "you really should read :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" it explained a lot to me & i
thought you could benefit from reading it also, if you are familiar with
the GPL and do not agree with it then :
a. i am sorry you feel this way.
b. it's your freedom! you can do with your code what ever you see fit. i
just try to show why i feel GPL is the right decision for you.

cheers, maxim.
Jul 17 '05 #6

P: n/a
>When i release my code for everyone to use, it will be ONLY GPL for the
simple reason that it gives me the power to ensure that everyone who
uses my code will contribute back to the public by including my code in
their software & releasing it GPL'ed too.
No, the GPL does *NOT* do that. The GPL gives me the freedom to
not release my modified version *AT ALL*. And since 99% of everything
is crap, it's probably a good thing that my one-off scripts that
don't last more than a day and solve a problem nobody else is likely
to have don't get released. Nobody would want them anyway.
in fact the only reason the gpl was invented is to not allow people to
use it in closed source projects, not to limit you in any way, thats why
i wrote you "you really should read :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" it explained a lot to me & i
thought you could benefit from reading it also, if you are familiar with
the GPL and do not agree with it then :


Clause 3 of the GPL is problematical. It raises the bar for releasing
modified code pretty high. In particular: Clause (3a) does not let
me prohibit separating the source and the binary, and then blaming
ME for doing so. I don't have the finances to withstand a legal
challenge on that point, even if the allegations turn out to be
false or even provably malicious on the part of the person making
the allegations.

Clause (3b) requires me to have some way to distribute the source
code for 3 years, and I don't necessarily have the life span left
(and neither does your average teenager), nor is there any corporation
guaranteed to be around in 3 years that I could prepay for 3 years
for a distribution site. So there's no practical way to be sure
of satisfying it. Oh, yes, when does that three years start? It
restarts every time I distribute binaries, right? Presumably if I
use clause (3b), I have to stop distributing modified code three
years BEFORE my bulletproof distribution site's funding runs out.

Clause (3c) likely doesn't apply because binaries are darned hard
to make changes in, so distributing modified versions when I got
the distribution as binary isn't likely to come up.

So, I take an alternate approach. If I make bug fixes, I attempt
to contribute them, in patch form only, or as a description of the
change I made, back to the original authors. Sometimes they won't
take them. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they come up with a
better but completely different way to address the problem.

Gordon L. Burditt
Jul 17 '05 #7

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:
It doesn't seem logical.

If you put your code in the public domain, you won't make much money from
your users - unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

If you GPL your code, you won't make much money from your users either -
unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

Not much difference there.
I wasn't talking about making money from my users, i was talking about
the fact that users could use my software that freely they COULD make
money from it, w/o even thanking me, worse, telling me they did.
And btw, yes, you can have a fee payed for downloading the source or
binary of your GPL software, but that only means they pay for the
download, not using or getting your software.

[...]
If you want software to be free, the course of action is obvious -
put the software into the public domain so that everyone can use it.
This is where our opinion differs.

[...]
The GPL "freedom" hypocrisy is why I refer to such software as
"Fake Free Software". Fortunately, fake free software is easy
to spot - just look for the "copyright" symbol.
It's not 'cause you can't see fit of the GPL for your needs that it
turns into horsecrap does it? A lot of people use GPL, and a lot of
people understand it, and still use it. It might change, but
unfortunately, for you, it won't be soon.
Anyway - enough of my "freedom" rant ;-)
Agreed
Has anyone apart from me got any *genuinely* free PHP software - that
isn't yet "infected" with a Gnu license - or some other bunch of
copyright conditions and restrictions?
I'm working on an MMORPG game project. We haven't decided yet if we were
going to copyright it or not.
I would be particularly interested in CMS components or libraries.
Sorry, can't help for that at the moment.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.


Sorry i can't be of any help. But on thing is sure, you know how to make
long speeches. Even though i don't agree on most of your standings, i
must say i'm highly impressed by the quality of your argumentation. It
has been great to read you.

Best regards,
Sebastian
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident.
That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein
Jul 17 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>" <"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>"> wrote or quoted:
You can claim it isn't true but every programmer seeks recognition. By
releasing my code GPLed I let people know that I wrote that code! if you
give your code in public domain fashion i for example am not even
obligated by law to mention that you are the author of the code, hack i
can even say i wrote that myself, now do you think that's fair ?
I don't doubt what you say.

I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.

That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
hinders collaborative development.

Look at the way you can't use GPL code in LGPL programs. These
licenses are written by the same guy - yet they fail to inter-operate -
because of restrictions inherited from copyright law.

Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
*forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
users.
in fact the only reason the gpl was invented is to not allow people to
use it in closed source projects, not to limit you in any way [...],
People are limited by default because of copyright law. Licenses
give rights - rather than take them away.

The GPL simply fails to grant all the freedoms that were taken away by
invoking copyright law. For example, it fails to give the right to
make binary-only distributions of modified copies.

Copyright law imposes the limitations on users of the code. The GPL
merely fails to grant them back again.
i wrote you "you really should read :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" it explained a lot to me & i
thought you could benefit from reading it also [...]


You apparently assumed that I was criticising the GPL without being
familiar with its FAQ. I don't think that that is the case.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #9

P: n/a
Sebastian Lauwers <da***********@nospam.9online.fr> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:
If you GPL your code, you won't make much money from your users either -
unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

Not much difference there.
I wasn't talking about making money from my users, i was talking about
the fact that users could use my software that freely they COULD make
money from it, w/o even thanking me, worse, telling me they did.


By contrast, I *love* the fact that any users of my public domain
software feel free to do whatever they like with it. They don't
ever have to concern themselves with getting sued through violating
the license conditions - since there are none. If they want to try to
make money with my software, then that's *great* - more power to them.

The only reason I can see why should I be *jealous* of them making money
from software I wrote, is if I would rather sell it myself - as I
would be able to do if I had retained copyright over it.

That's fine - but reataining ownership and the privilidged right to
flog modified versions of the software under different license
conditions doesn't seem to have much to do with *free* software.
The GPL "freedom" hypocrisy is why I refer to such software as
"Fake Free Software". Fortunately, fake free software is easy
to spot - just look for the "copyright" symbol.


It's not 'cause you can't see fit of the GPL for your needs that it
turns into horsecrap does it? A lot of people use GPL, and a lot of
people understand it, and still use it. It might change, but
unfortunately, for you, it won't be soon.


I concur that the GPL's popularity probably won't change soon.

Users have been hoodwinked into thinking that they are getting "Free
sofware" when in fact they are getting "Fake Free Software" - which comes
with copyright statements and license conditions *just* like every other
sort of not-free software.

It will most likely take some time before programmers and users wake
up to the damage these copyright restrictions are still causing
collaborative development - and learn to prefer *genuine* free software
over *fake* free software, by valuing the additional freedoms such
software provides them with.

The Gnu folk should not be allowed to get away with redefining
the term "free" to mean "still burdened with copyright restrictions".
Sorry i can't be of any help. But on thing is sure, you know how to make
long speeches. Even though i don't agree on most of your standings, i
must say i'm highly impressed by the quality of your argumentation. It
has been great to read you.


Thanks ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #10

P: n/a
Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote:
[mysql]
Commercial users can't make much use of the GPL version because of the
restrictions in the license
This is simply not true... in a commercial environment I can do anyhting
to and with GPLed code like I see fit, the _only_ restriction in GPL
activates on redistribution.

I have used many GPLed programs for commercial use. I even modified them
to fit the task. I just will not (and cannot) ever release them to a
third party.
GPL code is *copyrighted* - and the license restricts numerous
rights to the original authors of the code, which puts them in
a privilidged position to sell their software to businesses
under different licenses.


I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.
A license can transfer anything except ownership.

--

Daniel Tryba

Jul 17 '05 #11

P: n/a
Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<I2********@bath.ac.uk>...
[..]
Users have been hoodwinked into thinking that they are getting "Free
sofware" when in fact they are getting "Fake Free Software" - which comes
with copyright statements and license conditions *just* like every other
sort of not-free software.


I think, "freedom" in GPL is for endusers than for other developers.
Your article reminds me phpSt.Manuel Lemo's post couple of months ago.
Personally I too see lot of troubles in using GPLed code; even PHP
guys have deboundled MySQL because of liecencing issue.

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com
Jul 17 '05 #12

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:

I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.

That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
hinders collaborative development.

Look at the way you can't use GPL code in LGPL programs. These
licenses are written by the same guy - yet they fail to inter-operate -
because of restrictions inherited from copyright law.

Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
*forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
users.


Personally, I agree that the GPL is an overly restrictive license for
all parties (excluding the author). But public domain really isn't the
answer either, for the reason that it gives all freedom to the primary
recipient, but none to the author or secondary recipients. The GPL
seems to be popular by only sheer momentum, but there are FOSS licenses
out there that give more freedom to everyone; I'd suggest using one of
those for your own FOSS projects and making alternate licensing
arrangements with authors of GPL software that you want to use in a
non-GPL-compatible package.

Jul 17 '05 #13

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:
I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.
And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of people want not only
recognition, but also ability to track their projects and contributions for
their personal and professional reasons.
That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
hinders collaborative development.
It goes both ways. If an author gives up all rights granted by copyright
laws, then many "users" (i.e. developers who redistribute) may not, and
likely will not feel compelled to contribute to the public domain, but
rather take from it, claim it as their own, and redistribute in closed or
another fashion. This also hinders collaboration. The challenge is to
provide a fair "playground" somewhere in the middle.
Look at the way you can't use GPL code in LGPL programs. These
licenses are written by the same guy - yet they fail to inter-operate -
because of restrictions inherited from copyright law.
LGPL is for libraries which are not programs of their own but are used as
parts of others. It places no restrictions on what license of the parent
program may be. For example, Yahoo messenger uses GtkHTML library.

If you have 2 similar libraries (and you are not their author) A - under
GPL, and B - under LGPL, and you wish to improve either one by adding code
from the other, you can always do so and offer the resulting library under
GPL.
Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
*forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
users.
I am not sure what license you are referring to here, but many licenses like
GPL, BSD, etc. require that you do not remove the copyright notices or
falsely claim that you wrote the software when you didn't. Copyright
notices have nothing to do with egos, but fairness of giving credit where
credit is due.

If you are referring to the copyright notices that many PHP CMSes require
you to print on the front page, I am not sure about those. Supposedly,
copyright and license also applies to the themes they distribute; but what
if I write my own theme? IANAL, I simply don't know.
People are limited by default because of copyright law. Licenses
give rights - rather than take them away.

The GPL simply fails to grant all the freedoms that were taken away by
invoking copyright law. For example, it fails to give the right to
make binary-only distributions of modified copies.
It was not the intention of GPL to undo copyright law. If that's what you
think, then you are wrong. GPL relies on copyright law itself. If you want
to redistribute binary code without the source, use libraries or programs
available under BSD, LGPL, and many other licenses. If you are looking for
a PHP CMS there are some under BSD or BSD-type licenses available. But I'm
not sure how you can distribute them in an object form for PHP.
Copyright law imposes the limitations on users of the code. The GPL
merely fails to grant them back again.


It cannot fail in something it didn't attempt to accomplish in the first
place.
Jul 17 '05 #14

P: n/a
Keith Bowes <do****@spam.me> wrote or quoted:
Personally, I agree that the GPL is an overly restrictive license for
all parties (excluding the author). But public domain really isn't the
answer either, for the reason that it gives all freedom to the primary
recipient, but none to the author or secondary recipients.


It gives those parties *exactly* the same rights. That's practically
the definition of public domain - everyone has equal privilidges -
and nobody is more restricted than anyone else.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #15

P: n/a
Daniel Tryba <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote:

Commercial users can't make much use of the GPL version because of the
restrictions in the license


This is simply not true... in a commercial environment I can do anyhting
to and with GPLed code like I see fit, the _only_ restriction in GPL
activates on redistribution.


GPL /does/ allow you to do some things. Many commercial organisations
give the GPL a wide berth - since building a business on code you can't
modify and redistribute on your own terms can cause future problems.

I believe Microsoft is one of the better-known GPL avoiders.
GPL code is *copyrighted* - and the license restricts numerous
rights to the original authors of the code, which puts them in
a privilidged position to sell their software to businesses
under different licenses.


I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.


Of course. As I've stated several times in this thread, copyright law
does the actual restriction of rights.

The GPL merely does not grant all the rights back again - and the
net result is restrictions being placed on users.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #16

P: n/a
Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote:
GPL /does/ allow you to do some things. Many commercial organisations
give the GPL a wide berth - since building a business on code you can't
modify and redistribute on your own terms can cause future problems.


You can modify and you can redistribute _your own code_ in any way you
want. But if you use other code (eg GPLed) it's not totally your own
code to start with, so you never ever have full control anyway. If one
doens't agree with GPL (or any other license) that effectively means
there is no loss to that person/company, they just have to treat the
software as non existant.
I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.


Of course. As I've stated several times in this thread, copyright law
does the actual restriction of rights.

The GPL merely does not grant all the rights back again - and the
net result is restrictions being placed on users.


Care to explain? Without a(ny) license only copyright law govers the use
of code. And copyright[1] says I may use code but I may not modify[2] or
distribute it (the short short version). GPL grants me that right on 1
condition: if I (re)distribute it, I must supply the source (which the
GPL describes as guarantying that everybody has the same rights
forever). GPL doens't interfere with authorship (and thus owenership) of
the code any user writes (you own what you write).

eg BSD goes one step further... it grants the modify, use and
redistribution rights without any additional conditions (the
advertisement rule got scrapped sometime ago IIRC).

[1] the one I'm bound to, BTW copyright is not the correct term
over here. Applicable law is called "auteurswet", which translates to
"author law". That law specifies cases where usage of property does not
conflict with law.

[2] Actually I may modify or reverse engineer, but only modify for
personal use or reverse engineer for interoperability.

--

Daniel Tryba

Jul 17 '05 #17

P: n/a
Zurab Davitiani <ag*@mindless.com> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:

I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.


And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of people want not only
recognition, but also ability to track their projects and contributions for
their personal and professional reasons.


Great - but let's not pretend the resulting software is "free" when there
are legal restrictions on its use - and you can get sued for doing the
wrong thing with it.
That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
hinders collaborative development.


It goes both ways. If an author gives up all rights granted by copyright
laws, then many "users" (i.e. developers who redistribute) may not, and
likely will not feel compelled to contribute to the public domain, but
rather take from it, claim it as their own, and redistribute in closed or
another fashion. This also hinders collaboration. [...]


Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Any attempt
to claim ownership or copyright over public domain code would be rejected
in court.
Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
*forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
users.


I am not sure what license you are referring to here, but many licenses like
GPL, BSD, etc. require that you do not remove the copyright notices or
falsely claim that you wrote the software when you didn't. Copyright
notices have nothing to do with egos, but fairness of giving credit where
credit is due.


Not /just/ credit, *ownership*. The authors typically have a range of
right other users do not - including the ability to redistribute their
code under other licenses - since they have retained copyright and are
not bound to the conditions of their own license.

If the software was free, all users would have the same rights.

With the GPL, it isn't and they don't - the users are forced to work
with the code under restritions that don't apply to the authors.
People are limited by default because of copyright law. Licenses
give rights - rather than take them away.

The GPL simply fails to grant all the freedoms that were taken away by
invoking copyright law. For example, it fails to give the right to
make binary-only distributions of modified copies.


It was not the intention of GPL to undo copyright law. If that's what you
think, then you are wrong. GPL relies on copyright law itself. [...]
Copyright law imposes the limitations on users of the code. The GPL
merely fails to grant them back again.


It cannot fail in something it didn't attempt to accomplish in the first
place.


A disagreement over my use of the word "fail".

I differ: Johnny can still fail his exams - even if he wasn't trying.

The goal does not necessarily have to be defined by the agent shooting at
it. In this case, I defined the goal I was talking about in my sentence:
freedom.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #18

P: n/a
Ok Tim, this GPL holy was interesting, but really it all comes down to
CHOICE. I can write code and release it GPL that is MY choice, you then
have a CHOICE of using my code and the restrictions that the license
places upon it or not using it and writing your own. Now that said I
think the GPL stinks, it does infact cheat the meaning of the word
freedom, I love the BSD licenses I think they embody opensource. However
the GPL does protect individuals code from corporates, and if that is
what an individual wants, then it is good that he has that protection
for his intellectual property.
Jul 17 '05 #19

P: n/a
Daniel Tryba <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote or quoted:
You can modify and you can redistribute _your own code_ in any way you
want. But if you use other code (eg GPLed) it's not totally your own
code to start with, so you never ever have full control anyway.


GPL'd code is never yours to start with.

However - with public domain code - anyone has *exactly* the
same rights over it that the authors have, so then you *do*
have full control.
I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.


Of course. As I've stated several times in this thread, copyright law
does the actual restriction of rights.

The GPL merely does not grant all the rights back again - and the
net result is restrictions being placed on users.


Care to explain? Without a(ny) license only copyright law govers the use
of code. And copyright[1] says I may use code but I may not modify[2] or
distribute it (the short short version). GPL grants me that right on 1
condition: if I (re)distribute it, I must supply the source (which the
GPL describes as guarantying that everybody has the same rights
forever). GPL doens't interfere with authorship (and thus owenership) of
the code any user writes (you own what you write).

eg BSD goes one step further... it grants the modify, use and
redistribution rights without any additional conditions (the
advertisement rule got scrapped sometime ago IIRC).


I'm not sure what you think is unclear in what I wrote.

Copyright law restricts the rights of users (for instance
they can't redistribute it).

GPL doesn't give back all the rights copyright law takes away
(for instance, users can't charge for the software).

The result is that users of GPL software face legal constraints
(which are not present with genuinely free software) - and they
can be taken to court by the copyright holders if they do not
conform to them.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #20

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:
Great - but let's not pretend the resulting software is "free" when there
are legal restrictions on its use - and you can get sued for doing the
wrong thing with it.
Nobody is pretending anything. "Free" means GPL grants you *specific*
freedoms that you otherwise would not have; it does not pretend to grant
you any and all freedoms that you can dream of. And yes, if you violate
copyright law, you may be sued for it - that's the way it works with every
other law too.
Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Any attempt
to claim ownership or copyright over public domain code would be rejected
in court.
Yes, but you can take anything from public domain, improve it with your
additions, and copyright the new work in its whole. This does no "public
good" to improve the original work if the copyright holder does not release
the additions under an open source license. Cinderella story is public
domain, but if someone writes a Cinderella book, or Disney releases a
Cinderella cartoon, those specific works are copyright by their respective
authors.
Not /just/ credit, *ownership*. The authors typically have a range of
right other users do not - including the ability to redistribute their
code under other licenses - since they have retained copyright and are
not bound to the conditions of their own license.

If the software was free, all users would have the same rights.

With the GPL, it isn't and they don't - the users are forced to work
with the code under restritions that don't apply to the authors.
Great, but that's your definition of "free". Certainly with GPL, it's clear
that authors retain copyright, and all re-distributors (not simply users)
do get the same rights under it. GPL grants you some *specific* freedoms,
it does not reverse copyright law - neither does it claim or pretend to do
so. This is extremely clear if you read the license text.
A disagreement over my use of the word "fail".

I differ: Johnny can still fail his exams - even if he wasn't trying.

The goal does not necessarily have to be defined by the agent shooting at
it. In this case, I defined the goal I was talking about in my sentence:
freedom.


OK, GPL fails to land me on the moon too - what a shock! Where do I
complain? Certainly not on comp.lang.php!
Jul 17 '05 #21

P: n/a
Zurab Davitiani <ag*@mindless.com> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Great - but let's not pretend the resulting software is "free" when
there are legal restrictions on its use - and you can get sued for
doing the wrong thing with it.


Nobody is pretending anything. "Free" means GPL grants you *specific*
freedoms that you otherwise would not have; it does not pretend to grant
you any and all freedoms that you can dream of.


Such freedom is not freedom at all. A man who has had his ankles
unchained is not free if his neck is chill chained to the wall.
Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Any attempt
to claim ownership or copyright over public domain code would be
rejected in court.


Yes, but you can take anything from public domain, improve it with your
additions, and copyright the new work in its whole.


The public domain material remains in the public domain. Material
can't be taken out of the public domain.

Those wanting to make money from software may not be very interested
in contribing to public domain software. But they are normally
not interested in contributing to GPL'd software either - since
they can't make any money from that either.

At least with the genunely free software they can at least work from
it - and become potential customers for technical support and consultancy
services from the authors in the process.
Not /just/ credit, *ownership*. The authors typically have a range of
right other users do not - including the ability to redistribute their
code under other licenses - since they have retained copyright and are
not bound to the conditions of their own license.

If the software was free, all users would have the same rights.

With the GPL, it isn't and they don't - the users are forced to work
with the code under restritions that don't apply to the authors.


Great, but that's your definition of "free". [...]


Yes - but check with the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free

Despite what the GPL claims, GPL'd software isn't free in the sense
of freedom. Indeed - in the case of commercial users of MySQL -
it isn't even free in the sense of free beer - since in that case,
the restrictions it leaves users to labour under creates an incentive
for them to pay money for a less encumbered version of the software.
OK, GPL fails to land me on the moon too - what a shock! Where do I
complain? Certainly not on comp.lang.php!


In response to my request for public domain PHP software, people tried
``to show why [they] feel GPL is the right decision for [me]''.

I've explained why I disagree:

I want genuine free software - not fake free software.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #22

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:

In response to my request for public domain PHP software, people tried
``to show why [they] feel GPL is the right decision for [me]''.

I've explained why I disagree:

I want genuine free software - not fake free software.


Write it yourself and release it onto the public domain? What is your
problem with using GPL code? Are you planning to sell this modified CMS?
Because if you just writing it to run on your own server, you wouldn't
care if it was GPL or not since you wouldn't need to release it.

All this time spent shooting down the GPL, you could have coded a simple
CMS.
Jul 17 '05 #23

P: n/a
Justin Wyer <ju****@isogo.co.za> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:
In response to my request for public domain PHP software, people tried
``to show why [they] feel GPL is the right decision for [me]''.

I've explained why I disagree:

I want genuine free software - not fake free software.


Write it yourself and release it onto the public domain?


That *is* what I'm doing, yes - which is why I am in search of
CMS components in the first place.

I don't want to waste my time re-inventing the wheel if other
people have done the work for me, though.
What is your problem with using GPL code?
As described - at some length - in the rest of the thread.
Are you planning to sell this modified CMS?
I expect that at least one of my clients will want to
modify my public domain code - and deploy it in a manner
that involves incorporating their own business logic into it.

I have no intention of trying to get them to use code
with restrictions or prohibitions on its use that
prevent them from charging for the results - something
like that might very well lose me the whole contract.
Because if you just writing it to run on your own server, you wouldn't
care if it was GPL or not since you wouldn't need to release it.
Those are not my circumstances.
All this time spent shooting down the GPL, you could have coded a simple
CMS.


I already have a simple CMS. That doesn't seem to stop me from wanting
to use other people's code.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #24

P: n/a
In message <I2********@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> writes

I suspect the appeal of the GPL is that it gives the authors full
ownership and control over their own code under copyright law.


Coming a little late to the party, but...

I would think that the appeal of the GPL is the confidence that no one
else will make money from a modified version of your code where the
changes are not released.

Personally, I've always preferred the LGPL or *BSD licences because
these issues are mitigated somewhat, especially if your software has a
"plug-in" type architecture.

--
Rob...
Jul 17 '05 #25

P: n/a
Rob Allen <ro***@the-allens.net> wrote or quoted:
In message <I2********@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> writes

I suspect the appeal of the GPL is that it gives the authors full
ownership and control over their own code under copyright law.


Coming a little late to the party, but...

I would think that the appeal of the GPL is the confidence that no one
else will make money from a modified version of your code where the
changes are not released.


I believe you're the second person who's suggested that here.

From my point of view, I want to encourage such usage. The more people
there are using my code, the more likely it is that people will
contribute to its development.

If someone decides that they can't use my code (since they can't sell
it) about the only significant effects on me is that I have lost a user -
who might have submitted bug reports, asked me for support - or
contributed in some other way.

Maybe those who favour the GPL want to prevent other people making
money from their code - since they would like to do so themselves -
perhaps by offering their code under a different license.

I can see the appeal in that - but it doesn't have much to do with
freedom or free software.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #26

P: n/a
Tim Tyler wrote:

[...]
If someone decides that they can't use my code (since they can't sell
it) about the only significant effects on me is that I have lost a user -
who might have submitted bug reports, asked me for support - or
contributed in some other way.


Whereas from my point of view, people who will get a code, put somewhere
on a website, where it's clearly said they can do whatever they want
from it, they'll see if it can help them, and if it doesn't work, or
there's some bug there are 2 options left:

- They're good at PHP and work the bugs out, but as they want to get
money from it and stay competitive, they'll keep they're bug fixes for
them, and their project only.

- They'll say that coding is a piece of crap and hit the delete key.

But then again, i'm sure you'll have tons of arguments to prove that GPL
is fake free software, trying to make everyone see the light you've seen
in such a dark sky, but honnestly, for my part, i want to stay blind.

Best regards,
Sebastian

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident.
That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein
Jul 17 '05 #27

P: n/a
Sebastian Lauwers <da***********@nospam.9online.fr> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:


[...]
If someone decides that they can't use my code (since they can't sell
it) about the only significant effects on me is that I have lost a user -
who might have submitted bug reports, asked me for support - or
contributed in some other way.


Whereas from my point of view, people who will get a code, put somewhere
on a website, where it's clearly said they can do whatever they want
from it, they'll see if it can help them, and if it doesn't work, or
there's some bug there are 2 options left:

- They're good at PHP and work the bugs out, but as they want to get
money from it and stay competitive, they'll keep they're bug fixes for
them, and their project only.

- They'll say that coding is a piece of crap and hit the delete key.


Both the web site and the help text are good places to inform users
of their options if they encounter problems.

I have found that at least some users do contact the authors of the
software if they experience problems with it - and that feedback from
end users is fairly frequently helpful.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #28

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.