[wplug] GNU GPL License

[Zachary Uram]

Check this out:

http://en.pudn.com/search_db.asp?keyword=b2b&p=&pos=20&t=

Zach

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Bruno Pierri Galvao
<vendicate at gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right. There is more than one thing sketchy about this software.
> The software is buggy but with a bit of hard work can be fresh and working
> in no time.
> Perhaps the best resort, according to our resources, is to reinvent the
> wheel.
> Create a B2B marketplace site from scratch.
> The issue is time constraint, lack of investment in the company, lack of
> programmers, and much more.
> I am confused as to what the next step should be.
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Patrick Wagstrom <patrick at wagstrom.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:42:52PM -0400, Bruno Pierri Galvao wrote:
>>> > I am still uncertain on the whole situation. If I have all my code
>>> > contributions open source then how can I develop a multimillion dollar
>>> > business when anyone could take the code and set up the exact same
>>> > business in minutes? Open source sounds nice but is it the best
>>> > approach for my situation?
>>>
>>> If you are that concerned about it, write it yourself and don't use
>>> any GPL'd code.  It doesn't seem like you're that interested in
>>> participating in an open source environment, but rather to create a
>>> multimillion dollar business.  Perhaps when you're rich and famous,
>>> you can open source the code.
>>
>> While I agree with your sentiment, everyone is missing one major issue.
>> The nature of the license.  The GNU GPL allows you to take a piece of GPL
>> and do whatever the heck you want with it and never provide those changes to
>> anyone provided you follow one key rule: don't distribute the software.  In
>> the US distribution generally is considered to be outside of the business --
>> so as long as you keep the software in house, you're good.  If the software
>> was Affero licensed, this would be a different story (and the reason for the
>> creation of the Affero license).
>> The bigger issue to consider is that of the community.  The software is
>> newly released -- which is probably a bad thing.  It doesn't look like it
>> has much of a community.  It hasn't had a commit to the public repository in
>> over three weeks. Furthermore there are two other glaring issues: 1) the
>> developers were stupid and tried to put their own license on the code and 2)
>> from what I can tell there are basically no comments in the code, no test
>> harnesses, no plan, no nothing. 3) Their contact address is a hotmail
>> address.  Seriously, an f'ing hotmail address.
>> FWIW, here's the license that's actually in the code:
>>
>> Copyright (c) 2006-2009 Ualink (http://www.phpb2b.com/)
>> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
>> copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions
>> are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run
>> the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by
>> this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered
>> work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent,
>> as provided by copyright law.
>>
>> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
>> all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>>
>> Reading through that license, it doesn't sound like open source to me.  It
>> sounds like they're saying you can run the unmodified software only and then
>> inserts some bull about the output being a covered work -- which in most
>> cases isn't, although the law gets a bit hairy there.  Think of it this way,
>> because MS created word doesn't make every word document covered by
>> copyright from MS, however, the look and feel of a website is certainly
>> copyright even if it is generated by scripts.  This project doesn't sound
>> like Open Source and someone should tell Ross Turk and get it booted from
>> SF.  Their licenses don't agree and the license in the code makes it clear
>> that it isn't GPLd -- it's a use license.  It doesn't even allow you modify
>> the software..
>> So, all that said, if you want to base your enterprise on what appears to
>> be a shoddily engineered code dump with no developer community and chinese
>> developers (better bone up on your Mandarin), by all means go ahead.  But if
>> your concern is really reinventing the wheel, this thing reminds me of a
>> plastic wheel you'd find on a big wheel bike. Stay away, do some research
>> about projects and technology, and write something that doesn't suck.  The
>> world has enough sucky software.
>> --Patrick
>> _______________________________________________
>> wplug mailing list
>> wplug at wplug.org
>> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wplug mailing list
> wplug at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>
>