next »

[rthrash]

Paraphrased from a discussion about how the GPL affects a person's ability to charge for sites in MODx and how it affects their proprietary snippets/modules (in short, it doesn't so much) ... The conclusion is worth posting a sticky topic, as it seems like this discussion pops up quarterly, as it does on many OS projects. Here's our take on the GPL means for you and for your sites built in MODx:

Legalities (Letter of the Law)

• You can use MODx to develop sites for clients. You can host the site or deliver it to the client to host and no one has to release any code back to the project, including modified MODx code, unless you want to. You have to make the MODx core code available to the client, or at least tell them where to find it. You cannot place restrictions on the customer's right to redistribute said MODx code.
• If you write snippets as part of developing a site for a client, you don't have to distribute them on GPL if they only call the MODx API and don't change any MODx code. You can distribute them using a closed-source commercial license.
• If you modify the MODx code (i.e. anything shipped with the MODx tarball/zip-file) for any reason it must be licensed under the GPL if you choose to distribute the changes. Hosting a site is considered distribution.
• You can make money from any of the above because the GPL is only concerned with distribution.

Ethics (Spirit of the Law)

• MODx is the result of more than 10,000 hours and 2 years (as of Dec '06). We've donated this project and don't require or ask much of the people that use it. We've spent more real dollars that hours too, and have ongoing monthly expenses that are still not fully covered by donations.
• If you make changes to MODx, please share them back with the community. If you choose not to do so, or try to hide the fact a site is running MODx behind an authenticated Manager login, we simply ask that you abstain from using the support forums for any reason whatsoever. In my personal view, the GPL is not about support, but about sharing.

We're working on a "private label" MODx license (and support/distribution mechanism) for developers that want a fully brand-able manager, and we hope to have that resolved along with the 1.0 release.

[davidm]

Great post Ryan... as we discussed, I'll translate it and I suggest moderators of each local communities do the same, not everybody speaks english...

PS : it seems you forgot to make it a sticky

[rthrash]

LOL ... I could've sworn I had made it sticky, but apparently not. Now it is.

[davidm]

I thought it was, but after searching the forums to find this thread back, realized it wasn't... otherwise I wouldn't have noticed either !

[feary]

The private label sounds great! Very clever.

[Bravado]

"Private Label" makes it sound like a bottle of wine.  "Would like a glass of our private label 1999 MODx Cabernet Sauvigon?  Or perhaps a pint of our MODx stout on tap?"  That's the wonderful thing about the GPL...it gives the developers alot more choices on how software can be used. 

[grad]

Thanks Ryan for making it explicit. I already translated it into Polish.

[silent]

Is there any German translation yet?
I'd be happy to create one!
 

[rthrash]

I don't think so... that'd be great and thanks!

[silent]

You'll get it tomorrow - it's close to midnight in Berlin/GER... 

[doze]

I can do one in Gibberish..

[Dr. Scotty Delicious]

I can do one in Gibberish..

[silent]

I just sent my translation to netnoise.
I hope he'll make a sticky topic in the German forum out of it.
[EDIT]As netnoise asked me to, I posted it to the German forum myself. Task accomplished [/EDIT]

[Banfa]

Ethics (Spirit of the Law)

• If you make changes to MODx, please share them back with the community. If you choose not to do so, or try to hide the fact a site is running MODx behind an authenticated Manager login, we simply ask that you abstain from using the support forums for any reason whatsoever. In my personal view, the GPL is not about support, but about sharing.

With reference to this bullet point would you mind explaining (or giving an example of (or both)) the snippet "try to hide the fact a site is running MODx behind an authenticated Manager login".

I have to add that it is only with the last year that I have managed to get a basic understanding of how the GPL actually works (for several years I wondered how people could make a living giving their software away and then for several more years I ignored the issue) and that it is about being open and making source available and not anything to do with money.

I would just like to make sure that I am not breaking any laws (spiritually or legally) before going live with any sites

[rthrash]

A perfect example of breaking the spirit of the law:

You're a dev shop and remove all traces of MODx and where it came from from the manager. You present it to your clients as your own, proprietary application, giving no credit back to it's original authors. Make sense?

[Banfa]

You're a dev shop and remove all traces of MODx and where it came from from the manager. You present it to your clients as your own, proprietary application, giving no credit back to it's original authors. Make sense?

Oh right, yes.  You're talking about rebranding the backend not anything to do with the frontend.

Well I certainly don't intend to do that, there is more than enough work to do getting the front end right without making more work for myself by re-writing a perfectly good (and tested) back end.  Any way credit were credits due I say, I have only been working with MODx for 6 weeks now (and 4 of those were spent making mod_rewrite work) and I am very impressed.  Of course the system is scarily powerful and configurable but I expect I'll get used to that.

Thank You

[sirlancelot]

I can do one in Gibberish..

I'll start work on a 1337 translation