PHP-Nuke and the GPL license

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:28 pm

referencing [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]
Coralized at [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Quote:

2) The new, revised, approved and GPL section 2(c) compliant copyright notice of PHP-Nuke from now will be:

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty; for details, see the license.

And this copyright notice will be present on the generated pages footer and in the HTML source as a Metatag called Generator. Those messages are now compliant with the 2(c) section of the GPL license and CAN'T BE REMOVED.

Since the previous versions of the copyright notices were NOT in compliance, if we keep using the <7.6 versions of php-nuke, we do not need to follow any stricter 7.6 copyright requirements.

I say that chatserv, bob marion, raven, djmaze, etc. should stop fixing the new versions of php-nuke. FB will just continue "borrowing" others' work and incorporating them into his commercial-licensed version. Moreover, providing fixes to FB's newer version just encourages him to continue with the status quo: ignoring security and depending on others to patch his work. Let's see what FB does with all the security exploits/vulnerabilities that he introduces in the 7.6+ versions.

Personally, I was happy with v6.5. I don't need any of the stuff that 7.x has. I merely upgraded because I wanted to keep up with chatserv's patched series.

What do you all think? Should chatserv, bob marion, raven, djmaze, etc. boycott the 7.6+ versions and focus on the current pre7.6 versions?

Sells PC To Pay For Divorce Joined: Posts: 5661

hard to say.
i also use the 6.5 2.6 version with phpbb 2.10
im sure there are enough tools out there that chatserv, bob marion, raven, djmaze, etc. can use to encrypt certain parts of the nuke core that they finetuned..so they cannot be borrowed by FB.

Site Admin Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 6432

I think it's sad that someone wants to put his name as the owner of a copyright on something for which he did not do all the work (please, I'm not interested in debating how much work he did or did not do, and I think we all agree that he did not do ALL the work - even HE admits that in the credits). Unlike NukeSentinel for example, which gives proper credit to all contributors, this latest change to the copyright is a slap in the face to the MANY people, especially the ones oprime2001 listed, who contributed to improving phpNuke. It especially offends me that no credit is given to Chatserv, who provided most of the security enhancements (which were major portions of recent versions), not to mention the significant changes in the administration function in 7.5. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make further contributions under those conditions, but I can't presume to tell anyone what to do. If he wants to take credit for doing everything, let him - do everything. There's been much discussion about whether or not to fork / rewrite, etc. It seems that this latest offensive encourages that.

But it's also a slap in the face to those who use it. It requires that we provide useful information (e.g. the software, version, and date) to those who might wish to take advantage of security flaws that exist. For new users, it implies that there is only one source for the software, which doesn't even take advantage of the forums included in that software (which were provided by phpBB, some of the people oprime2001 listed, Sixonetonoffun, and others). The reason NukeScripts, RavenPHPScripts, NukeFixes, CPGNuke, and, until 2004, NukeCops, became popular is that they provided excellent enhancements, improvements, and, most importantly, support.

However, circumvention is the key to all progress, especially when dealing with egos. I haven't investigated the GPL in detail, but wouldn't any minor change to the software (such as those included in 7.6 to justify a new license) also allow others to distribute a different "version" with a different name and a different copyright? Yes, they might need to reference the original version in a readme, and even in the code, but not using the new copyright limitations. If so, we're right back to where we started, but with the knowledge that support and enhancements provided for the newly copyrighted versions does nothing but help the person (singular) who has the copyright. Of course, that assumes that there is something of value in version 7.6, as opposed to starting with a prior version, as was suggested by other.

I'd like to explore that option and work on a new open source portal / content management system. It would be great if we could combine the talents of the people previously mentioned and any others who share the goals Raven described in the fork or not to fork thread.

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:33 pm

Personally, I'm a little sick of FB's egotisitcal attitude. Sure, he took another cms and made his own, so it wasnt' really his to start with. I'm sure they might be some intellectual copyight issues there but the fact that, whenver FB makes changes to the core code, someone else ends up fixing it or introducing additional security checks to protect the many thousands of people using Nuke.

Sadly, after many years, I feel it is time for me to move on now. I have no inkling to upgrade further or indeed continue with php-nuke under these circumstances.
Far more people have made significant improvements to the core nuke code than the vendor himself.

The idea of re-branding php-nuke into an encrypted version (ioncube?) is an excellent one and I hope this idea takes hold.

I would also like to see this poll moved to the main page.

Useless Joined: Aug 23, 2002 Posts: 213 Location: Chicago

The people who like to remove link from the site will remove it no matter how much FB cries and whine. Many people move it to a Credits page, which is there salute everything who helps them running this software with ease. Meta tags are there to tell people who really wanna know what software this site is using, I have never found the point of doing this but to get useless hits to his site where everyone gets a popup at the first page and about 5 ads on top/bottom/sides.

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:30 pm

when you encode something it also has to be decoded.

Since you can view the sources of mmcache, zend, etc. an decoder is easily made in C.
So if you realy want a decoded file you can get it.

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:17 pm

DJMaze yes, a valid observation.
I suppose where there is a will, there will always be a way but I'm hoping any trend to protect script writers work will eventually make it "there is a will but it is too much trouble".

It was a nice idea while it lasted lol.

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

DJMaze wrote:

when you encode something it also has to be decoded.

Since you can view the sources of mmcache, zend, etc. an decoder is easily made in C.
So if you realy want a decoded file you can get it.

Really? Download my cache_lite files and try to decode them Smile

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:56 pm

I'm not sure if "boycott" is the right word to describe would-be involvement by anyone, regarding future or even present versions of PHP-Nuke.

Speaking only for myself, I would say that FB's actions of late have left a very bad taste in my mouth, not because of anything about me, but rather how Bob (the most recent victim) and others have been treated.

As I've said in some of the other posts on this site (about this subject matter), "It's one thing to attack someone that is hurting you or your reputation, it's another to attack someone that has done nothing but help you and your community of users." Something that FB himself fails to do. He puts his junk out there for everyone else to fix and that's about as far as he goes. Again, I might feel differently if he actually had comments enabled on his site or God forbid, support forums.

It strikes me that FB's actions have been totally counter-productive to evolution of the PHP-Nuke solutions and the community at-large, and the personal attacks against Bob and others have been nothing short of purposely hurtful and intentionally malicious.

Failing to credit others is also nothing new to FB; I think anyone that digs into the code will notice this immediately. One would think that PHP-Nuke would include a credits page that would pay proper respect to the many that have made contributions. You see things like this in most of the Open Source community solutions and I don't think it's that much of a big deal to give a little thanks for what in many cases could be hundreds of hours of work. But alas, crediting others for their contributions doesn't seem to be part of FB's character.

As for involvement in supporting future versions of PHP-Nuke, I will not be modifying any of my solutions to support any future releases of PHP-Nuke, specifically because of the political situations created by FB as well as his treatment of some of his largest contributors. I was asked today about porting Syndicated News to 7.6 today, and my answer was simply, "I have no intentions on porting any of my solutions to any future releases of PHP-Nuke." And that's all I have to say about that.

While I'm not sure what kinds of comments (if any) that you will get from the MAJOR contributors like Raven, Bob, Chatserv, Telli or others that may choose to remain quiet about this subject, I will only say that for my part, I have had very strong emotions regarding what is going on over FB's site and most recently, about how Bob was treated. This is the primary reason behind many of my decisions of late.

As my very slight contributions are Open Source, others are welcomed to modify them to their hearts content for future releases and/or other platforms, but don't count on any support from me in that regard. This isn't intended to be harsh or "mean" but rather just me saying that I would rather concentrate my efforts toward solutions where I know my efforts aren't going to be attacked in an effort to boost someone else's ego. I don't even really care about the credit, but I do care when a contributor is bitch slapped for no reason whatsoever.

Finally, this brings me back to what I have been saying for a couple of months now. Given the ongoing situation with FB, the questionable future of PHP-Nuke and it's unknown evolutionary path, the new copyright requirements, plus the oxymoronic vision of, "I'm not going to support this thing, and on top of that, I'm going to attack everyone that does" represented by FB, I have only two questions:

If the major players concentrated their efforts elsewhere, could it quite possibly be the death of PHP-Nuke? And, Would that be a bad thing?

I mean where would PHP-Nuke be without Chatserv's "Patched" solutions? Hell, I'd be lost just without Raven's "Resend Email"; ( see [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] ) in fact I was before I found it here when I first starting using Nuke back in March. I can't begin to express my gratitude for his (and other's) other countless contributions to my site's development.... and to THOUSANDS of others peoples sites too.

While I can't begin to thank Chatserv and Raven for their help, I'm also grateful for contributions by others like Bill, for GT NexGen and Mr. Fluffy for helping me create mods for my forums and fix some other phpbb problems, while Telli has also helped me out with some useful code and great ideas for modifying my own code.

I could go on and on about contributions from others, but I really try to simply show my gratitude by posting links to their sites from my site and give credit where credit is due. I wish I could say that FB helped me with something... ANYTHING, but no.. That’s just not the case.

In closing, the best thing we can do for the contributors is to personally support those that support all of us any way we can. I try to click on a few of Raven's ads every week. I do the same over at Bob's (in fact lately, every time NukeSentinel sends me an email, I visit both sites and give a click on their Google Ads to show my support.) I also go over to NukeResources and do the same thing for Chatserv.

Finally, to make sure I don't accidentally help FB, I've changed my "hosts" file on my PC to be 127.0.0.1 for FB's site, so I don't accidentally visit it in any browser.

Per FB's Latest interpretation of Copyrights (as seen in my other post) [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

NOTICE: By submitting this post, I hereby state that the contents of this post are my personal opinion and in no way should be taken as approved by or condoned by Raven, Bob Marion or ANYONE else, whether named or unnamed. The thoughts published herein are meant as my personal expressions only and therefore the hosts of this site (or any other site that may replicate these remarks in the original and complete form) are and shall always be held harmless from any and all liabilities as a result of displaying, replying to or otherwise republishing or distributing these personal opinions. Per the terms and conditions of this site including the published Copyright notice of, 'The comments are property of their posters', I hereby release the contents of my remarks in entirety for publication, duplication, and distribution anywhere by anyone without harm or liability.

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:35 am

Here, here!
Just for the record, I have no objecton to displaying FB copyright etc in the footer or anywhere else, it just upsets me that the people who have truly made Nuke what it is today (Raven, Chat, Bob, etc, etc) where not included in this same copyright or other notices.
That is what really gets my goat - the fact that FB has not credited these others, especially as their contributions to the core code are actually more significant than any code FB has added over the time that Nuke has been around.

A truly astounding example is the work done Chat, or was it Bob(?) in moving the Admin section files - which FB now claims as his own.

I also believe that many, many months ago, someone posted (somewhere) regarding moving the the admin.php fo added security - oops, what is this I see in Nuke 7.6 - the admin file has been moved.
And the list goes on and on.

In an ideal world, it would be great if the major contributors could encode their work to stop it being used by FB in his own work - sadly, with hindsight, this would make it impossible to incorporate any customisation individuals might may have carried out on there own sites.

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:39 am

I guess what really makes me laugh are all of the notes about security patches by Chatserv, when they haven't been installed... again...

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:18 am

As an after thought - how does the licencing thing work (forgive my naivity).
Many software providers require you to purchase a licence that is domain locked - how does that work?
One must assume the licence file itself holds a a 'key' that allows the other files to execute, personally I would be quite happy to purchse a licence key for a few dollars a month to enable 'fixed' files to work on my site.
Is this an avenue that anyone has any thoughts on?

I appreciate the fact that it takes the source away from the 'free for use' theme but if the licence was $1 a month, how many would buy, how many would risk their site bing hacked for the sack of $1 a month??

As usual, off-topically,
Me

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:23 am

[ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

LOL, $1 a month? Remember who we're talking about here.

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:47 am

I meant for 'fixed' version of nuke LOL
I would never pay for software from ANYONE who does not offer any support for his software (e.g. support foum etc).
Anyone distributing software that does not have an open support area obviously does not have a lot of confidence in their abilities.

FB has the best of both worlds at the moment, he supplies the script, others fix it and support it. Woe, what a uniques busines model that is.
Can you imagine General Motors selling cars and then saying, 'oh by the way, there is a security issue with the door locks, any key will open it' but to get it fixed you will have to go to Nissan.

<Hope this makes a few chuckle>

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:51 am

Confucius Say, Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:10 am

Confucious also say "He who cook carrots and peas in same pot, is unsanitary" (sorry, I couldn't resist)

registered · Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:29 pm

Well, thanks to the whole FB ego thing and the fact that it cannot be determined WHERE phpnuke really is heading, I have been looking into alternative CMS's and forums with "portal" overlay's.....

I've come to absolutely LOVE the forum "Burning Board" from Woltlab.com and purchased a full copy recently for a Joint Operations Squad forum I started: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Plus, I found a portal/CMS system called OCPortal which is "similar" in style to PHPNuke and allows me to use whatever forum I want (well, almost....but it DOES support the main ones out there.) It uses a forum "wrapper" module akin to "Storyteller's" functionality....

So it's for that reason I've been straying away from phpnuke, and am looking for a suitable replacement for my site (http://pctoolbin.com)....the main thing is to be able to move the forum topics/posts from the phpnuke ported PHPBB forums over to whatever I choose......

I'm just tired of FB's bullCACA and am tired of having to check daily for new security vulnerability fixes just to help keep on top of things and just hope my site doesn't get h4xx0r3d by some script kiddie looking to play around with some new exploit they found and try and get a "notch" on their "Grrr-Animals" belt that their mommy uses to hold up their teenage sized diapers.....