UNITED-NUKE

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:30 pm

iray wrote:

Guardian2003 wrote:

By saying your fork will help the nuke community and then say there is no nuke community... ???

I didnt write anything like this.

Perhaps I missed something in the translation.

New Member Joined: Oct 30, 2004 Posts: 21

Guardian2003 wrote:

Perhaps I missed something in the translation.

Try to replace "popular" with "favourite" in my original post (it will be more suitable).

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:43 pm

iray wrote:

chatserv wrote:

True but it still equals popular and on a side note while we are not coding Gods i'd say we do a pretty decent job at doing what others won't Smile

Chatserv, you know me for a loooong time. I post big amount of bugfixes to your project and you are still great man for me. But stance from some other users/developers to my project is very strange.

I did what other never proved. Increase speed and security. And the result? Community is censoring and deleting my posts... Did you know, what is fair play?

I'm aware your main spoken language is not English and sadly i don't know other languages except for English and Spanish so my reply has to be in one of those, else i'd explain in your own tongue in hopes you understood exactly. Here goes:

Yes you have submitted fixes at my sites but so have many others like Quake, Raven, Evaders99, Bob Marion and countless others, that's what makes a community, currently i work alongside Quake and Evaders99, two very talented coders, they are not perfect and neither am i because they just like me are human and humans are not perfect, i often exchange thoughts and ideas with many people like Raven, Bob Marion, even Francisco Burzi, sometimes i might think i know of a better way to do something and i share it with them and others, other times they might see something i've done that can be done better (like you have done) and they tell me about it, that my friend is what makes a community.

PHP-Nuke is not perfect, it has flaws but so does PostNuke and all other CMS', there are many great Content Management Systems out there but there's not a single one that doesn't have at least one flaw or vulnerability, as long as something can be accessed through the net it is vulnerable, someone somehow will sooner or later find a way to break in, one devices validation methods to secure a block of code as best as possible yet script kiddies are always on the prowl looking for ways to by-pass what was done or find another opening, the same thing happens with any other software like Operating Systems and Anti_Virus software, that's why new versions and patches come out for just about every program.

The reaction towards you has nothing to do with how great or not your fork is but with how you say things, much effort has gone into anything ever released by anyone and most everyone can accept constructive criticism but terms like unprofessional and bad code are often taken the wrong way whether they were meant in a bad way or not, that is how i see it.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Site Admin Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 6433

iray, what are you trying to accomplish?

You have some good ideas for making Nuke better (yes, I've seen United-Nuke), but that goes against what appears to be tearing it down by insulting the developers of a highly respected enhancement. Bob, Chatserv and Raven have given a LOT of their time and energy to the PHP-Nuke community for MANY years.

Since the introduction of NukeSentinel and other tools like it, the number of incidents of "I've been hacked" has dropped significantly. If Sentinel has negatively impacted performance (and I'm only offering that for the sake of discussion as I am convinced it has NOT), most webmasters would agree it's a tradeoff they can live with.

But things can always get better - and the developers of NukeSentinel have continued to improve it (and the many OTHER contributions they created and support) with many releases in last year. The development team has been very concerned with performance, and has pointed out how certain features of Sentinel impact performance.

If you suggest improvements and feel you are being ignored, develop something better. If you hope to gain credibility or respect, you will do so by your actions, not by joking or insulting. If you are truly interested in a UNITED community, focus on making it better, rather than on biting the ankles of its giants.

As for "censoring" your article or posts, do you REALLY expect someone you've insulted to provide free advertising for your insult? Please don't waste the valuable time of long-time contributors with nonsense like this. And your valuable time would be better spent improving the good ideas you've included in United-Nuke.

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:03 pm

chatserv wrote:

I'm aware your main spoken language is not English and sadly i don't know other languages except for English and Spanish so my reply has to be in one of those, else i'd explain in your own tongue in hopes you understood exactly. Here goes:

Yes you have submitted fixes at my sites but so have many others like Quake, Raven, Evaders99, Bob Marion and countless others, that's what makes a community, currently i work alongside Quake and Evaders99, two very talented coders, they are not perfect and neither am i because they just like me are human and humans are not perfect, i often exchange thoughts and ideas with many people like Raven, Bob Marion, even Francisco Burzi, sometimes i might think i know of a better way to do something and i share it with them and others, other times they might see something i've done that can be done better (like you have done) and they tell me about it, that my friend is what makes a community.

I am not perfect too of course Smile

I know, that many other posts many fixes too. I only presented that I am not only critical, but I also working to improve PHP-Nuke.

chatserv wrote:

PHP-Nuke is not perfect, it has flaws but so does PostNuke and all other CMS', there are many great Content Management Systems out there but there's not a single one that doesn't have at least one flaw or vulnerability, as long as something can be accessed through the net it is vulnerable, someone somehow will sooner or later find a way to break in, one devices validation methods to secure a block of code as best as possible yet script kiddies are always on the prowl looking for ways to by-pass what was done or find another opening, the same thing happens with any other software like Operating Systems and Anti_Virus software, that's why new versions and patches come out for just about every program.

Yes, I agree with you. I have only one idea. The most of attacks today (including also Post-Nuke for example) are through UNION injection (on MySQL 4.1 also subquery).
With union injection can anyone see anything from database, including hash of password. PHP-Nuke does NOT require real password, but only this hash!!! There is a problem in architecture of authorization code (not in many bugs).

UNITED-NUKE fixing this issues, so if anyone found UNION injection, data are still very safe.

chatserv wrote:

The reaction towards you has nothing to do with how great or not your fork is but with how you say things, much effort has gone into anything ever released by anyone and most everyone can accept constructive criticism but terms like unprofessional and bad code are often taken the wrong way whether they were meant in a bad way or not, that is how i see it.

I posted digital signed apology to Bob Marion and here. I can not do anything more.

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:17 pm

kguske wrote:

You have some good ideas for making Nuke better (yes, I've seen United-Nuke), but that goes against what appears to be tearing it down by insulting the developers of a highly respected enhancement. Bob, Chatserv and Raven have given a LOT of their time and energy to the PHP-Nuke community for MANY years.

As I posted at least twice, it was translation issue and I post apology. I work to improve PHP-Nuke too, at least, for three years.

kguske wrote:

Since the introduction of NukeSentinel and other tools like it, the number of incidents of "I've been hacked" has dropped significantly. If Sentinel has negatively impacted performance (and I'm only offering that for the sake of discussion as I am convinced it has NOT), most webmasters would agree it's a tradeoff they can live with.

But things can always get better - and the developers of NukeSentinel have continued to improve it (and the many OTHER contributions they created and support) with many releases in last year. The development team has been very concerned with performance, and has pointed out how certain features of Sentinel impact performance.

If you suggest improvements and feel you are being ignored, develop something better. If you hope to gain credibility or respect, you will do so by your actions, not by joking or insulting. If you are truly interested in a UNITED community, focus on making it better, rather than on biting the ankles of its giants.

As for "censoring" your article or posts, do you REALLY expect someone you've insulted to provide free advertising for your insult? Please don't waste the valuable time of long-time contributors with nonsense like this. And your valuable time would be better spent improving the good ideas you've included in United-Nuke.

I missunderstand you. I wrote several times, that I will post my improvements (but this is now irellevant, because of GPL violation we found in NukeSentinel - NS will be removed from final version. The most important thing for my company is observing laws.).

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:01 pm

This whole thing is really starting to piss me off. If you read the "LICENSE.txt" file you will find the following:

Code:

################################


# NukeSentinel(TM) --- License


################################





END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT





NOTICE TO USER: PLEASE READ THIS CONTRACT CAREFULLY.  BY USING ALL OR ANY PORITION 


OF THE SOFTWARE YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.





(i) The NukeSentinel(TM) source code may be modified at the user's risk, but the software


(altered or otherwise) may NOT be distributed to other entities without the explicit


written permission of NukeScripts Network. In other words, NukeSentinel(TM) may be modified


for your use only. Under no circumstances may any modified or unmodified NukeSentinel


code be distributed unless an explicit written permission is granted by NukeScripts


Network.





(ii) All NukeScripts Network copyright notices within the source code, design templates, 


software, etc. can not be modified and must remain visible.





(iii) The Redistributable Code is the property of NukeScripts Network and is protected


by copyright law and international treaty provisions.  You are not authorized to


reproduce and distribute the Redistributable Code. NukeScripts Network, reserves all


rights not expressly granted. THE REDISTRIBUTABLE CODE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS"


WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO


THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU


ASSUME THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE ACCURACY AND THE USE OF THE REDISTRIBUTABLE CODE.


NUKESCRIPTS NETWORK, SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF THE 


USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE REDISTRIBUTABLE CODE, EVEN IF NUKESCRIPTS NETWORK, HAS


BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.





(iv) UNION, CLIKE, & Email elements used from HackAlert with permission and are subject


to Raven PHP Scripts licensing not NSN's licensing.





(v) Scripting blocker elements are used from ChatServ with permission and are subject


to ChatServ's licensing not NSN's licensing.





(vi) HTTPAuth element used from Raven with permission and is subject to Raven PHP Scripts


licensing not NSN's licensing.





(vii) CGI AdminAuth element used from Raven with permission and is subject to Raven PHP


Scripts licensing not NSN's licensing.

It clearly defines what is covered by NSN EULA as you call it and what is not. This is a common pratice in the world of scripting which allows NukeSentinel(tm) to be distroed as it is. If it were propriatery software you would have never laid hands on it as it would have never been released to the public under open source.

Now onto GPL, United-Nuke is in the worst infringement of Copyright and GPL violations as I have seen, you are using PHP-Nuke (despite the author of it) and have stripped every copyright notice from it. Now before you even think of claiming I am violating something you d*** well better be sure your s*** don't stink!

On a side note: Raven if you feel this is a reply that best be gone please remove it.

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:18 pm

BobMarion wrote:

Code:




(i) The NukeSentinel(TM) source code may be modified at the user's risk, but the software


(altered or otherwise) may NOT be distributed to other entities without the explicit written permission of NukeScripts Network.

Ooooops. The first sentence and first violation. I recommend you to read GPL very carefully!

BobMarion wrote:

Now onto GPL, United-Nuke is in the worst infringement of Copyright and GPL violations as I have seen, you are using PHP-Nuke (despite the author of it) and have stripped every copyright notice from it. Now before you even think of claiming I am violating something you d*** well better be sure your s**t don't stink!

PHP-Nuke copyright was already discussed in deleted article. UNITED-NUKE does not violate GPL (all credits, copyright are in the right place). Problem of footer PHP-Nuke's copyright was already discussed too and the final thoughts (that I can remeber), that PHP-Nuke can not require to have his copyright in footer, but there can be link to complete list of developers, contributors etc....

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:12 pm

I won't spend any more time on this as this thread has moved WAY off-topic, but I would merely advise everyone curious about GPL restrictions that they should not concentrate on the GPL open public license itself, but rather the restrictions clauses established by the terms of the license distributed with the source itself.

It has been clearly identified that a Trademarked and Copyrighted works may be restricted even under GPL especially if the parties involved in that original works distribution agree to those restrictions in writing.

For details, See: PLANETARY MOTION, INC. v. TECHPLOSION, INC. et al., 261 F.3d 1188, U.S. District Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit (2001).

Specifically, look at the court findings in the first paragraph:

Quote:

Software which had been distributed pursuant to a GNU General Public License ("GNU GPL") DID NOT defeat trademark ownership, nor did it in any way compel a finding that the plaintiff author/creator abandoned his rights in the trademark or copyrights to the software. Others could not use the creator's trademark or copyrighted material aggregated and distributed with the GNU GPL software without the plaintiff author/creator's consent.

The terms of the license agreement clearly establish the authors restrictions to the terms of the GPL license agreement and anyone that obtains this code via any method must comply with the terms of that license as part of acceptance of use policies.

"Reading" the GPL is important, but understanding that there is nothing preventing an author from ammending the terms of trademarked and copyrighted works is equally important. As the terms are clearly identified, the author retains full rights as established by the license terms as well as by law as exemplified in the Court of Appeals case defined above.

Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:12 am

Great attemt to confuse me! NukeSentinel does not have permissions (!) to change anything in the GPL licence in terms of attached EULA. The owner of trademark can specify only policy of his trademark!
So final, if anyone remove (for example) all trademarks from software (which is under GPL - is NS under GPL or is vilolating this licence?) you can distribute it without permissions from authors (this is similar situation to RHLE).

You are explain me the situation, where complete code is owning by authors. But NS sentinel contains GPL code from other entities - so this example is not valid for NS GPL violation.

NS is trying to imagine, that God can do whatever want (censoring, GPL violating), but NS is not God. I am very sad.

I won't spend any more time in this thread too. If anyone violate gpl licence, it is his problem and his shame.

If you have any suggesions, please send me a email (digital signed if possible). I will reply as fast as possible.

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:11 am

Someone interested to take over our project/work that already is faster?
It is much easier for newbie coders that don't understand code like sentinel Wink

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

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

Interesting. Why the departure? What rights of ownership would come if one were to take it over?

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:15 am

Say it ain't so Sad

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:00 pm

Akamu and i started that sourceforge account to fix nuke once and for all after FB's complete mess-ups when we tried to properly use coppermine.
However since we went on coding and changing we actualy went from CPG-Nuke to Dragonfly and also because sourceforge is terrible slow and inconvenient we don't use it anymore.

So why keep building derivative works, removing license notes and get everyone pissed with bad code and announcements that other people their code suck while the, so called, "fixed code" is already available for more then a year ?

If the "nuke coders" didn't have so much ego like FB then there were not that much derivatives as that are popping up each month.
I just popped up our old "fixed code" project if there are realy people who understand and can run a derivative instead of bragging about it anywhere they can.
The last months it's just nuts, i found around 8 new derivatives and they all claimed the same fixes and speedups while those fixes and cleanups are available for ages.

Also claims about hired coders and group of managers on new works is just bullshit, spilling money to reinvent the wheel not something a real company will ever do unless it's profitable.

As i said, it more sounds like ego tripping and faking how good something is. This same behavior is also noted the last years by hosting resellers who claim they are 32 and 10 years in business while the owner actualy has the age of 14.

Now you all understand why i once a while popup our sourceforge project to see if someone is interested in re-opening it and realy do what they say they wanted to do.

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

Thats correct it's ALL about ego. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME I I I I I I I I I I.