CPG-Nuke, copyright violation of GPL.

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

Taken from [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] where I originally made this post.

*****************************
Well, for those who don't know what CPG-Nuke (now knows as Dragonfly CMS) is. It is a fork of PHP-Nuke, which is released under GPL.
According to them, they fixed many security holes and bugs that were found in PHP-Nuke plus they dropped many useless and unwanted queries from code too.

This is how they started to modify the code of PHP-Nuke to CPGnuke:
1: Cut down more than half of original modules and add-ons.
2: Replaced core functions with other people's files that does same function.
3: Added few extra code for of other people.
4: Started tweaking it to fit their needs.

Now anyone who follows these 4 steps can end up with a way much better code for PHP-Nuke and with more functions, PHP-Nuke Platinum is just one example. You don't have to become a fork either.

From start main coder who is known as DJMaze used many add-ons that written for PHP-Nuke and added them to his fork. Nothing big, GPL code allows you to do that as long as you keep the credits to original author.

Few months back, I was at CPGnuke website and saw this poll when DJMaze was thinking about change CPGnuke's license to his own, which is not allowed as his code is based on a GPL code. He said he was afraid that someone will take his code, tweak a little and call it his own (Now look at the irony, this guy takes someone else's code, makes it his and now afraid of others taking his code???). Anyways, he couldn't do that due to current GPL license.

Now about him violating the GPL code himself:
GPL says that credit of original author must stays interact and if you make any changes, you need to comment those changes.
CPGnuke removed ALL visible credit's to PHP-Nuke, source code and the credits file PHP-Nuke comes with.
CPGnuke used other GPL codes from many other coders who made it available for PHP-Nuke and removed the copyright from them too.
Until version 8.2C, they had a module called Credits where they thanked those whose code they have used for CPGnuke but since the 9.0.1 release of CPGnuke, they have changed all the credits to authors and websites to their own. All functions stayed the same but authors names changed to "DJMaze, CPGNUKE TEAM and CPGNUKE DEV", this is a shame, attention seeking whores like him are the ones who make people leave open source community.

I for once protest against this violation of GPL license and would like CPGNuke team to add all the credits to coders who they have used all along back as they were and are supposed to.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:57 am

Now the follow-up post made by me. Burnwave can repost his thoughts if he likes.

***************************************
OK, I have nothing against anyone personally, I ask for the fair game that's all. If you want credit for your work then please give credits to others as well. Don't make it sound like you have created it and then add a small line in a file called "credits.txt" that no one reads. Now if I am a new internet user who has come across this CMS, what would I think? That every single line of code is either created by DJMaze or by his DEV team. This is called misleading and false marketing.

About CPGnuke being a unique, give me a break. Everything that's in CPGnuke is available for PHP-Nuke, only feature that is not available right now is a "Notepad for admin" which WAS available during the time when 5.3 was out. Also even that idea is not original, IPB and few other CMS have it.
Now I haven't talked s**t about anyone personally because I have nothing against anyone DJMaze is target of my argument is because he is the whole who started this show and he is the one who leads it, every mess that happens is his problem else he should step down and make someone else who can really run the show.
There should have been some kinda rule of banning people in IRC, if you ban someone, I would like to know who and why. I don't know when did you talk to DJ but I sure can show you and him a link where you told him about being banned in the IRC and he said he took it off and will not happen this again...

Regular Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 95 Location: NY

There isn't anything in my responses that I didn't tell Maze yesterday.

One point was about censorship. I'm not allowed to like spam, and other members aren't allowed to utter a CMS other than CPGNuke (in their support IRC channel).

One point was about Trevor and one was about Stephen. Both are making the dev team for cpgnuke look absolutely horrible. They are the reason they scare people away from using the system. Stephen made himself look like a complete idiot during the NSN/NC war, and because of that, he decided to move to a different community due to so many folks disliking him. His idiocy continues to linger there, obviously.

Another point was about DJMaze's ego. Libel, fallocies about his own CMS, etc in order to win over folks to use his CMS. Granted it's free, but there isn't a reason you need to advertise it as something it's not.

Mentioned that CPGNuke was slow, even with this query decrease. But of course, I'm comparing the gentimes, etc of that to other systems.

Last point was about me being glad that I did not participate in the development of CPGNuke when I was invited by Paris at the early dev stages of the project.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:52 am

I've spent a lot of time with PHPnuke off and on which also left me feeling much as you Mesum. But now a year later I've had a chance to see some of the improvements that the CPG Nuke team has made and I feel that it does merit a new brand. Just glance at the code for the Top 10 page once as an example.

I believe briefly there was a conflict with the original phpnuke license and that it has been resolved. With the possible exception of what I would call gnit picky details.

No I don't use it but should the day come where it meets my needs (which I think could happen) I will.

Anyway I think that CPG-Nuke has made more progress in 1 year then many mainstream Portals have in several. Much of which could not be done from the confines of leaving the core alone which is what most of us feel oblidged to do so that there is a simple upgrade path for the end users.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:51 am

Mesum wrote:

This is how they started to modify the code of PHP-Nuke to CPGnuke:
1: Cut down more than half of original modules and add-ons.
2: Replaced core functions with other people's files that does same function.
3: Added few extra code for of other people.
4: Started tweaking it to fit their needs.

1. They are made optional because 90% of people don't use all of them
2. If something almost does the same it doesn't mean it's copied, it could mean the function is re-written from scratch by someone.
3. Yes mentioned at [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] like paladin, steven111 and phpBB coders.

Mesum wrote:

Now anyone who follows these 4 steps can end up with a way much better code for PHP-Nuke and with more functions, PHP-Nuke Platinum is just one example. You don't have to become a fork either.

Platinum is huge (10Mb zipped and 28Mb extracted), and why didn't anyone else follow your 4 steps although everyone keeps complaining about security and FB ?

Mesum wrote:

From start main coder who is known as DJMaze used many add-ons that written for PHP-Nuke and added them to his fork. Nothing big, GPL code allows you to do that as long as you keep the credits to original author.

Funny, i never found the original authors because FB never mentioned them in his credits. Does that make us bad, untill someone can tell us who the authors are ?

Mesum wrote:

Few months back, I was at CPGnuke website and saw this poll when DJMaze was thinking about change CPGnuke's license to his own, which is not allowed as his code is based on a GPL code. He said he was afraid that someone will take his code, tweak a little and call it his own (Now look at the irony, this guy takes someone else's code, makes it his and now afraid of others taking his code???). Anyways, he couldn't do that due to current GPL license.

If you read the GPL license carefully, others are allowed to sell your code.
The OSLA was made to prevent sales of our and other people their code.
If you think you may create a living of GPL code so be it.

Mesum wrote:

Now about him violating the GPL code himself:
GPL says that credit of original author must stays interact and if you make any changes, you need to comment those changes.
CPGnuke removed ALL visible credit's to PHP-Nuke, source code and the credits file PHP-Nuke comes with.
CPGnuke used other GPL codes from many other coders who made it available for PHP-Nuke and removed the copyright from them too.
Until version 8.2C, they had a module called Credits where they thanked those whose code they have used for CPGnuke but since the 9.0.1 release of CPGnuke, they have changed all the credits to authors and websites to their own. All functions stayed the same but authors names changed to "DJMaze, CPGNUKE TEAM and CPGNUKE DEV", this is a shame, attention seeking whores like him are the ones who make people leave open source community.

The visible credits of PHP-Nuke were NOT according to the GPL rules as FB pointed out himself, and due to that FB changed the footer message confirming the GPL rules.
As explained by the FSF it was allowed to remove the incorrect "visible" copyrights.
So we did and put credits in the credits.txt and our wiki.

Mesum wrote:

I for once protest against this violation of GPL license and would like CPGNuke team to add all the credits to coders who they have used all along back as they were and are supposed to.

See link to wiki above (that list is pretty long) and if that list is incomplete just login and edit the page yourself.

Mesum wrote:

OK, I have nothing against anyone personally, I ask for the fair game that's all. If you want credit for your work then please give credits to others as well. Don't make it sound like you have created it and then add a small line in a file called "credits.txt" that no one reads.

A credits.txt has the same pageview stats as a different credits system UNLESS you print the whole list on every page. Now who prints all credits on every page ? I've never seen that on PHP-Nuke, Mambo, Xoops or any other website.

Mesum wrote:

About CPGnuke being a unique, give me a break. Everything that's in CPGnuke is available for PHP-Nuke

We are not a unique system, every system has what others also have.
And if a system has something others don't have, then within weeks others have it as well.
We just modified the core and later on designed a new core.

Mesum wrote:

There should have been some kinda rule of banning people in IRC, if you ban someone, I would like to know who and why. I don't know when did you talk to DJ but I sure can show you and him a link where you told him about being banned in the IRC and he said he took it off and will not happen this again...

No-one should be banned, and yesterday i talked with Burnwave about it and the people in question are notified on their behaviour.

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

Just a comment on GPL. I contacted the OSF Lawyer team awhile back to get a reading on what we "technically/legally" can and can't do with pnpnuke for changing licenses. Basically, if you have to use phpnuke to launch your application, it is phpnuke and therefore MUST be GPL. Now the question becomes. "What is your code vs. phpnuke's code"? For instance, what if I rewrite every module by using more advanced techniques (which would be pretty much child's play)? Is it new/real or is it memorex? The OSF said that it is still phpnuke because if it smells like, tastes like, walks like but may not look like, it's still a duck. The GPL both helps and hinders. I tried all kinds of questions on them and the basic test is, "if my application NEEDS phpnuke code (intellectual property) to LAUNCH and RUN in any way, then it must be GPL licensed". But, I said, I wrote my application as stand-alone (protected license) and then offered a "nuked" version. That should be my "right". Wrong. If it needs the likes of phpnuke, it's GPL. And, it matters not whether or not it is "packaged" with phpnuke - fallacy. So, now, the legal aspect became clear. If I want to abide by the "legal" interpretation and reading, I'm hosed or I don't offer a nuke's version. Personally, I have weighed the "legal" vs. "ethical" and I find fb (ethical) wanting in a big way. He is but a "keeper" of the code - far from a 'developer'. Should we ask for a show of hands of ALL the code that fb has added to phpnuke w/o credits ROTFL

. I will not go into all the reasons why it is laughable to look at him as anything else. Thus, I have chosen to not accept the OSF reading when I develop my apps. If I am modifying a known application or mine even resembles anyone else's, my mods are GPL. I will issue many things GPL for nuke. But, there is no way that fb and his 'official' development whatever will take my proprietary code and either lock it or not offer it GPL. There will be no more 'misappropriating" of my serious code.

This is not an endorsement nor is it a mandate to anyone. It's my choice - consequences are mine. Responses are welcomed. We are adults here - opinions are welcomed.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:37 pm

I think we are starting to get confused, we are talking about CPGnuke NOT PHP-Nuke which a fork of PHP-Nuke and was released under GPL.
Now this doesn't matter if author of PHP-Nuke followed the GPL license completely to not, it does not gives you right to do the same.
FB made a simple way to give credits to the authors by having copyright.php in modules, not a great concept but hey.
Now this is where I think CPGnuke team is keeping double standards:
I downloaded the version 9.0.1 and found this in the Survey module which we know is based on PHP-Nuke's survey module and see this:

Code:




/*********************************************


  CPG-NUKE: Advanced Content Management System


  ********************************************


  Copyright (c) 2004 by CPG-Nuke Dev Team


  http://www.cpgnuke.com





  CPG-Nuke is released under the terms and conditions


  of the GNU GPL version 2 or any later version





  $Source: /cvs/html/modules/Surveys/index.php,v $


  $Revision: 9.0 $


  $Author: djmaze $


  $Date: 2005/01/12 03:32:52 $





*************************************************************/

Now go to Forums module and see this:

Code:




/***************************************************************************


 *                                index.php


 *                            -------------------


 *   begin                : Saturday, Feb 13, 2001


 *   copyright            : (C) 2001 The phpBB Group


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


 *


  Last modification notes:


  $Source: /cvs/html/modules/Forums/index.php,v $


  $Revision: 9.0 $


  $Author: djmaze $


  $Date: 2005/01/12 03:32:43 $


 *


 ***************************************************************************/


/***************************************************************************


 *


 *   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify


 *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by


 *   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or


 *   (at your option) any later version.


 *


 ***************************************************************************/

Notice the difference between those 2 credits? PHP-Nuke's credits were removed WITH the GPL note from Survey but phpBB's credits stay interacted as they are supposed to.

includes/phpBB/auth.php:

Code:




/***************************************************************************


 *                 auth.php


 *                -------------------


 *   begin        : Saturday, Feb 13, 2001


 *   copyright        : (C) 2001 The phpBB Group


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


 *


 *   Modifications made by CPG Dev Team http://cpgnuke.com


 *   Last modification notes:


 *


 *   $Id: auth.php,v 9.0 2005/01/12 03:32:38 djmaze Exp $


 *


 *


 ***************************************************************************/





/***************************************************************************


 *


 *   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify


 *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by


 *   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or


 *   (at your option) any later version.


 *


 ***************************************************************************/

root/admin.php:

Code:

/*********************************************


  CPG Dragonflyâ„¢ CMS


  ********************************************


  Copyright Â© 2004 - 2005 by CPG-Nuke Dev Team


  http://www.dragonflycms.com





  Dragonfly is released under the terms and conditions


  of the GNU GPL version 2 or any later version





  $Source: /cvs/html/admin.php,v $


  $Revision: 9.5 $


  $Author: djmaze $


  $Date: 2005/02/10 23:40:08 $


**********************************************/

If you can have credits to phpBB without any problems, you sure can have PHP-Nuke's credits interact just as well because your code is based on it.

Now the answers to DJMaze's reply:

Quote:

1. They are made optional because 90% of people don't use all of them
2. If something almost does the same it doesn't mean it's copied, it could mean the function is re-written from scratch by someone.
3. Yes mentioned at [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] like paladin, steven111 and phpBB coders.

1: Doesn't matter if one % or 10% use it, they were made for PHP-Nuke and this is what their credits looked like:

Code:

// ######################################################################


// # PHP-Nuke                                                           #


// #====================================================================#


// #  Copyright (c) 2003 - Francisco Burzi                              #


// #  http://phpnuke.org/                                               #


// #====================================================================#


// # Paladin's Web Links                                                #


// #====================================================================#


// #  Copyright (c) 2003 - Darren Poulton (paladin@intaleather.com.au)  #


// #  http://paladin.intaleather.com.au/                                #


// #                                                                    #


// #  Developed from the PHP-Nuke 6.5 Standard Web Links Module         #


// #  Copyright (c) 2003 - Francisco Burzi                              #


// #  http://phpnuke.org/                                               #


// #                                                                    #


// #====================================================================#


// #  Use of this program is goverened by the terms of the GNU General  #


// #     Public License (GPL - version 1 or 2) as published by the      #


// #           Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org/)           #


// ######################################################################

As you can see, it was based on PHP-Nuke's Web Links module and they gave complete credits to it then why it's hard for you to do it?
2: Are you saying that every single line has been re-written from scratch? If so, can you prove it? Did this all happen between 8.2C release and 9.0.1 release? because I sure do remember having credits on [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] when your site was running 8.2 version.
3: Removing credits from the codes and moving it to some module that is not available as a download. Is this how GPL works? I really don't think so.

Quote:

Platinum is huge (10Mb zipped and 28Mb extracted), and why didn't anyone else follow your 4 steps although everyone keeps complaining about security and FB ?

Well of course it is because it has about 200 more features than the core PHP-Nuke download and about 250 more features than core CPGnuke download. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Why others didn’t followed my 4 steps? Simple, takes some time, knowledge and patents, many don't have either one so you won't see many distros like that. Now take Raven's website as an example, are you telling me it can get hacked faster than CPGnuke powered website? I really don't think so. Can say the same thing for NSN, Telli's network websites and Platinum powered website. CPGnuke has less chances to get hacked because it comes with way much less codes and functions, it's like a homeless person tells me "Oh I have never been robbed in my life" Yes because you don't have anything that others can rob.
I haven't even followed those 4 steps on my site and you can see the results there. Wait till I replace other core files and then we'll have a talk about what's fast and has less queries. Funny thing is I am not even a "real coder".

Quote:

Funny, i never found the original authors because FB never mentioned them in his credits. Does that make us bad, untill someone can tell us who the authors are ?

Yes I find it really funny too as I remember seeing the credits to the credits link I posted above had those people and all of the sudden they are gone. *POOF* You want the list of them? I think I have the first download available by CPGnuke team and also the links to threads when you talked about the progress of your fork and add-ons you used for your fork.

Quote:

If you read the GPL license carefully, others are allowed to sell your code.
The OSLA was made to prevent sales of our and other people their code.
If you think you may create a living of GPL code so be it.

Well you should have thought of that before you started to use a GPL code, should have written on your own and then you didn't have to worry about anyone selling yours or anyone's code. If GPL allows you to do that then who are you to make an exception about it? Looks like it's not me who need to read and understand the GPL.

Quote:

The visible credits of PHP-Nuke were NOT according to the GPL rules as FB pointed out himself, and due to that FB changed the footer message confirming the GPL rules.
As explained by the FSF it was allowed to remove the incorrect "visible" copyrights.
So we did and put credits in the credits.txt and our wiki.

What happened to the credits INSIDE the code? What does FSF say about that? You sure have credits to phpBB in your code. Am I missing something or GPL says you can remove anyone's code from source BUT from phpBB? Like I said, looks like you are trying to tweak the GPL for your needs and it's not allowed from my understanding.

Quote:

A credits.txt has the same pageview stats as a different credits system UNLESS you print the whole list on every page. Now who prints all credits on every page ? I've never seen that on PHP-Nuke, Mambo, Xoops or any other website.

Once again, where is the credit to the author INSIDE the code?
Copied from 7.4, patched distro, Journal module:

Code:

# $Author: chatserv $


# $Date: 2004/12/08 03:44:19 $


/************************************************************************/


/* Journal &#167 ZX                                                     */


/* ================                                                     */


/*                                                                      */


/* Original work done by Joseph Howard known as Member's Journal, which */


/* was based on Trevor Scott's vision of Atomic Journal.                */


/*                                                                      */


/* Modified on 25 May 2002 by Paul Laudanski (paul@computercops.biz)    */


/* Copyright (c) 2002 Modifications by Computer Cops.                   */


/* http://computercops.biz                                              */


/*                                                                      */


/* Member's Journal did not work on a PHPNuke 5.5 portal which had      */


/* phpbb2 port integrated.  Thus was Journal &#167 ZX created with the  */


/* Member's Journal author's blessings.                                 */


/*                                                                      */


/* To install, backup everything first and then FTP the Journal package */


/* files into your site's module directory.  Also run the tables.sql    */


/* script so the proper tables and fields can be created and used.  The */


/* default table prefix is "nuke" which is hard-coded throughout the    */


/* entire system as a left-over from Member's Journal.  If a demand     */


/* exists, that can be changed for a future release.                    */


/*                                                                      */


/* This program is free software. You can redistribute it and/or modify */


/* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by */


/* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License.       */


/************************************************************************/


    /* Journal 2.0 Enhanced and Debugged 2004                               */


    /* by sixonetonoffun -- http://www.netflake.com --                      */


    /* Images Created by GanjaUK -- http://www.GanjaUK.com                  */


    /************************************************************************/

See how they have followed the GPL rules? Added the credits with the code changes. Is it hard for you to do that or you just do not like to give credits to authors as GPL requires you to?

Quote:

We are not a unique system, every system has what others also have.
And if a system has something others don't have, then within weeks others have it as well.
We just modified the core and later on designed a new core.

Well I sure do get a vibe that you people think it is, as I remember you guys were blaming ProjectXO or whatever is the name of that CMS for stealing your admin note pad. But fair enough, you admit it that you don't.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:38 pm

I don't see the purpose of this thread at all.

If you have somethine personal with the CPG Nuke team take it up with them in their forums, IMHO.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:18 pm

Mesum first you say a credits.txt isn't sufficient because no-one reads it.
Now you say

Mesum wrote:

Once again, where is the credit to the author INSIDE the code?

So you think the code files itself get more often read by people then the credits page ?

Oh and i have something about those fileheaders you posted:

- That Journal file is still not following the GPL rules. Where is the history log ?
Each derivative work must have a history log inside the file or like this: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

So you can give me 1 module that has all GPL rules in place as they should ?

[edit]
Also the only official GPL credits which make the files GPL compliant is

Code:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

If a file doesn't have that it's still not a GPL file.
[/edit]

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:31 pm

burnwave wrote:

One point was about Trevor and one was about Stephen. Both are making the dev team for cpgnuke look absolutely horrible. They are the reason they scare people away from using the system. Stephen made himself look like a complete idiot during the NSN/NC war, and because of that, he decided to move to a different community due to so many folks disliking him. His idiocy continues to linger there, obviously.

Oh please, reading this entire topic makes me laugh. ROTFL

It's one big joke.

Someone please, moderate.

Edit:
A late comment:
The reason I left php-nuke wasn't because of it's community, or my actions towards it. I found a better CMS, so I switched to it.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm

Its an enlightening topic really as long as we maintain control of the emotional aspects of it there is no need to moderate it. Perhaps we should invite FB to comment since his is really the only opinion that is relevent to the topic title.

I would have to agree from my intepurtation that the original header and comments should remain and can only be appended to be in total compliance with the license. But to some extent I also agree that it becomes a petty difference and I am still searching for the original Thatware comments in PHPNuke.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:11 pm

Mesum wrote:

I think we are starting to get confused, we are talking about CPGnuke NOT PHP-Nuke which a fork of PHP-Nuke and was released under GPL.
Now this doesn't matter if author of PHP-Nuke followed the GPL license completely to not, it does not gives you right to do the same.
FB made a simple way to give credits to the authors by having copyright.php in modules, not a great concept but hey.

Not exactly, at least on my part. I'm saying that the crux of the issue is GPL which does matter, to me, whether fb follows it or not. I have no interest in CPGNuke other than I believe it has some very good enhancements to it. To me the fb/gpl issue comes down to an analogy. If a discredited person takes me to court for violating the same things that he discredits himself with, the court looks at him as foolish and the case w/o warrant.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:30 pm

Raven wrote:

Mesum wrote:

I think we are starting to get confused, we are talking about CPGnuke NOT PHP-Nuke which a fork of PHP-Nuke and was released under GPL.
Now this doesn't matter if author of PHP-Nuke followed the GPL license completely to not, it does not gives you right to do the same.
FB made a simple way to give credits to the authors by having copyright.php in modules, not a great concept but hey.

Not exactly, at least on my part. I'm saying that the crux of the issue is GPL which does matter, to me, whether fb follows it or not. I have no interest in CPGNuke other than I believe it has some very good enhancements to it. To me the fb/gpl issue comes down to an analogy. If a discredited person takes me to court for violating the same things that he discredits himself with, the court looks at him as foolish and the case w/o warrant.

So just because someone else breaks the law and isn't 'punished' as stated by law, it's perfectly ok for you to break the same law and share the same exact punishment as the preceding person? That doesn't make sense at all.

That's like watching someone from store X steal an item and run out the of store quicker than the clerk can catch/ID him. You do the same, get caught, and try to convince the clerk that because the other thief got away with it, you should as well. Your logic fails me.

Quote:

Oh please, reading this entire topic makes me laugh. ROTFL

It's one big joke.

Someone please, moderate.

Thank you for your invaluable input! I'm sure all those folks who ran phpNuke sites that were DOSed/spammed by you/friends would love to comment in this very same thread. Of course, you can deny this just as you have denied the previous accusation. Seeing as you are affiliated with the team in question, I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:43 pm

Not at all and you completely miss the INTENT of my statements. First of all, it's not a law. I'ts known as "On Acceptance". Please, don't be self-righteous and attempt to battle wits here. This is an opinion, not a law. If GPL were that cut and dry we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:40 am

So this is how things are coming down to:
: This thread was made open request.
2: The posts I made are my personal thoughts, if you find it funny, insulting or a joke then don't post it.
3: My first talks about removal of credits from 3 places, let me quote it again for those who can't read:

Quote:

CPGnuke removed ALL visible credit's to PHP-Nuke, source code and the credits file PHP-Nuke comes with.

Now questions:
What if I download a GPL code, add some extra things, remove some code, delete ALL the code credit from code and remove it to an external file and a module on my website which gives reference to it but is not marked as credits unless asked.
It will be totally acceptable? If so, I think I have few ideas to launch a fork called "Superfly" Wink

Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:51 pm

Go ahead make one, then some people can rant their thoughts about your CMS Laughing

Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:36 pm

I can name those people right now before even starting anything Very Happy

because they cry and whine every time Very Happy

Regular Joined: Oct 08, 2004 Posts: 55 Location: Texas

Mesum wrote:

I can name those people right now before even starting anything Very Happy

because they cry and whine every time Very Happy

I could not help myself.... MAN, now your naming names! Let me ask you something? When was the last time that you developed, re-coded, de-coded, and just flat out made something better for the benifit of all? That is what the CPG TEAM has done. And you stand there like some flag waving bean counter
pointing out things about GLP that you think must be fixed NOW! IMHO, The CPG TEAM needs a big pat on the back! The track there going on is a good one and left to time i see most, if not all of the major issues being worked out.

Communnity is about helping, write your own code, give it to the CPG TEAM to replace the code that is in question? Why not help find loop holes in GPL that will help them... It's been along time sience i read the GPL, but back then i was looking for a loop hole, and I found one. Things might of changed but as i understand it, if 80% - 90% of the code is yours, or inhouse the code is no longer GPL. The way CPG is going they will (if not already) hit that mark soon.

My main site was phpnuke, and i got ripped apart by carckers! I spent more time fixing, patching, and hacking my oun site that buliding content. CPG fixed that! I owe them for that and I will support them to the end....

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:08 am

elrayjones, as I can see, you know sooooooooooooooooooooo much about me already, I think I can reply to you in few lines.
No matter how good looking is a theif, he is still a theif.
What you think is a good job done by someone is nothing but replacement of PHP-Nuke code to phpBB code. Add-ons were taken from others and were given credits until the last release and now they are all gone besides the phpBB credits... Hmmm I wonde what went wrong...

Oh and thank you so much for your support Very Happy

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:36 am

Mesum wrote:

elrayjones, as I can see, you know sooooooooooooooooooooo much about me already, I think I can reply to you in few lines.
No matter how good looking is a theif, he is still a theif.
What you think is a good job done by someone is nothing but replacement of PHP-Nuke code to phpBB code. Add-ons were taken from others and were given credits until the last release and now they are all gone besides the phpBB credits... Hmmm I wonde what went wrong...

Oh and thank you so much for your support Very Happy

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, who ever said that i new anything about you. All i know about you is from your posts. And from that I now know that I will drop any contact with you.... about this.. for you have already made up your mind before hand. Also calling someone a THEIF is a big issue, do you know that you have just opened yourself up for a REAL LAW SUIT? It's called Slander.

Slander=Words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another, An abusive attack on a person's character or good name.

Now you are in Violation.

See ya in the funny pages....

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:51 am

elrayjones wrote:

do you know that you have just opened yourself up for a REAL LAW SUIT?
See ya in the funny pages....

This is probably the most comical thing I have read all year. Surely you jest.

Edit: Nice quick edit.

Edit edit: If this whole 'law suit' thing was true, wouldn't "some flag waving bean counter" also fall into violation, opening yourself up to whatever psychobabble you just spewed? Correct me if I am wrong.

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:06 am

Could anyone point me where I called somone a theif?
I would love to see someone payup to a lawyer just to loose the law suit Very Happy

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:07 am

Someone shoot me.

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:48 am

burnwave wrote:

elrayjones wrote:

do you know that you have just opened yourself up for a REAL LAW SUIT?
See ya in the funny pages....

This is probably the most comical thing I have read all year. Surely you jest.

Edit: Nice quick edit.

Edit edit: If this whole 'law suit' thing was true, wouldn't "some flag waving bean counter" also fall into violation, opening yourself up to whatever psychobabble you just spewed? Correct me if I am wrong.

Hay your quite right!............... So sue me Smile

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:07 am

Stick to the topic guys else go open another thread.