All add-ons become GNU GPL if they are un-maintained

[Mouth]

I don't think you understand what a GPL license does...
To limit what can and can't be used in a program is more of a pain than you might realize. There's no way I would give up copyright and go with GPL.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to claim the same.
Copyleft applies when you modify the same software. An xf add-on and a vb add-on are not considered the same software. Otherwise, if I purchased an XF version of your add-on then I'd also automatically be a license holder of your similiar vb add-on too. With copyleft, your vb add-on would not be considered downstream of your xf add-on. It's explained nicely @ https://opensource.org/faq#copyleft

 

[Mouth]

So, the same would apply to XenForo, vB or any other commercial software itself. If a version is no longer maintained, then it passes to GPL? I don't think so.

How do you figure that? Please explain your thought process here.

 

[Snog]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to claim the same.
Copyleft applies when you modify the same software. An xf add-on and a vb add-on are not considered the same software. Otherwise, if I purchased an XF version of your add-on then I'd also automatically be a license holder of your similiar vb add-on too. With copyleft, your vb add-on would not be considered downstream of your xf add-on. It's explained nicely @ https://opensource.org/faq#copyleft

No, but any other version derived from the software for any other forum software would be considered downstream. And as I stated originally, that's where the problem is. Someone could produce a version for say MyBB when a developer may have intended to shift focus to that software.

How do you figure that? Please explain your thought process here.

My thought process is following what you're talking about doing with add-ons. If XF, vB or any other software is no longer supported or abandoned, it goes into GPL.

There is no difference between a commercial add-on and the main forum software. They are both programs that are copyright protected.

 

[SneakyDave]

... if the developer chooses to abandon that add-on.
Yes. And does not sell, pass on, or remove the add-on before it reaches the unmaintained state.
I don't see how that's unreasonable.

But XenForo makes the rules on if it's 'abandoned' right? Why wouldn't the developer just list addons on his own site then?

 

[Mouth]

Someone could produce a version for say MyBB when a developer may have intended to shift focus to that software.

Only if you've abandoned it on XF. Not sold, transferred or removed it ... and if you were intending to shift focus, you'd continue to maintain on XF or take one of those three options. Perhaps you are forgetting this. GPL doesn't apply until which time as a developer chooses to abandon the add-on (under XF rules for housekeeping).

 

[Mouth]

My thought process is following what you're talking about doing with add-ons. If XF, vB or any other software is no longer supported or abandoned, it goes into GPL.
There is no difference between a commercial add-on and the main forum software. They are both programs that are copyright protected.

A software license that Xenforo mandates applies to add-ons listed within RM after a pre-determine series of events, does not by any reasonable logic, mean that it also applies to the XF software/product. I'm baffled how you correlate this? Seems like what your saying is that XF already owns all add-ons in RM because the XF license also applies to add-ons, or add-on authors already own XF because their add-on license applies to XF.

 

[Mouth]

Why wouldn't the developer just list addon's on his own site then?

Yes, they could. If they really didn't like a GPL on abandonment approach they could do that. Many add-on authors already do this for completely different reason(s). If they want to list within the XF RM, they'd have to follow the GPL on abandonment rule though.

As I said previously, Joomla and Drupal enforce GPL right from release date on their extensions (add-on) authors and it's not reduced or fractured their quantity or quality in any way, in fact only allowed it to strengthen and improve. And they have tens of thousands of paid GPL add-on's, and many many more free ones too.

 

[Snog]

I'm simply theoretically applying the same logic you're using for add-ons to any other forum software. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

 

[n00bsaibot]

Not a lawyer, but I think this would be illegal. A Xenforo disclaimer doesn't trump rule of (copyright) law.

 

[Mouth]

I'm simply theoretically applying the same logic you're using for add-ons to any other forum software. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

Nope, not at all. I'm thinking there's some aspects of my GPL solution you're not grasping appropriately. Appreciate the dev point of view though, even if I do feel it's swayed by unclarity around the impact of GPL.

 

[Mouth]

Not a lawyer, but I think this would be illegal. A Xenforo disclaimer doesn't trump rule of (copyright) law.

Good question. Perhaps more research on this point.
Initially though, it would assume then that https://xenforo.com/community/help/terms are illegal and they cannot say/claim I grant them usage of my content just because they've included as such.

 

[n00bsaibot]

Good question. Perhaps more research on this point.
Initially though, it would assume then that https://xenforo.com/community/help/terms are illegal and they cannot say/claim I grant them usage of my content just because they've included as such.

lol that's a good counter-argument. I guess this is the relevant part:

You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

I suppose it would depend of if unilateral changing the license violates the developers IP.... that would be for lawyers to sort out, imo.

 

[Snog]

And that's the basis for my argument. By going with a GPL, the developer is giving up most of his copyright because the GPL generally changes it to a copyleft which allows derivative work to be created from it.

 

[Mouth]

By going with a GPL, the developer is giving up most of his copyright

No, the GPL does not remove the originals authors copyright over the code they developed.

GPL generally changes it to a copyleft which allows derivative work to be created from it.

For a software that is reliant on a master or framework software to be able to produce any outcome (eg. an add-on or extension) then derivatives only apply when used with that master/framework software, or downstream software.

But enough on this point from me, you and I are going around in circles. Last word on this point is yours if you want it.

 

[Robust]

Development in XenForo is already suffering. It's meant to improve with XF 2, but if you go through with this it's only going to die further. Add-on and style developers will not support this.

 

[Robust]

Also, you realise XenForo would 1. Not have access to the code of paid add-ins 2. Even if they did, this would be a legal disaster and a huge waste of time.

 

[Robust]

Good question. Perhaps more research on this point.
Initially though, it would assume then that https://xenforo.com/community/help/terms are illegal and they cannot say/claim I grant them usage of my content just because they've included as such.

That's not a good argument. They're completely different things. To give certain rights to your content, which a contract you have accepted to, vs. distributing and changing the license of propriety software. Developers will not give away rights to XenForo to do this, the same way we don't expect XenForo to do it to us.

How about we flip the tables? XenForo gives me their full rights if XenForo 2 isn't out by December 20. Sounds absurd right? Not gonna happen? So why do you expect us add-on developers to agree. Various aspects of XenForo have been delayed from add-ons to XenForo itself. By even a little bit of logic this doesn't grant a right to take the code and distribute it as GPL. That's just silly.

 

[Mouth]

How about we flip the tables? XenForo gives me their full rights if XenForo 2 isn't out by December 20

That's not a flip, that's apples vs oranges and not comparable to the discussion at hand.

 

[RobParker]

That's not a flip, that's apples vs oranges and not comparable to the discussion at hand.

You're right. "Apples" would be sticking XF1 under a free license once XF2 was out. Still ridiculous.

 

[Mouth]

You're right. "Apples" would be sticking XF1 under a free license once XF2 was out. Still ridiculous.

If XenForo Ltd. left XF 1 in an unsupported and abandoned state, sure why not? What's ridiculous about passing ownership to GPL if the owner/developer has abandoned the product?