FarCry License Changes

[modius]

Folks,

There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion
document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
feedback from the community before we do anything.

"The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a
significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the
decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or
not the license change is right for our community, we'll either
release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0
(CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."

http://blog.daemon.com.au/go/blog-post/farcry-license-changes

Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me
directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

Best regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

On May 7, 7:52 pm, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me
> directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

FAQ's of interest:

Joomla License FAQ (GPL)
http://dev.joomla.org/content/view/2336/102/

Mambo License Guidelines (GPL)
http://templates.mamboserver.com/demo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=26

Debate about templates in Drupal (GPL)
http://drupal.org/node/37504

GNU Licenses
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[Matthew Williams]

My post to the blog seems to have been lost in the ether (though I
suspect it was an invalid captcha);

So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
and projects count in this instance? Also, where would the source need
to be published? I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
they're a health care orgination. It's not yet in production, but it
was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything in there that's
going to cause any issues should I release the source, but the person
that contracted me to do the work wasn't even fond of the idea of
putting the code out on cvsdude so that multiple users could work on
it. Me, I don't mind sharing code snippets as I have done so in the
past here and in my blog.

Matthew Williams
Geodesic GraFX
www.geodesicgrafx.com/blog

[AJ Mercer]

How much would a commercial license cost - ballpark?

--

AJ Mercer
Web Log: http://webonix.net

[Matthew Williams]

Hmm..

Quick scenario. Most of the FarCry installs that I'll do will likely be
to a shared server that is owned by the person that contracted me out as
a developer. The owner hosts the sites to the customers that he
contracts to. I have created my FarCry site on this server with the
presumption being we'll be adding more clients as time goes on. If we
provide the source code to the end customer, would this satisfy the
wording of the GPL? That would seem satisfy making the programs changes
available to the end users. If that's what it would take to comply with
the license, that doesn't seem to be as big a deal as releasing the
source into the entirety of the public domain.

[AJ Mercer]

So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed?
Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:52 PM, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rusty]

Hi Geoff,

I am a relatively new Far-Cry user and like many was very excited
about the upcoming release of Fortress, this was going to be the first
version of FarCry that I really wanted to sink my teeth into. This
announcement is a shock to the system to say the least as I can't
remember seeing any hint of this on any FC mailing list or preso
recently.

Anyway before I can chime in with some valuable feedback I have a few
questions:

1. Has the new Version 5 been developed entirely by Daemon staff or
does it include code and submissions from other contributors?
2. When D-day for this licencing change/ decision?
3. Under the new licensing what would happen in this situation?
A sole developer uses FarCry to create websites for his clients, he
reports bugs, submits fixes and enhancements to the FarCry team(i.e.
he contributes to the ongoing health of the FarCry project) but his
client websites usually need some degree of customisations.

Thanks, Steve Harris.

On May 7, 9:54 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@geodesicgrafx.com>
wrote:

[modius]

On May 7, 7:52 pm, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
> licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion
> document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
> feedback from the community before we do anything.

First let me reiterate in the strongest terms -- this is not an
announcement of change. This is us discussing a possible change in
advance.

I've amended the blog post to make this even clearer:
"Important: this is something that is up for consideration and does
not constitute a decision by Daemon. We are investigating the
possibility of change, and not announcing a change."

For anyone with a project demonstrably invested in FarCry 5.0
(bleeding edge) do not be alarmed -- in the event of a license change
we would do our best to shield you from any potential license costs by
donating a license or at least only passing on any specific licensing
costs we may incur from potential OEM obligations. (Assuming you
require a Commercial license at all).

Lets discuss this in the context of whether or not it is a good thing
for FarCry, without any fear that existing projects you may have might
be put in jeopardy.

[modius]

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice -- I will put this at the
top of every post :)

On May 7, 9:54 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@geodesicgrafx.com>
wrote:

> So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
> and projects count in this instance? Also, where would the source need
> to be published? I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
> they're a health care orgination. It's not yet in production, but it
> was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.

If the client has an application confined to their own organisation,
any derivative works owned entirely by them, and they choose not to
distribute any code then those modifications are deemed to be private
and would not trigger the GPL.

If we go the GPL route, then anything that shares a memory space with
Core will potentially trigger the GPL license if you choose to
distribute the code. However, we are investigating options for a
"license exception" to allow webskins and templates to be exempt from
the GPL.

Plugins are a little bit more tricky. We'd be interested to hear how
people would like these to be treated.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice -- I will put this at the
top of every post :)

On May 7, 10:00 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@geodesicgrafx.com>
wrote:

Firstly, if the client purchased a Commercial license they'd have no
headaches, and any other options attached to the license such as
support and prioritised bug fixing etc.

But if they want to go GPL all the way then my understanding is that
as long as their modifications are private to the one organisation,
they are not obliged to do anything. Even if their application is
hosted. Its worth noting that GPL FAQ has an odd clause about not
being able to rent a GPL application as it imposes an additional
restriction -- however, your client might simply be offering paid
hosting and a free application ;)

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

On May 7, 10:16 pm, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed?
> Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?

If the Core is GPL then it follows that without a special license
exception, all plugins would be derivative works and so GPL. Or rather
dual licensed to retain the option of running under the Commercial
license.

The treatment of plugins is definitely something we'd like to get
feedback on. Given the power of the plugin design, its important we
don't dampen enthusiasm for the creation of plugins by imposing
license restrictions no one is happy with.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[Mark Kruger]

I think that "dampen enthusiasm" ship is sailing fast here Geoff....

Mark A. Kruger, CFG, MCSE
(402) 408-3733 ext 105
www.cfwebtools.com
www.coldfusionmuse.com
www.necfug.com

[Mark Kruger]

Geoff,

Having read your post I note this at the bottom:

Like many things in life, this is not a democracy. Daemon, as the sole copyright holder of the code base for FarCry Core and FarCry CMS, is entitled to make this change at any time. We are looking to our community for feedback in order to help us in making the right decision.

Technically I'm sure this is true. However, over the years community members have donated time and effort into the cause including module development, documentation, bug hunting, expert advise. We have all "invested" in Farcry and we all have a stake in the code - that's what open source really means to us and why it works. So while you probably have a right to do this it seems a little underhanded.  I'm not saying you intend it that way - but consider the scenario the way it will play out:

• 2003 daemon releases FC to open source GPL
• Over the next few versions and 5 years various folks get on the band wagon, a large pool of fancy-pants sites are launched in FC including universities, hospitals, corporations etc.
• A strong community of developers builds around the project and adds effort to it serving as QA, fixers, feature analysts, and feature developers.
• Now, having a full featured and enterprise class product with an established base of developers and sites, Daemon bundles it up and begins to sell commercial licenses.

Technically that is just savvy business planning and I applaud you (sort of). But practically it just feels wrong.

 

CF Webtools has a lot invested in FC. We have nearly 35 sites. We recommend it for projects on a monthly basis. We have 5 sites on tap for next month. We can probably purchase commercial licenses (assuming they are reasonable) because we can bundle it into our estimate and cost. In some cases we will be able to contribute back to the project under the dual license model - so this may not affect us too much. But we use FC because we are invested in it as a product... we have a stake in it.  Although we acknowledge is is a daemon project - we feel like it belongs to us as well... like we have had a part in it's success. That warm feeling will probably go away if we head down this route :)

 

That's my 2 cents.

Mark A. Kruger, CFG, MCSE
(402) 408-3733 ext 105
www.cfwebtools.com
www.coldfusionmuse.com
www.necfug.com

-----Original Message-----
From: farcr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:farcr...@googlegroups.com

] On Behalf Of modius

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:53 AM
To: farcry-dev

[modius]

On May 7, 10:18 pm, Rusty <attackpoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway before I can chime in with some valuable feedback I have a few
> questions:
>
> 1. Has the new Version 5 been developed entirely by Daemon staff or
> does it include code and submissions from other contributors?

With the exception of minor bug fixes the works are wholly developed
by team Daemon.

> 2. When D-day for this licencing change/ decision?

Our internal deliberations have reached an impasse and we need
feedback from the community to help us move forward. In principle we
like the change but its too controversial to not seek wider opinion.
In addition its complex and disruptive, and we'd be foolish to just
rush into a change without community consultation.

There is no d-day. We want to make sure that the change is the right
change. There may be no change.

> 3. Under the new licensing what would happen in this situation?
> A sole developer uses FarCry to create websites for his clients, he
> reports bugs, submits fixes and enhancements to the FarCry team(i.e.
> he contributes to the ongoing health of the FarCry project) but his
> client websites usually need some degree of customisations.

Provided your customisations are the property of your client, and they
remain within that client organisation they would be deemed as private
(ie. not distributed) and would not be subject to any obligations
under the GPL.

Any contributions you make to the FarCry project would fall under the
GPL, and the copyright would be ceded to Daemon (this is a requirement
for all core contributions).

Regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

PS. did i mention i am not a lawyer -- this is not legal advice ;)

[modius]

On May 7, 11:21 pm, "Mark Kruger" <mkru...@cfwebtools.com> wrote:
> Having read your post I note this at the bottom:
> Like many things in life, this is not a democracy. Daemon, as the sole
> copyright holder of the code base for FarCry Core and FarCry CMS, is
> entitled to make this change at any time. We are looking to our community
> for feedback in order to help us in making the right decision.
>
> Technically I'm sure this is true. However, over the years community members
> have donated time and effort into the cause including module development,
> documentation, bug hunting, expert advise. We have all "invested" in Farcry
> and we all have a stake in the code - that's what open source really means
> to us and why it works. So while you probably have a right to do this it
> seems a little underhanded.

Although we are most assuredly within our rights to make a change to
the underlying license, we could never deprive the community of its
investment. If the community felt very strongly about the change it
would be within its rights to fork the code base -- it is open source
after all. Obviously we want to avoid a fork at all costs and
consequently we're looking for feedback before making any changes.
We're really trying to be as open as possible about this proposal.

If we do make the change to GPL, we still intend to maintain the
existing FarCry 4.0 maintenance branch under CPL for the foreseeable
future.

> CF Webtools has a lot invested in FC. We have nearly 35 sites. We recommend
> it for projects on a monthly basis. We have 5 sites on tap for next month.
> We can probably purchase commercial licenses (assuming they are reasonable)
> because we can bundle it into our estimate and cost. In some cases we will
> be able to contribute back to the project under the dual license model - so
> this may not affect us too much. But we use FC because we are invested in it
> as a product... we have a stake in it. Although we acknowledge is is a
> daemon project - we feel like it belongs to us as well... like we have had a
> part in it's success. That warm feeling will probably go away if we head
> down this route :)

Under GPL it's still very much open source -- the only difference
being that without a commercial license, your own or your clients
closed-source modifications may need to be published.

Is your stake really made the lesser by the use of GPL? How does the
move to GPL impact your existing business model? Is there anything
specifically you can no longer accomplish under GPL? Perhaps an
appropriate license exception can be made?

Despite its shortcomings GPL could potentially be used to enforce a
"quid pro quo" policy within the community. Most users are unlikely
to be affected -- certainly Joomla, Mambo, Drupal and many other
solutions are quite happy on GPL. Those with the potential to be most
affected are developers and organisations deriving a commercial
advantage from the use of closed source code in conjunction with open
source FarCry. And heh, that's great. However, its difficult to
justify our enormous investment in this superb product while less
enthusiastic teams benefit from those labours with little or no
contribution to the community. This would give us a chance to recoup
some of that investment, either in code or in license revenue to help
fund future development.

Thanks for your candid feedback -- its appreciated,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[Phillip Duba]

Geoff,

Being relatively new to the whole open source licensing models, I want to give a scenario which may not be far off for me as my current work, a hospital, is going through CMS evaluations to replace its existing one. Seeing how other CMS vendors cater to the medical world has me thinking about this scenario:

1. Company A decides to use the FarCry CMS and core framework as the basis of its work in the medical/hospital market
2. Company A builds a number of custom objects that meet the needs, in general terms, of medical providers. These objects utilize the core framework through the APIs documented to be loaded and utilized within the CMS plug-in.
3. Company A sells its services for installing and setting up the needed FarCry components as well as the package of custom objects to various clients.

Now, I'm sure any company out there utilziing FarCry probably does something similar to this scenario, just substitute medical for whatever. Is the essence in licensing change mean that even though Company A utilized a public API for a framework, as that's what the FarCry core has been termed as, these objects would have to be released under (L)GPL if Company A does not purchase a commercial license? Is that the essence of what this change would mean to developers using FarCry to provide solutions to customers using the same "solutions"? Thanks,

Phil

[Jeff Coughlin]

> Now, I'm sure any company out there utilziing FarCry probably does
> something similar to this scenario, just substitute medical for
> whatever. Is the essence in licensing change mean that even though
> Company A utilized a public API for a framework, as that's what the
> FarCry core has been termed as, these objects would have to be
> released under (L)GPL if Company A does not purchase a commercial
> license? Is that the essence of what this change would mean to
> developers using FarCry to provide solutions to customers using the
> same "solutions"?

I think Phil is reiterating what most people seem to be concerned
about here. Example: If I make a project folder for a client and in
that folder are the contents of files I make/modify for said client,
and these are the only files I modify (not actually modifying core or
cms plugin files) will I have to share said modifications (or purchase
a license)? In this scenario I would most likely be extending the
core and/or cms to add/modify metadata in the COAPI or other
customizations allowed by the framework and webtop. It sounds like
the answer is: "Only if I share the same code with more than one
client".

If my understanding is correct, then it may leave a lot of grey area
(that we just need some clarification for). Let me give a very simple
example: Lets say I extend dmProfile to add a photo (in my project
files, not modifying core files). Now, lets say I do that for a lot
of clients (same modifications). Would I be required to share the
code modifications within the project files to the community (both
COAPI metadata and webskin changes) or be required to purchase a
license ? (I know that is a simple example where I doubt any coder
would mind sharing the code... I'm just trying to work with a simple
example).

If I am incorrect about that scenario, then the only other case I can
think of is the more obvious: If I make modifications to the actual
core files (or cms plugin files), and I distribute said modifications
to more than one client, I am obligated to either purchase a license
or distribute the code. In this case, I completely agree and would
strongly support the license. However if I need to share any client
project files with the community (or purchase a license because I made
projects files that I happened to use with more than one client) then
I'd need more clarification on the license first and make sure I can
convey that to the client beforehand.

Now plugins and skeletons... this opens a whole new can of worms.
Lately I've been promoting FarCry 5 quite a bit (user group
presentations, ColdFusion conferences) and one of the strong selling
points I've been telling companies is that both plugins and skeletons
allow companies to sell commercial products for the FarCry framework.
I'm not saying I've misinformed them (they are well aware that FarCry
5 hasn't been released, thus anything said before it's launch is up
for change... including its license). I'm just concerned about how it
would effect these scenarios. What should I tell people? If FarCry
uses the GPL license moving forward, would anyone selling a plugin or
skeleton be required to purchase some type of license? If so, what
license (since neither product actually includes core or cms plugin
files)? I want to make sure that going forward, I convey the correct
message.

And finally, my thoughts on the exact license of choice (in this case
the GPLv3 (instead of GPLv2)).

I'm no lawyer, nor do I claim to comprehend software licensing beyond
their basics. But I do recall Linus Torvalds and TiVo speaking out
strongly against GPL v3 stating that some of it's restrictions to the
company using it (in this case Daemon) was a step backward (and
possibly negatively effecting those involved due to some fine print).
I believe Linus was saying something to the fact that he would never
have Linux move from GPLv2 to GPLv3 due to many of it's restrictions
and how it could negatively effect Linux moving forward. If memory
serves me correctly TiVo refused to change its license to GPLv3 due to
some of the finer print that would restrict the product from doing
certain types of future updates (thus negatively effecting both the
company (TiVo) and the customer).

I'm sure some other expert can correct me on those issues (about GPLv2
vs. GPLv3), but if anything at least do a Google search on GPLV3 and
Linus Torvalds and/or Tivo to maybe get a better understanding of the
issues (hopefully I'm wrong and we don't have to worry about this).

Regards,

--
Jeff Coughlin
Web Application Developer
http://jeffcoughlin.com

[Stephen Moretti]

Just as a point of interest...

ColdBricks came across my radar today - It is also being released under dual licensing commercial/GPL - http://coldbricks.com/faq.cfm#licensing

[AJ Mercer]

What constitutes giving back to the community?

Is having a link back to myFarcry.zip enough?
Do I have to put up any doco?
 - what I have changed
 - how to use
 - ..?

Would the zip contain all files, or just the modifications I have made?

I don't what to rip Daemon off, just want to know what my obligations are to sharing code.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:10 AM, Stephen Moretti <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just as a point of interest...

ColdBricks came across my radar today - It is also being released under dual licensing commercial/GPL - http://coldbricks.com/faq.cfm#licensing

[Joel Cass]

In my experience I have worked on 4 different CMS’ before FarCry (admittedly one was the precursor). One of the things that always made it difficult for a client to adopt a CMS was pricing. The second obvious thing was support.

 

The CMS market is extremely competitive and my only concern is that putting a price on FarCry may spell its demise, especially if the price is prohibitive when compared to open source or free CMS solutions out there.

 

However I think the GPL is a good move as it makes the CMS practically free for SME’s to develop their own sites, and allows vendors and corporations (who should be able to afford reasonable fees) to continue running.

 

From my experience (as noted above), the second killer is support. However, daemon support FarCry very well, and it is one of the selling points that have encouraged our clients to use FarCry, as some competing CMS’, even those that require hefty licensing fees, provide little to no support at all. I guess support time costs money too, and Daemon should probably ask for something in return.

 

I only hope that daemon choose a licensing model that is reasonable and does not cripple the feasibility for clients to consider Farcry as a suitable solution when compared to other free / open source CMS solutions.

 

My two cents

 

---

From: farcr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:farcr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Kruger
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2008 11:21 PM
To: farcr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [farcry-dev] Re: FarCry License Changes

 

Geoff,

[Ezra Parker]

Let me begin by saying that I have not worked with FarCry for very
long, so I am not heavily invested in the present licensing model as
others on this list may be. I am also proceeding under the assumption
that any non-distributed derived works would not need to be released.
As I understand this, it means that any code in a plugin, project, or
skeleton need not be published as long as my client retains the
copyright and does not share the code with other organizations. If
someone is aware that this interpretation is incorrect, or sees some
obvious pitfalls, please clarify as necessary.

That all said, I am in favor of this move, for a couple of reasons:

1. Open BlueDragon

I am sure that the release of the Open BlueDragon CFML engine is at
least partially responsible for Daemon's consideration of this change,
as Open BD is being released under this same license, and the
possibility of a ready-to-run GPL'd server stack for FarCry
applications is extremely compelling. The present CPL license is not
compatible, so this bundling would not be possible if the status quo
is maintained.

2. Plugins

I have heard more than one person express that they would like a
greater selection of available plugins for FarCry, as this can become
an issue when attempting to convince management to use FarCry over
Drupal, Joomla, etc. Plugin authors would be required to publish their
work under the GPL, theoretically resulting in greater availability
for the community at large. The question here would be whether this
requirement results in a net loss of contribution due to the
"dampening" effect mentioned by Geoff. Otherwise, if a company is
realizing a business advantage by developing closed-source plugins,
then I do not see any particular reason why they should not pay for a
commercial license.

As far as such a commercial license goes, I do have some clients who
may prefer that option, and I for one would prefer a site-based
licensing model over a user-based one (a price per site, not per
authenticated user).

Regards,

--
Ezra Parker
http://www.cfgrok.com

[modius]

On May 8, 8:58 am, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What constitutes giving back to the community?
>
> Is having a link back to myFarcry.zip enough?
> Do I have to put up any doco?
> - what I have changed
> - how to use
> - ..?
>
> Would the zip contain all files, or just the modifications I have made?
>
> I don't what to rip Daemon off, just want to know what my obligations are to
> sharing code.

With respect to the GPL your only requirement is to distribute your
code under the GPL -- assuming you choose to distribute the code at
all. There is no requirement to actively make available that change
to the world at large unless you choose to.

(but note even just two people from different organisations sharing
the code is considered distribution).

I suppose its feasible that the exchange of software under GPL between
a limited group of people may never be seen by the wider internet.
However, any member of that group would have rights to re-distribute
under the GPL to a wider audience if they chose. In fact anybody
stumbling across the code would have that right.

I think it would be great if people who want to distribute or
publicise their works were given an opportunity to do so, and as such
its likely we'll set up a system to help community members distribute
code they have found useful. Of course you can always simply host and
link to the file, set up on RIAForge, get a Google Code account, and
so on.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

PS. I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice :)

[modius]

On May 8, 9:52 am, "Joel Cass" <j...@gruden.com> wrote:
> In my experience I have worked on 4 different CMS' before FarCry
> (admittedly one was the precursor). One of the things that always made
> it difficult for a client to adopt a CMS was pricing. The second obvious
> thing was support.

Just a quick note... FarCry has no precursor but FarCry. Although
FarCry shares some concepts with Allaire Spectra, such as content
types, containers and publishing rules -- that's where the
similarities end.

> The CMS market is extremely competitive and my only concern is that
> putting a price on FarCry may spell its demise, especially if the price
> is prohibitive when compared to open source or free CMS solutions out
> there.
>
> However I think the GPL is a good move as it makes the CMS practically
> free for SME's to develop their own sites, and allows vendors and
> corporations (who should be able to afford reasonable fees) to continue
> running.

It's important to note that applying the GPL to FarCry means that it
will *always* be free with respect to cost, and open with respect to
source.

> From my experience (as noted above), the second killer is support.
> However, daemon support FarCry very well, and it is one of the selling
> points that have encouraged our clients to use FarCry, as some competing
> CMS', even those that require hefty licensing fees, provide little to no
> support at all. I guess support time costs money too, and Daemon should
> probably ask for something in return.

Thanks for that! Of course folks are welcome to purchase any of a
range of FarCry support services from Daemon at any time :)

> I only hope that daemon choose a licensing model that is reasonable and
> does not cripple the feasibility for clients to consider Farcry as a
> suitable solution when compared to other free / open source CMS
> solutions.

Many open source CMS are under GPL (perhaps most of the majors). One
key differentiator with FarCry is that we *can* offer a Commercial
license. Solutions like Mambo, Joomla, Drupal cannot offer a closed
source license -- its the GPL or nothing.

All the best,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

On May 9, 10:23 am, Ezra Parker <ezrapar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me begin by saying that I have not worked with FarCry for very
> long, so I am not heavily invested in the present licensing model as
> others on this list may be. I am also proceeding under the assumption
> that any non-distributed derived works would not need to be released.
> As I understand this, it means that any code in a plugin, project, or
> skeleton need not be published as long as my client retains the
> copyright and does not share the code with other organizations. If
> someone is aware that this interpretation is incorrect, or sees some
> obvious pitfalls, please clarify as necessary.

This is our understanding of the GPL.

To reiterate, private modifications, retained within a single
organisation are not subject to the GPL. It's only if you choose to
distribute those changes does the GPL come into effect.

[modius]

On May 9, 10:23 am, Ezra Parker <ezrapar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. Open BlueDragon
> I am sure that the release of the Open BlueDragon CFML engine is at
> least partially responsible for Daemon's consideration of this change,
> as Open BD is being released under this same license, and the
> possibility of a ready-to-run GPL'd server stack for FarCry
> applications is extremely compelling. The present CPL license is not
> compatible, so this bundling would not be possible if the status quo
> is maintained.

OpenBD has not precipitated the change in thinking -- although you are
100% right to point out that we would be in a much better position to
leverage OpenBD as a community if we had a compatible license, ie.
GPL.

A dual license model is something we've been contemplating for a
while. Certainly even without a change from CPL to GPL Daemon will be
releasing commercial licenses for clients that would like them.
Things have really come to a head with the change in licensing of the
extJS toolset to GPL. Without an exception to their license we would
need to discontinue using the toolkit or also change to GPL. This has
triggered a lot of soul searching internally, and discussion about the
GPL in general. Do we dump extJS? Do we move to GPL? If we move to
GPL, what commercial options are needed? Are we running the right
license model at all? And so on.

We now believe moving to GPL is the right thing to do for Daemon and
the community. But we are well aware that the move may be viewed as
controversial. Consequently we want to make sure that anyone who
wants a say can have a say before we make any final decisions. The
community has already raised a number of valid concerns surrounding
potential issues with templates and plugins -- we'll be coming back
shortly with possible solutions to these problems.

In any event, we are minimising the impact of the license change to
the Fortress code base and future versions, and maintaining the 4.0
maintenance branch. We hope this will minimise any impact (real or
imagined) to organisations working with FarCry today.

[Justin Carter]

On May 9, 11:19 am, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Things have really come to a head with the change in licensing of the
> extJS toolset to GPL.  Without an exception to their license we would
> need to discontinue using the toolkit or also change to GPL.  This has
> triggered a lot of soul searching internally, and discussion about the
> GPL in general.  Do we dump extJS? Do we move to GPL? If we move to
> GPL, what commercial options are needed?  Are we running the right
> license model at all? And so on.

As long as you don't upgrade to ExtJS 2.1 you wouldn't be required to
use the GPL :) Or if you need to upgrade to ExtJS 2.1, perhaps you
could buy one of their OEM/Reseller licenses and still be able to
offer FarCry under the CPL.

Those points aside...

My thoughts on the GPLv3 are mixed, leaning towards not favourable.
One the one hand it seems like a good idea to encourage more code to
be contributed to the community. However, "Distribution" seems to be
something as simple as copying a file from one project which was
developed for client A and using it in a project for client B, meaning
you are then obliged to make the whole source of both of your projects
available? And therefore Dual Licensing just feels like a burden
because you have to be careful with what you do with your source: code
re-use flys out the window unless you are willing (and able) to pay.

I realise Daemon need to turn a profit while at the same time trying
to grow a community, but I don't know if Dual Licensing is the way to
do it or whether it will help the community. It's a very tough call to
make and I don't envy your position Geoff :)

cheers,
Justin

[modius]

On May 10, 8:12 am, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Things have really come to a head with the change in licensing of the
> > extJS toolset to GPL. Without an exception to their license we would
> > need to discontinue using the toolkit or also change to GPL. This has
> > triggered a lot of soul searching internally, and discussion about the
> > GPL in general. Do we dump extJS? Do we move to GPL? If we move to
> > GPL, what commercial options are needed? Are we running the right
> > license model at all? And so on.
>
> As long as you don't upgrade to ExtJS 2.1 you wouldn't be required to
> use the GPL :) Or if you need to upgrade to ExtJS 2.1, perhaps you
> could buy one of their OEM/Reseller licenses and still be able to
> offer FarCry under the CPL.

Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate. Firstly prior to 2.1
extJS was released under a pseudo-LGPL. I say pseudo because it was
not entirely kosher according to many people. We integrated in the
belief that it was simply LGPL. We are left with the prospect of
staying with the current 2.x release (on no support and grey areas re:
licensing), upgrading and adhering to GPL, or removing the code base
entirely.

Although we could sort out a OEM/Reseller agreement for ourselves,
that could not be passed to the community under CPL.

With respect to extJS, the only hope is a license exception that
allows non-GPL compliant open source distributions such as CPL to
include the library:
http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

On May 10, 8:12 am, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My thoughts on the GPLv3 are mixed, leaning towards not favourable.
> One the one hand it seems like a good idea to encourage more code to
> be contributed to the community. However, "Distribution" seems to be
> something as simple as copying a file from one project which was
> developed for client A and using it in a project for client B, meaning
> you are then obliged to make the whole source of both of your projects
> available?

I believe your only "obligation" is to make your *change* available
under GPL -- after all, that is what you are distributing. The rest of
both projects, assuming they remain private in a single organisation,
would not have been distributed.

> And therefore Dual Licensing just feels like a burden
> because you have to be careful with what you do with your source: code
> re-use flys out the window unless you are willing (and able) to pay.

Well I'm happy to hear arguments of this nature backed up with real
world examples of where people are being burdened. Can you give
examples of where this would have been a problem had earlier versions
of FarCry been GPL? I need concrete case studies to process so that
we can tell how people are likely to be impacted.

Most seem "worried" about the GPL, because it gives them a "bad
feeling". Heh, don't get me wrong I use to feel that way. It think it
stems mostly from a lack of understanding of how it all works, and
what we don't understand we don't want to deal with.

Care is only required if you want to keep your code closed-source.
Presumably that is because there is a commercial benefit in keeping
the code that way. When I run through the scenarios of when and how
it impacts people -- its invariably because they are trying to protect
some commercial interest from the rest of the community. And like
I've said before, that's fine -- but perhaps they ought to pay for the
privilege and thereby better ensure the future of FarCry by funding
its developers.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

PS. Note I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

[Rusty]

After a lot of researching on CPL vs GPLv3 and reading the comments in
this discussion I have come to the following conclusion:

The change to GPLv3 from CPL will severly stunt FarCry's growth.
Please Don't do it!

Why? The future is plugins baby!
With FarCry 5 being able to be deployed to shared hosting (and
possibly compatible with Blue Dragon?) this is its first big chance to
convert the masses, this is its first time it has a chance to not only
be the best CF option for CMS or web application development but a
real contender VS the Joomla, Mambo, Drupal's.

FarCry 5 is a very slick framework with good out of the box
functionality. Is Mambo or Drupal successful because of its good core
features? Nope its the mountains of modules or plugins that have been
developed by the community that are available that make these CMS's
very attractive. Does ColdFusion currently have an army of developers
willing to submit there work and contribute to open source projects?
Not quite. The ability to easily develop & install plugins to FarCry 5
is great but it’s the amount of plugins + quality that is going to be
to a major factor in whether it not only survives but thrives! GPLv3
will hurt plugin development not encourage it. What?

The best way to encourage plugin development within the CF community
is allow the ability to release and market them without restriction. I
know there is plenty of love in the CF community but the majority of
CF developers are unfortunately not selfless open source contributing
types so you need to play to the strengths of the average CF dev.
Forget about the typical FarCry 4 install at the moment (government,
corporate etc) and think about the potential install base for version
5 with shared hosting...by keeping the CPL model you have the chance
to make it a no brainer for every ColdFusion developer out there to
pick FarCry for their next CMS based web app.

If you change to GPLv3 and the majority of FarCry installs are under
this license, plugin developers can't sell their plugins to be
installed into GPL FarCry, they would be forced to distribute under
GPL. You then get less plugins developed and the result being that
FarcCry will always be behind the other major CMS's in terms of
features.

Here is my suggested scenario for FarCry's world domination using the
current CPL licensing model and for Daemon to be rewarded for there
awesome efforts:

1. Daemon release FarCry 5 under the current CPL and it gets hyped on
blogs, at CFUG's, CF events etc.
2. Every CF man and his dog (aussie term) are wowed by how they can
now easily install this great CMS and on shared hosting even!
3. CF developers everywhere are now thinking about how they can use
this free open source CMS for their next CMS project or client sites.
4. The FarCry user base explodes.
5. Developing plugins for FarCry suddenly becomes an attractive option
for revenue from CF development.
6. We see the release of a killer ecommerce plugin then a CRM plugin
and someone even starts selling a SAP integration plugin.
7. Some of these classy plugins are commercially licensed by Daemon
who as the developer of FarCry leverages their know how of FC. They
also commercially license an extra sexy version of the FC CMS plugin
with a Flex based admin. Because the project is licensed under CPL,
Daemon can merge anything submitted to the OS CMS pluing into there
own stuff.
8. Developers pitching FarCry for bigger projects/organisations can
now tell companies they can easily do X,Y and Z using the commercially
supported plugins out there.
9. Now that there is so many more developers using farcry, there are
also many more keen to submit bug fixes and get involved in the
direction and development of new out of the box functionality. The
project rewards these people by having major contributors and
companies as FarCry Project Contributors.
10. Adobe realising that FarCry is helping to drive new sales
contributes money/resources.
11. A year goes by and the Blue Dragon Open source project has finally
encouraged web hosts around the world to now offer CF hosting.
12. The FarCry user base reaches critical mass and thousands of non CF
developers consider this cheap hosting that includes a CMS with option
plugins.
13. Success!!

Under a change to GPL the only way I could see FarCry reaching its
potential would be if Today Blue Dragon Open Source was installed
(like PHP) on every web hosting server and there was an army of open
source contributing CF developers driving it forward.

Okay so assuming that releasing FarCry 5 under the current CPL which
gives it the best chance for success what about rewarding Daemon for
their efforts? Well I see the following revenue opportunities for
them:
* commercially licensed FarCry
* commercially licensed CMS and other plugins
* support and training
* developer certifications
* partner or contributor certifcation.

My motivation for seeing FarCry succeed is a selfish one, simply I
want to be able to keep developing using ColdFusion. If FarCry 5 is
successful that means I can keep pitching and developing using CF for
a long time yet. So Geoff and the rest of the Daemon team I urge you
to NOT change to GPL but keep the current CPL license for FarCry 5.

Regards, Steve Harris.

[modius]

On May 10, 1:36 pm, Rusty <attackpoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After a lot of researching on CPL vs GPLv3 and reading the comments in
> this discussion I have come to the following conclusion:
>
> The change to GPLv3 from CPL will severly stunt FarCry's growth.
> Please Don't do it!
>
> Why? The future is plugins baby!
> With FarCry 5 being able to be deployed to shared hosting (and
> possibly compatible with Blue Dragon?) this is its first big chance to
> convert the masses, this is its first time it has a chance to not only
> be the best CF option for CMS or web application development but a
> real contender VS the Joomla, Mambo, Drupal's.

You do realise that Joomla, Mambo and Drupal are *all* released under
GPL?

> FarCry 5 is a very slick framework with good out of the box
> functionality. Is Mambo or Drupal successful because of its good core
> features? Nope its the mountains of modules or plugins that have been
> developed by the community that are available that make these CMS's
> very attractive. Does ColdFusion currently have an army of developers
> willing to submit there work and contribute to open source projects?
> Not quite. The ability to easily develop & install plugins to FarCry 5
> is great but it’s the amount of plugins + quality that is going to be
> to a major factor in whether it not only survives but thrives! GPLv3
> will hurt plugin development not encourage it. What?

But history would suggest that despite plugins being an option since
the release of FarCry 4.0 I can count on one hand the people who have
released their plugins to the community -- the rest have been kept
closed source. Admittedly this means that nearly all the plugins are
of a high quality -- unlike other communities where you have to wade
through 30 plugins of a particularly type just to work out which would
be any good. These modules you refer to in other communities --
certainly in the case of Drupal and I suspect Mambo -- are GPL.

Can you point to plugins in the Mambo, Joomla or Drupal community that
are closed source? Or even released under a different license to GPL?

> The best way to encourage plugin development within the CF community
> is allow the ability to release and market them without restriction. I
> know there is plenty of love in the CF community but the majority of
> CF developers are unfortunately not selfless open source contributing
> types so you need to play to the strengths of the average CF dev.
> Forget about the typical FarCry 4 install at the moment (government,
> corporate etc) and think about the potential install base for version
> 5 with shared hosting...by keeping the CPL model you have the chance
> to make it a no brainer for every ColdFusion developer out there to
> pick FarCry for their next CMS based web app.

I'd dispute this would be any different under GPL. I'm not sure why
there is this belief that people after a free CMS would not consider
FarCry because its GPL vs CPL. It doesn't appear to be an issue in
any other programming community. Selfish or selfless -- there is
nothing stopping CF developers using FarCry under GPL to deploy sites
in a shared hosting environment. In fact, I'd argue that the type of
project deployed to a shared host hardly needs to jealously guard any
particular aspect of their code base in any event.

Again specific examples of how GPL would prohibit development are
needed.

> If you change to GPLv3 and the majority of FarCry installs are under
> this license, plugin developers can't sell their plugins to be
> installed into GPL FarCry, they would be forced to distribute under
> GPL. You then get less plugins developed and the result being that
> FarcCry will always be behind the other major CMS's in terms of
> features.

If FarCry is plain GPL, without a modification to the license, *all*
plugins would be GPL, because they extend the underlying framework
directly.

If we provide an exception to the GPL we could allow plugins to be
licensed differently. Perhaps as LGPL or even Commercial. However,
its true that users are always going to have negotiate potential
complications trying to distribute their GPL based FarCry application
with a Commercial plugin. Of course a commercial license for the
FarCry core would remove any complication. We are drafting an
exception for templates and considering another for plugins.

Would an exception allowing plugin developers to release under
different licenses allay your concerns?

Again I would remind you that the "other CMSs" you refer to as being
ahead are in fact GPL today, and have been since inception. And do
*not* have commercial licensing options available.

Thanks for the feedback - its appreciated!

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

PS. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice :)

[Justin Carter]

On May 10, 4:24 am, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate.  Firstly prior to 2.1
> extJS was released under a pseudo-LGPL.  I say pseudo because it was
> not entirely kosher according to many people.  We integrated in the
> belief that it was simply LGPL.

I don't think ExtJS themselves understood their own license, which is
what added to the confusion. When I contacted them RE: ColdExt they
said I *could* use the LGPL... /shrug :P

> We are left with the prospect of
> staying with the current 2.x release (on no support and grey areas re:
> licensing), upgrading and adhering to GPL, or removing the code base
> entirely.

I'm sure you realise, but this is similar to what FarCry developers
may experience if the license changes to the GPL.

> Although we could sort out a OEM/Reseller agreement for ourselves,
> that could not be passed to the community under CPL.
>
> With respect to extJS, the only hope is a license exception that
> allows non-GPL compliant open source distributions such as CPL to
> include the library:http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php

Since FarCry is a framework, I believe you could buy an OEM license
and continue to offer FarCry under the CPL. I'm not saying you should,
but I think it's an option. From the ExtJS site (http://extjs.com/
products/license.php):

"OEM / Reseller License
This is the appropriate option if you are creating a product that is a
software development library, toolkit or framework. There are many
benefits to partnering with us:

With an OEM license, your customers (developers) would not be required
to meet the terms of the GPL license and can use Ext functionality
under your license terms "


cheers,
Justin

[modius]

On May 10, 1:36 pm, Rusty <attackpoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Its a great scenario! Though I'm not sure how that differs with
FarCry being under GPL and having an option for people to release
commercial plugins. Casting my mind back i think that has been our
business plan for each release of FarCry since v1.0. Perhaps its time
for a change in tactics?

> Under a change to GPL the only way I could see FarCry reaching its
> potential would be if Today Blue Dragon Open Source was installed
> (like PHP) on every web hosting server and there was an army of open
> source contributing CF developers driving it forward.

I'm not sure I understand what you are basing this prediction on. Why
would the number of low end installations by punters wanting a CMS be
diminished by a change in one open source license to another? Most
people go out and download a solution and install it. They have no
intention of modifying or redistributing it. It's free, it works,
it's all they want.

For example, you want a forum app? Many people go and install PHPBB.
They don't even think of the license. They just want a solution.
I've done it myself. No idea what the license was -- just checked,
and guess what -- GPL. Another forum I like: Vanilla forum: http://getvanilla.com/
Had to download it to find the license! Ah.. GPL.

> Okay so assuming that releasing FarCry 5 under the current CPL which
> gives it the best chance for success what about rewarding Daemon for
> their efforts? Well I see the following revenue opportunities for
> them:
> * commercially licensed FarCry

Why bother if its CPL? There is very little incentive.

> * commercially licensed CMS and other plugins

This might be great for those developers who are only investing in the
plugin. But it puts Daemon at a significant disadvantage in that it
has to maintain the core framework, engage the community, and then
only after that devote resources to compete with others selling
plugins and services.

> * support and training

No difference between CPL and GPL.

> * developer certifications

No money in this at all. In fact its a definite loss leader. We
would absolutely need an alternative income stream from the community
to fund such an adventure.

> * partner or contributor certifcation.

See above.

> My motivation for seeing FarCry succeed is a selfish one, simply I
> want to be able to keep developing using ColdFusion. If FarCry 5 is
> successful that means I can keep pitching and developing using CF for
> a long time yet. So Geoff and the rest of the Daemon team I urge you
> to NOT change to GPL but keep the current CPL license for FarCry 5.

Can you please explain how the GPL prohibits you from doing *exactly*
what you are planning under the CPL?

Again, thanks for taking the time to participate in this thread.

[modius]

On May 10, 6:04 pm, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With respect to extJS, the only hope is a license exception that
> > allows non-GPL compliant open source distributions such as CPL to
> > include the library:http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php
>
> Since FarCry is a framework, I believe you could buy an OEM license
> and continue to offer FarCry under the CPL. I'm not saying you should,
> but I think it's an option. From the ExtJS site (http://extjs.com/
> products/license.php):
>
> "OEM / Reseller License
> This is the appropriate option if you are creating a product that is a
> software development library, toolkit or framework. There are many
> benefits to partnering with us:
> With an OEM license, your customers (developers) would not be required
> to meet the terms of the GPL license and can use Ext functionality
> under your license terms "

OEM licenses are typically sold based on the size of distribution and
sold per version. As much as we love the FarCry community we don't
have the capacity to effectively buy extJS for an unlimited number of
potential users, and then reinvest when the next major version comes
out. So its not a viable option.

Of course I could turn that around and ask why its alright to suggest
we purchase an OEM from extJS, rather than ask FarCry developers who
want to distribute closed-source FarCry applications to pay a license
for the privilege to do so.

[modius]

On May 10, 6:04 pm, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We are left with the prospect of
> > staying with the current 2.x release (on no support and grey areas re:
> > licensing), upgrading and adhering to GPL, or removing the code base
> > entirely.
>
> I'm sure you realise, but this is similar to what FarCry developers
> may experience if the license changes to the GPL.

That is a bit flippant.

The current state of our licensing is not in doubt. Nor is our
transparency in discussing options for a licensing change to GPL.

If we make the change to GPL/Commercial, current and future FarCry
developers will have clear options to:

A) stay with FarCry 4.0 under CPL, with a supported maintenance branch
B) upgrade to FarCry 5.0 and adhere to the GPL
C) upgrade to FarCry 5.0 and purchase a Commercial license
D) go and use some body else's code base

Incidentally, we agree with extJS's decision to move to GPL/
Commercial, especially in light of the way certain members of their
community were behaving. As the developers of FarCry we have an
obligation to do our best to ensure we comply with the license of the
code bases we embed. Hence, in respecting extJS's position we need to
do something about our use of their library and moving forward ensure
that we adhere to their licensing terms.

[Justin Carter]

On May 10, 5:04 am, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 8:12 am, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My thoughts on the GPLv3 are mixed, leaning towards not favourable.
> > One the one hand it seems like a good idea to encourage more code to
> > be contributed to the community. However, "Distribution" seems to be
> > something as simple as copying a file from one project which was
> > developed for client A and using it in a project for client B, meaning
> > you are then obliged to make the whole source of both of your projects
> > available?
>
> I believe your only "obligation" is to make your *change* available
> under GPL -- after all, that is what you are distributing. The rest of
> both projects, assuming they remain private in a single organisation,
> would not have been distributed.

Is it possible to get clarification on this somehow? Everything that I
read in regard to distributing source code always points back to the
source code for binaries, in which case the entire source must be
provided. I can't be certain that it is any different for non-binary
distribution though because I can't find any examples.

> > And therefore Dual Licensing just feels like a burden
> > because you have to be careful with what you do with your source: code
> > re-use flys out the window unless you are willing (and able) to pay.
>
> Well I'm happy to hear arguments of this nature backed up with real
> world examples of where people are being burdened. Can you give
> examples of where this would have been a problem had earlier versions
> of FarCry been GPL?  I need concrete case studies to process so that
> we can tell how people are likely to be impacted.

I can't give any examples where distribution would have affected me
personally because all my work was for, and kept within, a single
organisation :)

However there is the initial burden of reading and understanding
(LOL?) our rights and obligations under the GPLv3, determining if and
how current and future projects will be impacted if FarCry 5 was used
(or upgraded to from v4 in an existing system), knowing how to
correctly offer source code that is licensed under GPLv3, etc. I think
these things are seen as road blocks by some developers.

Also, to guage impact, you might be able to survey the FarCry
community to see exactly how they are using FarCry currently. I know
it won't give an accurate representation on future developers when the
community grows, but you could at least determine if the majority are
using FarCry "in-house" (in which case the GPL might be fine) or in
external projects across multiple clients (in which case the GPL might
be fine if the source is released, or otherwise a commercial license
could be purchased). I would probably leave any potential commercial
pricing out of it for now, incase you scare anyone :) Hehe...

> Most seem "worried" about the GPL, because it gives them a "bad
> feeling". Heh, don't get me wrong I use to feel that way. It think it
> stems mostly from a lack of understanding of how it all works, and
> what we don't understand we don't want to deal with.

This is entirely true :) Legal stuff scares the hell out of people, so
much so that sometimes it's easier to look for alternatives. It would
be a shame for that to happen here, so I think the best thing we can
do is continue to discuss the GPL in the hopes that it will give some
people some answers, even if it's not 100% legally bulletproof :P

> Care is only required if you want to keep your code closed-source.
> Presumably that is because there is a commercial benefit in keeping
> the code that way.  When I run through the scenarios of when and how
> it impacts people -- its invariably because they are trying to protect
> some commercial interest from the rest of the community.  And like
> I've said before, that's fine -- but perhaps they ought to pay for the
> privilege and thereby better ensure the future of FarCry by funding
> its developers.

I think quite often the source code isn't offered up because it's
extra work to package up your source and make it available to the
world. Or you might not think your code is particularly useful or well
written and you may not want others going through your dirty laundry.
Or you may think it is a poential security risk to make your source
available... Or any number of other silly or not so silly reasons!


cheers,
Justin

[Justin Carter]

On May 10, 10:34 am, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OEM licenses are typically sold based on the size of distribution and
> sold per version.  As much as we love the FarCry community we don't
> have the capacity to effectively buy extJS for an unlimited number of
> potential users, and then reinvest when the next major version comes
> out.  So its not a viable option.
>
> Of course I could turn that around and ask why its alright to suggest
> we purchase an OEM from extJS, rather than ask FarCry developers who
> want to distribute closed-source FarCry applications to pay a license
> for the privilege to do so.

And you would be totally correct in doing so :) I was just throwing
that out there in case it hadn't been considered, but I guess the
ExtJS OEM fees must be fairly prohibitive on those terms. I think we
all know where we would rather spend any potential commercial
licensing fees.

Just a hypothetical... If we have a project that will be distributed
outside a single organisation and which we don't want to release the
source for, we purchase a commercial FarCry license from Daemon. What
happens with ExtJS, which is included in FarCry, which is under GPL?
Do we have to purchase an ExtJS commercial license as well?


cheers,
Justin

[Justin Carter]

On May 10, 10:51 am, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 6:04 pm, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We are left with the prospect of
> > > staying with the current 2.x release (on no support and grey areas re:
> > > licensing), upgrading and adhering to GPL, or removing the code base
> > > entirely.
>
> > I'm sure you realise, but this is similar to what FarCry developers
> > may experience if the license changes to the GPL.
>
> That is a bit flippant.
>
> The current state of our licensing is not in doubt.  Nor is our
> transparency in discussing options for a licensing change to GPL.
>
> If we make the change to GPL/Commercial, current and future FarCry
> developers will have clear options to:
>
> A) stay with FarCry 4.0 under CPL, with a supported maintenance branch
> B) upgrade to FarCry 5.0 and adhere to the GPL
> C) upgrade to FarCry 5.0 and purchase a Commercial license
> D) go and use some body else's code base

Sorry, I didn't mean that there were any greay areas with FarCry's
licensing at all, or your transparency or willingness to discuss
moving to GPL, so please don't take that comment the wrong way! I just
meant that existing FarCry developers may need to make a decision to
go with one of the 4 options you have outlined here. It requires us to
make a decision, which for some will be easy and others not so easy
because of lack of understanding, or other factors.


cheers,
Justin.

[modius]

On May 10, 7:39 pm, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a hypothetical... If we have a project that will be distributed
> outside a single organisation and which we don't want to release the
> source for, we purchase a commercial FarCry license from Daemon. What
> happens with ExtJS, which is included in FarCry, which is under GPL?
> Do we have to purchase an ExtJS commercial license as well?

FarCry Commercial License would need to OEM extJS. We're currently in
discussions to see how expensive this option might be but one would
hope costs of extJS could be easily incorporated into the cost of
FarCry Commercial. In the end it probably boils down to how their OEM
license works -- we're still waiting on the details.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

On May 10, 7:46 pm, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't mean that there were any greay areas with FarCry's
> licensing at all, or your transparency or willingness to discuss
> moving to GPL, so please don't take that comment the wrong way! I just
> meant that existing FarCry developers may need to make a decision to
> go with one of the 4 options you have outlined here. It requires us to
> make a decision, which for some will be easy and others not so easy
> because of lack of understanding, or other factors.

No worries mate -- I didn't mean to sound all tetchy ;)

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[Rusty]

Thanks for your quick response Geoff,

> You do realise that Joomla, Mambo and Drupal are *all* released under
> GPL?

I do realise they are released under GPL and if FarCry was developed
in PHP and had the pool of developers that those projects can draw on
I'd be all for the change to GPL. This is because those communities by
their origin and nature open source minded. Those communities are also
"democratic" and allow the community to drive the direction of the
project whereas FarCry on the other hand has its benevolent (and
generous) dictator ;). Those CMS frameworks also are geared towards
the needs community sites and portals. My point with all this that it
is dangerous to directly equate the environment FC has to live in with
those of these other big CMS's licensed under GPL.

> Can you point to plugins in the Mambo, Joomla or Drupal community that
> are closed source? Or even released under a different license to GPL?

Nope and that fact would be a large problem for Drupal if it was
written in ColdFusion as there would be so few modules released as you
can't release anything for Drupal (themes included) that isn't
compatible with GPL. For example a theme that was released under GPL
could not be modified and have those modifications distributed under
anything but GPL. Many theme and module developers has expressed that
they would like to release their contributions under a less
restrictive license but can't.

> I'd dispute this would be any different under GPL. I'm not sure why
> there is this belief that people after a free CMS would not consider
> FarCry because its GPL vs CPL. It doesn't appear to be an issue in
> any other programming community. Selfish or selfless -- there is
> nothing stopping CF developers using FarCry under GPL to deploy sites
> in a shared hosting environment.

I agree that to someone deploying FarCry it might not matter but to
anyone who wants to customise their install, share snippets between
projects or develop plugins they are now bound to distribute their
code under GPL. So what I'm saying is -> its harder to release plugins
-> less pluins mean less functionality -> FarCry and its potential is
reduced -> less users -> less contributions.

>
> > If you change to GPLv3 and the majority of FarCry installs are under
> > this license, plugin developers can't sell their plugins to be
> > installed into GPL FarCry, they would be forced to distribute under
> > GPL. You then get less plugins developed and the result being that
> > FarcCry will always be behind the other major CMS's in terms of
> > features.
>
> If FarCry is plain GPL, without a modification to the license, *all*
> plugins would be GPL, because they extend the underlying framework
> directly.

Thats great for plugin developers that happy with releasing their code
under GPL but makes it harder for those who aren't as they would then
need to ensure that anyone that licenses their plugin must also have a
commercial or non GPL license of FarCry

>
> If we provide an exception to the GPL we could allow plugins to be
> licensed differently. Perhaps as LGPL or even Commercial. However,
> its true that users are always going to have negotiate potential
> complications trying to distribute their GPL based FarCry application
> with a Commercial plugin. Of course a commercial license for the
> FarCry core would remove any complication. We are drafting an
> exception for templates and considering another for plugins.

Okay if this is the case then you should really post this information
on your blog post/paper regarding this change because to me and I'm
guessing many others there will be a huge difference in opinion once
we can see the license exceptions you would include if you went down
the GPL route. Otherwise its like agreeing to get on a bus not knowing
if its going to Darling Harbour or Kings Cross :). I would recommend
exceptions for webtops, plugins and skeletons allowing all these
components customised by others to be released under any license they
choose.

>
> Would an exception allowing plugin developers to release under
> different licenses allay your concerns?

Yes this would as it should allow plugin developers freedom but you
should inlcude themes or webtops in the exceptions if possible.

>
> Again I would remind you that the "other CMSs" you refer to as being
> ahead are in fact GPL today, and have been since inception. And do
> *not* have commercial licensing options available.

This touches on another point I haven't brought up yet, you are right
that those other CMS's are GPL and don't have commercial licenses
whereas under the proposed changes FarCry will. This fact doesn't sit
too well with me because unless there is some change to the way the
FarCry project will be run you would have this(please correct if this
isn't true):
* all modifications made must be published and distributed under GPL
unless they accompany a commercial license of FarCry
* all releases of FarCry copyrighted to Daemon (including submissions
made by others)
* Daemon being able to change the licensing in the future at their
discretion?

I guess it really comes down to whether Daemon are happy to continue
to be the major contributor of code for FarCry, if you are then a new
dual licence won't affect much I'd imagine. If however it is a goal of
Daemon to encourage more contributions of code then you must have more
users and developers of FarCry to do this. The best way I see to
acheive that is to have the most flexible, un-restrictive and simple
licensing which IMHO would be the current CPL. The current CPL gives
people no reason or excuses to not use FarCry for their projects.

I suspect that you might be blaming the current licensing for
receiving little contributions when it may simply be that you didn't
have critical mass when it comes to users/developers. Why not release
version 5 under the current license and see what happens in this
regard and let everyone know that towards the next major release you
will considering FC's future in regards to licensing rather than drop
this change now which seems kind of last minute and rushed.

Cheers, Steve.

[Rusty]

I just found this post by Ed Burnette on ZDNet that does a great job
of summarizing the different open source licenses. Its an easy read
for anyone trying to get their head around the main differences
between each..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=131

Cheers, Steve.

[modius]

Unfortunately mr burdette is an admitted GPL antagonist. And his
article is very simplistic. If you want to do some serious research in
this area it's best to start with the GPL FAQ (mentioned in the
discussion paper).

I found the following articles very interesting:

The best GNU GPL vs BSD comparison ever (nice and short)
http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-comparison-ever.html

Dual License model: Future of open source?
http://useopensource.blogspot.com/2008/01/dual-license-model-future-of-open.html

GPL vs BSD, a matter of sustainability
http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/15/gpl-vs-bsd-a-matter-of-sustainability/

Enjoy!

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[Matthew Williams]

I'm curious about the cost for a commercial license. Have ya'll worked
out a basic pricing model yet? It matters less to me, as I said before,
if I put together a really sweet plugin I have no problems releasing it
to the community. However, most of the plugins I've done don't really
translate to those outside the organization that I've done the
customization for.

As an example, I've take the blog plugin and tweaked out the
posts/comments objects to be notes/comments for communications about a
patient. However it still looks and acts mostly like a blog. But if
you take it out of context of the site and webtop, I'm not sure it would
really be any more beneficial to the community than the original blog
plugin. Now, if they'd wanted to move in the direction of making the
blog plugin behave like a bulletin board (which I'd love to do if I had
more free time), then I'd release that back in a heart beat.

And maybe that's the problem as to others releasing their source? Would
it be better to have to wade through a slew of modules that meet a
specific organizational need, or have modules that are more generic that
can be used as a drop in part of the installation?

Matthew Williams
Geodesic GraFX
www.geodesicgrafx.com/blog

[Chris Kent]

If I read the previous comments correctly the potential move to GPL is
driven from two main factors, extJS licence and lack of community
involvement.

From what I read, the extJS GPL licence may well be the overall
deciding factor.

Regarding the community involvement and I am as guilty as most but not
all, in not creating and making plug-ins/modifications available. I do
find that most of my modifications are to extend standard Farcry
content types, use them as a base for new ones or to be such a unique
requirement for a particular site that I have thought it is worth
making them available for others. I am working on a different version
of the site tree admin, but this is a part time task as it is not a
firm client requirement yet. But when complete I will make this
available.

I am still confused by what is and is not covered by the proposed GPL
licence. Is it the content of plugins, webskin, packages (including
type and rules etc.). Some modifications are based on other third
party software that could not be made public.

Also on a server with multiple Farcry sites running, some V3 and some
V4, I would probably have to hold back from upgrading to V5 unless I
can get any existing clients using V4 to agree to the licence change
to GPL as these existing sites cannot be run on the same server as a
V5 site unless I have to go for the webroot installation method.

I am not against the licence change, as there is still the choice of
GPL or Commercial licences, but until we know more about potential
costs of commercial developer licences it is difficult to know what
impact the commercial licence would have.

Is there an option for Daemon to offer a Commercial Developer Licence
in exchange for that developers community contribution? Just thought
that this might encourage the developers who are more likely to fall
into the distribution of code issue are also more likely to have more
code to offer. This way a smaller selected set of modules are released
to the community instead of releasing everything whether it is useful
to the community or not.

Chris.

[Kay Smoljak]

Hi Geoff,

On May 7, 5:52 pm, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
> licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion
> document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
> feedback from the community before we do anything.

Couple of things:

a) Licensing discussions bore me to tears, nearly as badly as
political discussions. It was a struggle to even skim through this
thread. I have no doubt I've missed stuff.

b) Your blog post was very understandable once I made myself read it -
thanks for your brevity and Plain Aussie English.

c) I think that the dual licensing idea being proposed is very
reasonable. You share your mods nicely with others and if you don't
want to share, you have to pay for a locker to hide your stuff in.

d) The only question I have relates to your comment that license fees
would be "competitive". This is the grey area because I'm not sure who
you're competing with. If we're talking a license fee of $500, that to
me is not unreasonable. If the license fee was closer to $5000, then
that's possibly not a problem for some of the kind of clients who want
or need to keep their modifications to themselves. If the license fee
was more like $50,000, then we're talking a different story entirely.
Without even a ballpark it's hard to put the discussion in context.

So can you at least give us an idea of who FarCry is competing with?

Cheers,
K.

--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/

[modius]

On May 14, 8:05 pm, Chris Kent <mxdes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I read the previous comments correctly the potential move to GPL is
> driven from two main factors, extJS licence and lack of community
> involvement.
>
> From what I read, the extJS GPL licence may well be the overall
> deciding factor.

Well the extJS licensing changes and their reasons for doing so made
us look hard at our current circumstances. The outcome of extJS's
exception clauses is unlikely to affect our decision either way.

> I am still confused by what is and is not covered by the proposed GPL
> licence. Is it the content of plugins, webskin, packages (including
> type and rules etc.). Some modifications are based on other third
> party software that could not be made public.

Basically we will not distribute anything that does not comply with
the distribution requirements of GPL -- that's pretty easy.

Unless we introduce an exception to the license, everything you build
on top of FarCry GPL would also be distributed under GPL. If we go
ahead we would more than likely introduce an exception clearly
excluding anything to do with a graphic theme for a website.

If you have requirements that prohibit distribution under the terms of
the GPL, you would be able to purchase a Commercial License.

> Also on a server with multiple Farcry sites running, some V3 and some
> V4, I would probably have to hold back from upgrading to V5 unless I
> can get any existing clients using V4 to agree to the licence change
> to GPL as these existing sites cannot be run on the same server as a
> V5 site unless I have to go for the webroot installation method.

Running different version of FarCry within the one CF instance is
problematic -- but obviously nothing to do with the license.

It's likely that most clients in a shared hosting environment would be
unaffected by the introduction of GPL. Are they really wanting to
distribute their changes? Would anyone want to see them if they did?

> I am not against the licence change, as there is still the choice of
> GPL or Commercial licences, but until we know more about potential
> costs of commercial developer licences it is difficult to know what
> impact the commercial licence would have.

Our experience is that few people have actually read the CPL. In all
likelihood a change to GPL will have little or no impact. The
Commercial License is relevant for people who have closed-source code
they must protect (or at least feel they must), and/or people who want
to support the FarCry development team through the purchase of a
license.

We are discussing potential pricing and model for the license (eg. per
server, per domain, whatever) with potential partners. If anyone is
interested in being a partner then please contact me directly.

> Is there an option for Daemon to offer a Commercial Developer Licence
> in exchange for that developers community contribution? Just thought
> that this might encourage the developers who are more likely to fall
> into the distribution of code issue are also more likely to have more
> code to offer. This way a smaller selected set of modules are released
> to the community instead of releasing everything whether it is useful
> to the community or not.

As far as we can see there is no need for such a license.

The only reason a developer license would be necessary is for the
potential development of "commercial" plugins by third-parties. This
is something we are investigating -- however, I would note that
currently under the CPL there are no readily available commercial
plugins except Daemon's.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

[modius]

On May 14, 10:36 pm, Kay Smoljak <kay.smol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> d) The only question I have relates to your comment that license fees
> would be "competitive". This is the grey area because I'm not sure who
> you're competing with. If we're talking a license fee of $500, that to
> me is not unreasonable. If the license fee was closer to $5000, then
> that's possibly not a problem for some of the kind of clients who want
> or need to keep their modifications to themselves. If the license fee
> was more like $50,000, then we're talking a different story entirely.
> Without even a ballpark it's hard to put the discussion in context.
>
> So can you at least give us an idea of who FarCry is competing with?

We're discussing pricing, and what a license covers -- for example, is
it per server, per domain? How do you handle virtuals? And so on.
We've got a very simple model we hope will appeal to people. If
anyone would like to apply to be a partner, potentially offering
FarCry for resale and so on, please contact me directly.

Obviously its a difficult thing to talk pricing without a definition
of exactly what the license covers. However, we are looking at
numbers closer to $5,000USD rather than $500 or $50,000. Apologies
for being vague at this stage -- we will release details on licensing
once we've had a chance to get feedback from prospective partners in
the community.

[Kay Smoljak]

Thanks Geoff,

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, we are looking at numbers closer to $5,000USD rather than $500 or $50,000.

That clears it up sufficiently for me - at any rate, it would be
highly unlikely that any of my clients would be requiring a commerial
license anyway (I'm sure the same would apply to most developers
providing FarCry-based solutions). You're obviously not considering
this step without really investigating all the possibilities, and I
for one trust your judgement - the FarCry team has not led us astray
thus far :)

Cheers,
K.

--
Kay Smoljak
business: www.cleverstarfish.com
coldfusion: kay.smoljak.com
personal: goatlady.wordpress.com | heapsbad.com

[modius]

On May 7, 7:52 pm, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
> licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion
> document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
> feedback from the community before we do anything.
>

> "The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a
> significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the
> decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or
> not the license change is right for our community, we'll either
> release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0
> (CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."
>
> http://blog.daemon.com.au/go/blog-post/farcry-license-changes

After much deliberation, and little or no objection from the community
at large, we have decided to license the open source code base under
the GPL v3 from v5.0. We will continue to maintain earlier versions
of the code base under CPL 1.0 for the foreseeable future.

We'll be releasing the 5.0 milestone, just as soon as we implement the
relevant license changes and clean up those issues that have dropped
into bug database during the discussion period. If we can get this
done by the end of the week we'll release straight away, failing that
the week after the webDU conference.

Thanks for your feedback and ongoing support.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/