FarCry License Changes

[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skeleton need not be published as long as my client retains the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
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 8, 8:58 am, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@...> 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 :)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 8, 9:52 am, "Joel Cass" <j...@...> 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/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

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

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

PS. I am not a lawyer!  This is not legal advice :)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

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

All the best,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Justin Carter]

On May 9, 11:19 am, modius <mod...@...> 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
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 10, 8:12 am, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@...> 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/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 10, 8:12 am, Justin Carter <justin.w.car...@...> 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.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Rusty-22]

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.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 10, 1:36 pm, Rusty <attackpoo...@...> 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 :)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Justin Carter]

On May 10, 4:24 am, modius <mod...@...> 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
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

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

> 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!!

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.

Best regards,

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

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

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

All the best,

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


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

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

Best regards,

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

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---