Wanted: PHP public domain projects

Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?

I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.

So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
PHP material out there.

A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
software.

I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.

So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/

This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(

There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.

Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Tim Tyler wrote:
> Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?
>
> I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.
>
> So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
> PHP material out there.
>
> A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
> licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
> software.
>
> I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.
>
> So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/
>
> This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
> its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
> emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
> a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(
>
> There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.
>
> Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
> sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?
>
> Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Just to clarify thing the GNU GPL license is to free your code, not to
limit it, GPL allows anyone to change or use your code, the only thing
it will not allow you to do is to locked it, i.e. close source it
you really should read : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

a side note : if you release your code into the public domain i can take
your code & use it in my closed source program, the GNU GPL comes to
ensure that i will not ever do such a thing, its a "copyleft license"
that comes to give you freedom rather then take it from you.

"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>" <"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>"> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

> > Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?
> >
> > I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.
> >
> > So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
> > PHP material out there.
> >
> > A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
> > licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
> > software.
> >
> > I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.
> >
> > So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:
> >
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/
> >
> > This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
> > its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
> > emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
> > a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(
> >
> > There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.
> >
> > Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
> > sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any assistance.
>
> Just to clarify thing the GNU GPL license is to free your code, not to
> limit it [...]

To clarify further: it copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full
rights to use it in an unrestricted fashion.

> GPL allows anyone to change or use your code, the only thing
> it will not allow you to do is to locked it, i.e. close source it [...]

A highly restrictive conditon that places limitations on using GPL code
in a commercial environment.

In particular it becomes practically impossible to deploy the code within
a company which wants to customise the code to include their own secret
business logic - and then deploy that code in a binary format to their
customers.

I *don't* want to erect barriers for others to wishing to interface with
my code.

I want to make the process as simple and painless as possible.

> you really should read : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

You really should stop patronising me.

> a side note : if you release your code into the public domain i can take
> your code & use it in my closed source program [...]

That's fine by me ;-)

> [...] the GNU GPL comes to ensure that i will not ever do such a thing,

....so it restricts your users in how they can use your code.

> its a "copyleft license" that comes to give you freedom rather then
> take it from you.

It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Tim Tyler wrote:

> It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
> in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.

Ok well, just make a website, and put all of your code there, anyone
will be free to download it.

Of course it's quite sympathic for your users, but still, are you happy
that most of those who'll leech the code will ever thank you for the
money they'll make with the code you made?

I think that's why so many people use GPL, well, my point of view.

NRN,
S.


--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident.
That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein

Sebastian Lauwers <dacrashanddie@nospam.9online.fr> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

> > It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
> > in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.
>
> Ok well, just make a website, and put all of your code there, anyone
> will be free to download it.
>
> Of course it's quite sympathic for your users, but still, are you happy
> that most of those who'll leech the code will ever thank you for the
> money they'll make with the code you made?
>
> I think that's why so many people use GPL, well, my point of view.

It doesn't seem logical.

If you put your code in the public domain, you won't make much money from
your users - unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

If you GPL your code, you won't make much money from your users either -
unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.

Not much difference there.

I suspect the appeal of the GPL is that it gives the authors full
ownership and control over their own code under copyright law.

For instance, the GPL /does/ allow is distributing the copyrighted code
under other kinds of restrictive licenses.

That's what the MySQL folk do. They distribute their code as GPL code
"Our software is 100% GPL" - (so that it's practically unusable in a
commercial environment) - and then charge for commercial licenses under
different terms (which also have their restrictions - but happen to allow
redistribution of modified versions without revealing the source code -
something businesses care about, but the GPL forbids.

They can do this because they retain copyright and ownership of their
code - and are not themselves obliged to follow the terms of the GPL -
as most of their users are.

Commercial users can't make much use of the GPL version because of the
restrictions in the license - and the original authors have full rights
over the code - so they can make money by flogging businesses a commercial
version - and none of their users can compete with them in this area -
since their license conditions forbid it.

These days people GPL code just for the sake of inter-operating
with all the other GPL code out there. If your code is not
under the GPL, you can't link with many other people's code -
because the license conditions forbid it.

Whatever the appeal, I don't think it has much to do with freedom.

GPL code is *copyrighted* - and the license restricts numerous
rights to the original authors of the code, which puts them in
a privilidged position to sell their software to businesses
under different licenses.

Authors who want their code to be free tend not impose conditions
and restrictions on their users by copyrighting the code and
retaining full control over it.

One of the irritating things about the GPL is that it *pretends*
to be free.

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price"

GPL software does *not* give users freedom. It *copyrights* the
software and then *restricts* the activities users can perform.

"By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee
your freedom to share and change free software - to make sure the
software is free for all its users."

It fails miserably. The users are not free - as illustrated by the
case of MySQL - where the GPL'd software is sold under a less restrictive
license to businesses who find the restrictions of the GPL too onerous.
So much for free software.

If you want software to be free, the course of action is obvious -
put the software into the public domain so that everyone can use it.

Don't *copyright* the software and then *prohibit* other people from
doing what they like with your code with a *restrictive* license.

The GPL "freedom" hypocrisy is why I refer to such software as
"Fake Free Software". Fortunately, fake free software is easy
to spot - just look for the "copyright" symbol.

Anyway - enough of my "freedom" rant ;-)

Has anyone apart from me got any *genuinely* free PHP software - that
isn't yet "infected" with a Gnu license - or some other bunch of
copyright conditions and restrictions?

I would be particularly interested in CMS components or libraries.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

>When i release my code for everyone to use, it will be ONLY GPL for the
>simple reason that it gives me the power to ensure that everyone who
>uses my code will contribute back to the public by including my code in
>their software & releasing it GPL'ed too.

No, the GPL does *NOT* do that. The GPL gives me the freedom to
not release my modified version *AT ALL*. And since 99% of everything
is crap, it's probably a good thing that my one-off scripts that
don't last more than a day and solve a problem nobody else is likely
to have don't get released. Nobody would want them anyway.

>in fact the only reason the gpl was invented is to not allow people to
>use it in closed source projects, not to limit you in any way, thats why
>i wrote you "you really should read :
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" it explained a lot to me & i
>thought you could benefit from reading it also, if you are familiar with
>the GPL and do not agree with it then :

Clause 3 of the GPL is problematical. It raises the bar for releasing
modified code pretty high. In particular: Clause (3a) does not let
me prohibit separating the source and the binary, and then blaming
ME for doing so. I don't have the finances to withstand a legal
challenge on that point, even if the allegations turn out to be
false or even provably malicious on the part of the person making
the allegations.

Clause (3b) requires me to have some way to distribute the source
code for 3 years, and I don't necessarily have the life span left
(and neither does your average teenager), nor is there any corporation
guaranteed to be around in 3 years that I could prepay for 3 years
for a distribution site. So there's no practical way to be sure
of satisfying it. Oh, yes, when does that three years start? It
restarts every time I distribute binaries, right? Presumably if I
use clause (3b), I have to stop distributing modified code three
years BEFORE my bulletproof distribution site's funding runs out.

Clause (3c) likely doesn't apply because binaries are darned hard
to make changes in, so distributing modified versions when I got
the distribution as binary isn't likely to come up.

So, I take an alternate approach. If I make bug fixes, I attempt
to contribute them, in patch form only, or as a description of the
change I made, back to the original authors. Sometimes they won't
take them. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they come up with a
better but completely different way to address the problem.

Gordon L. Burditt

Tim Tyler wrote:
> "Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>" <"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>"> wrote or quoted:
>
>>Tim Tyler wrote:
>
>
>>>Are there many PHP public domain projects out there?
>>>
>>>I'm particularly interested in CMS project materials.
>>>
>>>So far - outside of my own projects - I've found /very/ little PD
>>>PHP material out there.
>>>
>>>A large proportion of the PHP community seems to have embraced the Gnu
>>>licenses - complete with all their restrictions on the users of the
>>>software.
>>>
>>>I don't want to copyright my code - or impose restrictions on its users.
>>>
>>>So far about the only PD PHP project I have found is:
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/promanager/
>>>
>>>This is well out of date, relies on REGISTER_GLOBALS - and (despite
>>>its /claimed/ license conditions) contains multiple sections of code
>>>emblazoned with copyright statements with unspecified license conditions -
>>>a combination which renders it practically useless to me :-(
>>>
>>>There must be some other public domain PHP material out there.
>>>
>>>Are there /any/ useful PHP libraries in the public domain? What
>>>sources are there which can be used as genuinely free sources of code?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for any assistance.
>>
>>Just to clarify thing the GNU GPL license is to free your code, not to
>>limit it [...]
>
>
> To clarify further: it copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full
> rights to use it in an unrestricted fashion.
>
>
>>GPL allows anyone to change or use your code, the only thing
>>it will not allow you to do is to locked it, i.e. close source it [...]
>
>
> A highly restrictive conditon that places limitations on using GPL code
> in a commercial environment.
>
> In particular it becomes practically impossible to deploy the code within
> a company which wants to customise the code to include their own secret
> business logic - and then deploy that code in a binary format to their
> customers.
>
> I *don't* want to erect barriers for others to wishing to interface with
> my code.
>
> I want to make the process as simple and painless as possible.
>
>
>>you really should read : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>
>
> You really should stop patronising me.
>
>
>>a side note : if you release your code into the public domain i can take
>>your code & use it in my closed source program [...]
>
>
> That's fine by me ;-)
>
>
>>[...] the GNU GPL comes to ensure that i will not ever do such a thing,
>
>
> ...so it restricts your users in how they can use your code.
>
>
>>its a "copyleft license" that comes to give you freedom rather then
>>take it from you.
>
>
> It copyrights the code - and then fails to grant full rights to use it
> in an unrestricted fashion. That's not what I would describe as freedom.

I'm sorry if you felt like i was patronizing you, i wasn't.

When i release my code for everyone to use, it will be ONLY GPL for the
simple reason that it gives me the power to ensure that everyone who
uses my code will contribute back to the public by including my code in
their software & releasing it GPL'ed too. That way all can profit and
not just the one that "exploited" my code to build his commercial software.

You can claim it isn't true but every programmer seeks recognition. By
releasing my code GPLed I let people know that I wrote that code! if you
give your code in public domain fashion i for example am not even
obligated by law to mention that you are the author of the code, hack i
can even say i wrote that myself, now do you think that's fair ?

in fact the only reason the gpl was invented is to not allow people to
use it in closed source projects, not to limit you in any way, thats why
i wrote you "you really should read :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" it explained a lot to me & i
thought you could benefit from reading it also, if you are familiar with
the GPL and do not agree with it then :
a. i am sorry you feel this way.
b. it's your freedom! you can do with your code what ever you see fit. i
just try to show why i feel GPL is the right decision for you.

cheers, maxim.

Tim Tyler wrote:

> It doesn't seem logical.
>
> If you put your code in the public domain, you won't make much money from
> your users - unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.
>
> If you GPL your code, you won't make much money from your users either -
> unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.
>
> Not much difference there.

I wasn't talking about making money from my users, i was talking about
the fact that users could use my software that freely they COULD make
money from it, w/o even thanking me, worse, telling me they did.


And btw, yes, you can have a fee payed for downloading the source or
binary of your GPL software, but that only means they pay for the
download, not using or getting your software.

[...]

> If you want software to be free, the course of action is obvious -
> put the software into the public domain so that everyone can use it.

This is where our opinion differs.

[...]

> The GPL "freedom" hypocrisy is why I refer to such software as
> "Fake Free Software". Fortunately, fake free software is easy
> to spot - just look for the "copyright" symbol.

It's not 'cause you can't see fit of the GPL for your needs that it
turns into horsecrap does it? A lot of people use GPL, and a lot of
people understand it, and still use it. It might change, but
unfortunately, for you, it won't be soon.

> Anyway - enough of my "freedom" rant ;-)

Agreed

> Has anyone apart from me got any *genuinely* free PHP software - that
> isn't yet "infected" with a Gnu license - or some other bunch of
> copyright conditions and restrictions?

I'm working on an MMORPG game project. We haven't decided yet if we were
going to copyright it or not.

> I would be particularly interested in CMS components or libraries.

Sorry, can't help for that at the moment.

> Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Sorry i can't be of any help. But on thing is sure, you know how to make
long speeches. Even though i don't agree on most of your standings, i
must say i'm highly impressed by the quality of your argumentation. It
has been great to read you.

Best regards,
Sebastian


--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident.
That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein

"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>" <"Maxim Vexler <hq4ever (at) 012 (dot) net (dot) il>"> wrote or quoted:

> You can claim it isn't true but every programmer seeks recognition. By
> releasing my code GPLed I let people know that I wrote that code! if you
> give your code in public domain fashion i for example am not even
> obligated by law to mention that you are the author of the code, hack i
> can even say i wrote that myself, now do you think that's fair ?

I don't doubt what you say.

I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.

That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
hinders collaborative development.

Look at the way you can't use GPL code in LGPL programs. These
licenses are written by the same guy - yet they fail to inter-operate -
because of restrictions inherited from copyright law.

Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
*forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
users.

> in fact the only reason the gpl was invented is to not allow people to
> use it in closed source projects, not to limit you in any way [...],

People are limited by default because of copyright law. Licenses
give rights - rather than take them away.

The GPL simply fails to grant all the freedoms that were taken away by
invoking copyright law. For example, it fails to give the right to
make binary-only distributions of modified copies.

Copyright law imposes the limitations on users of the code. The GPL
merely fails to grant them back again.

> i wrote you "you really should read :
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" it explained a lot to me & i
> thought you could benefit from reading it also [...]

You apparently assumed that I was criticising the GPL without being
familiar with its FAQ. I don't think that that is the case.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Sebastian Lauwers <dacrashanddie@nospam.9online.fr> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> > If you GPL your code, you won't make much money from your users either -
> > unless you can offer technical support or consulting services.
> >
> > Not much difference there.
>
> I wasn't talking about making money from my users, i was talking about
> the fact that users could use my software that freely they COULD make
> money from it, w/o even thanking me, worse, telling me they did.

By contrast, I *love* the fact that any users of my public domain
software feel free to do whatever they like with it. They don't
ever have to concern themselves with getting sued through violating
the license conditions - since there are none. If they want to try to
make money with my software, then that's *great* - more power to them.

The only reason I can see why should I be *jealous* of them making money
from software I wrote, is if I would rather sell it myself - as I
would be able to do if I had retained copyright over it.

That's fine - but reataining ownership and the privilidged right to
flog modified versions of the software under different license
conditions doesn't seem to have much to do with *free* software.

> > The GPL "freedom" hypocrisy is why I refer to such software as
> > "Fake Free Software". Fortunately, fake free software is easy
> > to spot - just look for the "copyright" symbol.
>
> It's not 'cause you can't see fit of the GPL for your needs that it
> turns into horsecrap does it? A lot of people use GPL, and a lot of
> people understand it, and still use it. It might change, but
> unfortunately, for you, it won't be soon.

I concur that the GPL's popularity probably won't change soon.

Users have been hoodwinked into thinking that they are getting "Free
sofware" when in fact they are getting "Fake Free Software" - which comes
with copyright statements and license conditions *just* like every other
sort of not-free software.

It will most likely take some time before programmers and users wake
up to the damage these copyright restrictions are still causing
collaborative development - and learn to prefer *genuine* free software
over *fake* free software, by valuing the additional freedoms such
software provides them with.

The Gnu folk should not be allowed to get away with redefining
the term "free" to mean "still burdened with copyright restrictions".

> Sorry i can't be of any help. But on thing is sure, you know how to make
> long speeches. Even though i don't agree on most of your standings, i
> must say i'm highly impressed by the quality of your argumentation. It
> has been great to read you.

Thanks ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.