Mambo Users Threatened

An anonymous reader writes "Newsforge has an article about a recent dispute over code in Mambo (a Free CMS). A Mr. Connolly has sent threatening emails to Mambo users over this, a move John Weathersby of OSSI was quoted as saying 'That's ... not prudent.' The dispute is over some trivial code that checks whether a story is a lead story and if so displays it across multiple columns, as it's a modification of GPL code the Mambo team maintain it must remain GPL but Mr. Connolly claims otherwise."

Comments

WTF

[jwcorder]

John Weathersby of OSSI was quoted as saying 'That's ... not prudent.'

That's his response? I think "Your mama" might be better than that.....weak weak weak

Who *links* those articles?

[moeffju]

Seriously, why can't there be a single Slashdot article that has the links in sane places?

When 'Newsforge' is linked, I expect the link to go to the index page of Newsforge. Why don't you link 'the article'? There are far more and far worse examples in the other stories.

Is this some conspiracy to get your story posted? Do subscribers get sane links? ;p

Re:All of this could easily have been avoided.

[iSwitched]

Whoever moderated this as flamebait is some kind of idiot. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised, after all this is slashdot. Gentle reminder people, the 'freedom' that RMS and his ilk so venerate is based on freedom of speech, the idea that software itself is a protected form of speech under the constitution.

Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

The reason that there is a small but growing backlash against the FSF and its poster-child, the GPL, is the quasi-religion that caused this moderater to mod-down this perfectly honest opinion.

I find it hilarious that people posting on slashdot decry the 'Micrososft Monoculture' and yet rush headlong towards creating their own little monoculture where dissenting opinion is quashed mercilessly. Being a GPL zealot doesn't make you some 'better' kind of zealot, sane people still pile you in with all the other idiots and crazies.

Re:they're all idiots, but Connolly is right

[mitchy]

Both Connolly and the developer should have had a contract in place for who owned the resulting (if any) IP. However, since Connolly *paid* for that code, I assume that give him the IP anyway.

First sentence is smack on, second sentence is, well, you know the saying: 'Using the word ASSUME is going to make an ASS out of U and ME.' You ASSUMED dead wrong. Next!

The developer and Mambo's posts (as well as the posts of many slashdotters) have shown that they are wholly ignorant of the terms of the GPL. As soon as they found out that someone had put proprietary code (whether it had been derived from GPL is irrelevant in this context RTFL) in their code base they should have removed it.

Bzzzzzt! Wrongo, monkey boy - next time do read the entire article. There are two competely separate files that the developer can prove as different code, as the 9 lines in dispute never made it to Mambo core. (Oh, and your diatribe of whether /. readers understand the GPL serves what purpose?) Next!

In this case it is a little bit iffy whether the code is owned by Connolly, because it is not the exact same code (not copy pasted) written into his in house version of mambo. This is really the sort of question the Mambo folks should be asking an IP lawyer. Instead, they seem rather eager to get involved in a little crusade for open source against big evil Connolly.

This is what prompted me to reply - as a core developer, I can attest that not one single developer of Mambo (or Miro, the company that holds copyright to Mambo) initiated contact with any publication whatsoever. Every article you are reading was started by Furthermore or was independently created. NOTE: Mr. Connolly is a PR man, the Mambo developers write PHP code - which one are you banking on to have a knack for getting publicity? Yeah, that's what I thought. Next!

Anyway, I think that this entire incident highlights how little most people know about the GPL. Most people seem to assume that it is whatever they want it to be. Check it out at "http://www.opensource.org/licenses/". Personally, I have always preferred the MIT, or BSD licenses due to how small and clear they are. The GPL, on the other hand, is about the size of most EULAs.

Anyway, I think that this entire post highlights how little sentientbrendan knows about the article that he is spouting off.

RTFA, dude! And if you don't have time to read the whole thing, but wanna post flamebait anyway, then do it as AC! Sheesh. Some people's kids.