Slashdot Mirror
Mambo CMS Dev Team Splits
cozimek writes "The popular Mambo CMS developer team has severed its ties with Miro Corporation, the copyright owner on the GPL'd Mambo CMS. You can read more about the renegade dev team."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Shouldn't worry about that.
The code is gpl, the name is trademarked. The developers went their own way.
There are still going to be new releases only the name will change.
And yes, I'm sure you can easely upgrade from mambo to $newname. From my point of view, the new mambo is going to be even more free than it was before. This actually isn't a 'open source' problem since closed source licences (and prices) can change in new versions of the product your using.
With open source you have at least the freedom to 'take the code and run' when the maintainers of that code do something you're not happy with.
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
No wonder the business is hesitant to embrace the concept.
Depends on your definition of "embracing". If by embracing you understand "seizing and taking control of an open source project", yes, the Mambo Foundation really embraced it!
Well I say screw them. We can use OpenMambo (suggested name) anytime we want. Sooner or later the original will become obsolete.
This seems to me like the result of the current Open Source Hype in the investment community. Some entrepreneural types think that if they just go ahead and pay a lawyer to file the paperwork for a foundation, they instantly become like Apache and Firefox in the eyes of the VC's, and this is a clear example that it couldn't be further from the truth and that forming and maintaining a foundation for "bragging rights" ("we have formed a foundation - who-hoo!") bytes back big time.
It'd be interesting to see what happens next - I think this foundation would have to be dissolved and will probably lose its tax-exempt status?
Though this situation will undoubtedly be used by certain pundits and businesses as cannon fodder against OSS, I think it only goes to show how the GPL empowers those who do the work. If the entire team (i.e. "the workers") get up, say "thank you" and fork the code, things like brand name, copyright and such suddenly become completely useless.
It's knowledgeable people that are the only true resource in the case - let's see Miro just replace all of them overnight and beat the forked version this team will be working on.
So some other program now exists that's based on the same code. How does this affect you? It's some other program! It may offer you some nice options, i.e. you may be able to switch over to the new system, but otherwise, you're unaffected!
You might just as justifiably claim that Linux/PPC is a "problem" for OS/X users. It's not a problem, it's an alternative! And one you're welcome to ignore if you so choose!
Sheesh!
If Mambo had been a closed source product, and the company that developed it started misbehaving (raising prices, making changes that ruin it, etc.), then the users of Mambo would be _screwed_.
With closed source, the only choices for Mambo users would be to accept the bad changes (higher prices, etc.), or give up using Mambo.
But, since Mambo is Open Source, Mambo users are _protected_.
With Open Source, when a developer starts misbehaving, anyone else has the option of forking the code, in order to ensure that the preferred direction is maintained.
So everyone should ignore the trolls and astroturfers who are calling this a weakness of Open Source. On the contrary, it is a strength. It protects users from having to suffer at the hands of a disreputable company, as, for example, Microsoft's customers have suffered.
http://mambo-foundation.org/content/view/4/45/
So with regard to Mambo, the GPL and copyright:
You MAY distribute it and charge for that service. You MAY change it, add design and content to it and you MAY charge for that. You may NOT alter the license and you must NOT alter the copyright. You do NOT have to show a 'Powered by Mambo' graphic, as it not a copyright notice.
In other words, you must NOT pretend that Mambo is yours, and you must NOT charge people for Mambo iteself.
I thought that GPL software could be sold as long as the source was attached.
Lets see, its not Open Source, it seems to have very limited functionality, it only publishes HTML files (no dynamic content), looks to have limitations to layout and design because of its interface. It focuses on newsletters /journals /blogs, and it lacks anything other than basic website features (menu and content).
No, thats exactly what I dont need. Dreamweaver in WYSIWYG already does much much more. I can code that up myself. I need something extremely flexible, customizable, has a large community for plugins for all the different kinds of features my clients request. And OSS is a huge plus because I can go in and fix bugs/problems without waiting for a developer (like I already have done several times in my Mambo component development) Sure, it seems fine for your common do it yourself website. But that is not a match for my or my clients' needs.
Oh, and the Windows-only part ain't gonna cut it either. Most of my firm is on Mac, and quite a few of our clients are as well.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....