Slashdot Mirror


Mambo Foundation Gets Copyright, After All

daria42 writes "Responding to the concerns of developers and backflipping on a previous policy in the process, Miro, the commercial company which owns the copyright to the GPL'd Mambo content management system has decided to assign all intellectual property rights to the Mambo Foundation, which it created to manage the CMS. The company has been at the centre of a storm of controversy previously reported here on Slashdot, which has seen the core developers of the CMS fork the project."

98 comments

  1. Geez. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    Why the controversy? If you don't like the way somebody wants to play, fork it and do it your own way. And common courtesy says you should rename your fork to distinguish it from the original.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Geez. by pasamio · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are coming up with a new name, they just haven't announced it yet, be patient and stay tuned to opensourcematters!

      --
      I always wondered where this setting was...
    2. Re:Geez. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Common courtesy plus trademark law. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:Geez. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we stay tuned? From all appearances, "The Developers" have done their best to marginalize themselves.

    4. Re:Geez. by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why should we stay tuned? From all appearances, "The Developers" have done their best to marginalize themselves.

      ...riiiiight. *All* of the core developers leave a popular project that's been downloaded over 5 million times, and it's *them* being marginalized?

      This is pretty simple.

      Miro: we don't want to transfer the copyrights. We want an open source "foundation" that will "control" the project, but the copyright to everything will still be ours.

      Developers: screw that, we're outta here! Oh, and we're going to work on our own version of it. Good luck.

      Miro: (whispering to each other) They can just leave like that? But who's gonna...(loudly) Wait! Wait! We'll transfer the copyrights...we were wrong, and we understand now! Please come back and work for us again!

      Miro realized that you probably shouldn't alienate *all* of your core developers for a popular project, if you want to keep that project alive and similarly popular. I'd stay tuned.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    5. Re:Geez. by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the copyright was not at issue, but the foundation was. I would expect the developers don't care that Miro transferred copyrights to an organization miro founded and filled with its own people.

    6. Re:Geez. by jc42 · · Score: 1

      They are coming up with a new name, ...

      Just as long as they don't claim something like Tango or Polka or Waltz. I'd hate to be dragged off the dance floor and charged with copyright infringement, right there in front of my partner.

      I learned Mambo in a class 25 years ago, but I've never had an opportunity to use it siince then, so it's OK if they lay claim to that name.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    7. Re:Geez. by drakaan · · Score: 1
      The reason they did that is because all of the developers are gone. There was nobody else to install in said foundation after the developer exodus.

      That's the reason that the copyright transfer is so pointless (now).

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  2. Except the devs specifically say this isn't a fork by misha69 · · Score: 5, Informative

    But why bother reading #1 in the FAQ? 1. Is this a fork of the Mambo project? No, it is a rebranding effort that will continue to run largely on the existing codebase. Work is continuing on the project by the same team that has developed Mambo as you know it today. Therefore we see it as continuing development rather than a 'fork'.

  3. Question by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1, Funny

    Altho I'm glad with the decision and appraise Miro for doing this, I wonder: would they have done this if the developers hadn't decided to split from the project?

    1. Re:Question by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0
      first post
      No it isn't...
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Question by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      firstpost.. nope.

  4. The system works, life goes on. by Njall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The wonderful thing about life is that it goes on. Miro made a mistake and corrected it. Everyone who has never made a mistake please take a step forward.

    1. Re:The system works, life goes on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... are you spying on us or something? How can you SEE me take a step forward if I was to do that? ARGH!!!!

  5. Can they do it? by aklix · · Score: 1

    What about all the non-miro developers that worked under the GPL, can they take their GPL work and call it their own once again?

    1. Re:Can they do it? by Eightyford · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I could care less Please fix your sig.

    2. Re:Can they do it? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      I think it's his way of saying that he's a first post whore...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  6. There is no Core members in the MF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since there is no Core Team members among Mambo Foundation Board of Directors it looks like Miro transfered copyright to themselves.
    With the only difference that now it is called Mambo Foundation, not Miro.

    This is just another great example when Ethics is more important than money.

  7. Empty gesture by Deffexor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This gesture by Miro is an empty one. It seems to me that Miro has shot themselves in the foot over this Mambo Foundation and made themselves look awfully foolish. Right now they are attempting damage control by trying to appear like "good guys" with all these disingenuous gestures.

    All the coding talent that was behind Mambo has since left to form their own foundation. To find out what the ex-developers of Mambo are up to, visit OpenSourceMatters

    Disclosure: Yes, I'm the one who wrote the Mambo developer exodus report on Ars Technica.

    1. Re:Empty gesture by Deusy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So... Miro created Mambo and released it under the GPL. They then created the Mambo Foundation to look after the interests of Mambo. What's the problem? Why did the Foundation need to own the copyrights? It's not like Miro could revoke the GPL nor, without the explicit permission of the volunteer developers, publish a closed source version incorporating any non-Miro contributions.

      The words 'mountain' and 'molehill' spring to mind?

      --

      Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

    2. Re:Empty gesture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know the details, but I do know that owning the copyrights was not the main reason for leaving. It was a combination of many things.

  8. What is the significance? by Imidazole · · Score: 1

    Just curious... How will this impact Mambo, and other CMS's to come?

    1. Re:What is the significance? by pbailey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it means that almost everyone that uses Mambo will go with the developers and upgrade to whatever they end up calling the new release when they are ready to launch. The new community up at opensourcematters.org is really gaining momentum quickly.

      Not sure what this means for other CMS projects - perhaps they will gain some extra mindshare from those that are fearful of what all this means for the future of Mambo, etc. Personally, I use Mambo and I have confidence in the core developers to continue making a great product and of course it is nice that they understand what open source is all about, even if Miro/The Foundation do not.

    2. Re:What is the significance? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A better question might be, what will the CEOs of other companies considering releasing their sources make of this very high-profile example? With all the crazy spin being put on everything from both sides, it's hard to tell what the hell went on, but it sure doesn't look good to me.

      If you're going to go public with a list of "community demands", they sure as hell ought to be visibly reasonable and they ought to be something you honour. If Miro is, however begrudgingly, giving in to these demands, there should be some sort of positive reaction from the community, not posting comments about how they didn't really leave over these demands but that it was a whole bunch of little things.

      Perception matters, and regardless of the facts, this isn't looking good on the developers.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:What is the significance? by pbailey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm, perception does matter. That's an interesting perspective that you have, I was thinking that this really does not look good on Miro. Lol. They managed to alienate the whole dev community in one swoop. Now the question is, what is the Mambo foundation going to do with a bunch of code and no one that knows its internals. The people who know and love the code have moved on to do things they way they believe they should be done. I think I am hearing that Miro is trying to convince the world that it would be good to get a new dev team - nice try!

    4. Re:What is the significance? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way. You're considering opening up some source code to the community and giving them some resources to work with, but you'd like to have some involvement in the new project and you'd like to be able to have it compliment what your other code bases. You see Sun and IBM and SAP doing these things, and it seems to be working well for them. So you try to draw on their example in setting things up.

      Then after you've opened your source and set all these structures up, the developers unite, negotiate in bad faith, publicly sully your company image and endeavour to steal your user base, which is the sort of thing that puts you out of business. Even when you give in to their demands upon you, they do not reverse their position.

      To summarize, company gives code to community and community responds by actively trying to put company out of business.

      Is this the whole truth? No, likely not. But I don't see anything that contradicts it. Miro could very well go under because of this. If you were responsible for deciding if your company should give code to the community or not, wouldn't this make you reconsider the wisdom of doing so?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:What is the significance? by pbailey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I think we are arguing different points here. I understand what you are saying, but I believe that Miro really dropped the ball on this one. A large community of developers has worked hard at making Mambo an award winning CMS. Miro started to offer commercial services around the product, and that is fine, companies need to make money.

      But, I believe if this foundation thing had been managed properly, it would never have come to this. To totally piss off the entire core development groups to the point where they want to leave sounds to me like too many suits were involved and they didn't understand the can of worms they were opening up.

      Imho, it would have been far better/easier to fully involve the core developers in how a foundation should be formed. That does not seem to be the case according to the devs. I know who I believe.

      Cheers

  9. forking.... by rd4tech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    kids, it's the true power the developers have in the open source projects... now for the next lesson: sales.

    1. Re:forking.... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      kids, it's the true power the developers have in the open source projects... now for the next lesson: sales

      Open source companies sell packaging and services, not code. And your point is?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  10. This is too little too late by pasamio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the Foundation had of been set up the way the MSC and the Core Devs wanted, this would have been good, but the damage has been done by Miro. They can't take it back and they are only trying to make ammends. They aren't transferring the copyright far, considering that they control the Mambo Foundation, so who is the real winner? Not open source. OpenSourceMatters is where the new work is going and that is where I am going to stake my claim and pitch my tent.

    --
    I always wondered where this setting was...
    1. Re:This is too little too late by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Isn't it AMAZING how no matter what evil companies do, open source always loses? Mambo is totally WORTHLESS now isn't it? Miro really screwed the entire world with this move huh?

      Sheesh man, cheer for victories, no matter how incomplete. Open source advocates should take what the can get and always push for more, not bitch about how spoiled their victory is.

    2. Re:This is too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that it seems like the dev team never even bothered to voice their concerns to Miro, I don't see how you can accuse them of being the guilty party.

      The situation could have been resolved if they had been open to discussion rather than decide they're better than anyone else and just break off.

      If you don't try to resolve your issues prior to taking action then you loose the right to whine and complain and paint the other as a demon regardless of whether you're justified or not.

    3. Re:This is too little too late by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Sheesh man, cheer for victories, no matter how incomplete. Open source advocates should take what the can get and always push for more, not bitch about how spoiled their victory is.

      No, I think the grandparent post was right. There is no victory to cheer for here. The entire development team left. There are zero developers (see the small box on the right side) for the project. It's dead. And you'd have to be crazy to try to revive it, because the terms put in place for development include agreeing to be fined or otherwise penalized if you violate some unknown set of rules.

      So this is all just beating a dead horse. They could next say "we've upgraded the server" and "we've found 2 new members for the Board" and any number of other praiseworthy announcements, but it wouldn't matter, because it's dead.

      I guess what I'm saying is that it's irrelevant. It's hand-waving. It isn't a real victory, because it's of no use or relevance anymore. Now if they donated the copyright to the new opensourcematters.org, that would be something significant, because that's where the future product releases will be.

    4. Re:This is too little too late by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll tell you what. I see a lot of childish bickering going back and forth. I see developers saying one thing and doing another. I see a company saying one thing and doing another.

      I'm going to find me a new CMS. I don't need this shit on my website, there's plenty of other projects out there for me to use.

      It's not like Mambo is all that great. Having done a fair amount of third-party component development, and having suffered a fair amount of the third party components that are available, I'm not entirely sure I'm going to be sad. The thing that really irks me is that now I have to migrate my database.

      Hm. Anybody up for a python-based CMS that uses Mambo's database? ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    5. Re:This is too little too late by pasamio · · Score: 1

      And who are you to state this? You must be a member of either the dev team or Miro, and I can take my guess here. But the reverse question is, did Miro ask the Dev Team? No, and this has been stated by BOTH sides. Miro created the Foundation, rules and the like without even consulting the people who worked on the product. To me, that sounds like a bit of backstabbing on the part of Miro... And yes, I agree it would have been resolved if they had been open to discussion, they being Miro. I would be equally pissed off if you set something up on your own and then, in the case of Brian and Andrew, but my name to something that I didn't know anything about. Where was the discussion there? Letting people find out via a press release is not discussion items with people, its telling them.

      --
      I always wondered where this setting was...
  11. Expression nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...backflipping on a previous policy...

    After a backflip you still face the same direction.

    1. Re:Expression nazi by MajorDick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless, you are as me uncapable of backflipping completley and land flat on your face.....

      Which is what I feel Miro has dont at this point, now theyre trying to smile whilee missing some teeth .... and developers.

    2. Re:Expression nazi by mopslik · · Score: 1

      After a backflip you still face the same direction.

      Reminds me of Jason Kidd's quote, "We're going to turn this team around a full 360." Ok then.

  12. I don't Mambo by Ranger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think PHP is great, but I don't think it's quite ready for a robust content management system. The PHP CMS community is very fragmented. When shopping around for a good open source CMS, I found a profileration of nukes. The two CMSes I considered seriously were Mambo and Drupal. Both of them have had some recent issues that made me glad I didn't pick them. Not only that there were some serious PHP security issues. I've been a fan of Perl far longer, but was amazed at how quickly I could slap together usable stuff in PHP. And I didn't choose a Perl based CMS either.

    Ultimately, I chose Plone which sits on top of Zope which sits on top of Python. It can sit behind Apache, You can use it with other other databases than it's own weird object db, but it's not easy. It also has a steep learning curve. Despite all these drawbacks and concerns, Plone is the most robust, secure, and ready to use out of the box CMS I've found.

    Maybe it was just dumb luck and the recent problems with Mambo, Drupal, and PHP made me feel better about my decision. I'm still learning Zope and Plone, but I'm impressed that I can throw stuff together pretty quickly with it, even though hides stuff in non-intuitive locations.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:I don't Mambo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not only that there were some serious PHP security issues.

      That concerns me too -- with PHP in general. PHP supporting libs and PHP apps tend to have a disproportinately high number of security issues, and locking them down is either impossible or practically so (requiring a layer of filters).

      While I do not reject a web service because it is PHP based, using PHP does raise the questions;

      'Is it secure enough that mere mortals can manage it safely?'

      'Can it be confidently secured at all even if I put an additional level of effort into it?'

      Unfortunately, the answer usually turns out to be no or a very uncertian maybe.

      Keep in mind that I am not saying other web toolkits are fine and dandy; I've rejected other web services for the same reasons. It's just the % of security problems seems to be much higher. Yes, I realize that I am being highly subjective.

    2. Re:I don't Mambo by mikaelhg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plone is the most robust, secure...

      Did they stop sending the cleartext username and password of the users as a mime-encoded cookie on every request already?

    3. Re:I don't Mambo by ExKoopaTroopa · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look into typo3, it changed my opinion about php cms'

      --
      Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
    4. Re:I don't Mambo by 21chrisp · · Score: 1

      I think PHP is great, but I don't think it's quite ready for a robust content management system.

      If PHP isn't ready by now, then it never will be ready enough for you.. PHP has matured a great deal. Most of the problems that people blame on PHP are due to web designers developing applications. By web designers I mean people who traditionally designed web pages using somthing like homesite and have little to no coding experience. PHP came along and was straightforward enough for them to slap some dynamic code together. The problem is that without much coding experience, things would get ugly very quick and the solutions were far from scalable. When in the right hands, PHP is highly effective for web programming. I don't think _anything_ is more mature for this task than PHP. One reason for PHP's existense is that Perl was less suited for these tasks. I personally don't feel that JSP or ASP are any further along. Now.. that doesn't necessarily mean PHP is always the best solution, it's just more mature.

      Not only that there were some serious PHP security issues.

      This is another thing unfairly blamed on PHP. These problems come up because 99% of the PHP developers out there use it as an Apache module. This means the code runs in a trusted environment and is inherintly unsecure. There is a reason why CGI was not set up this way. Unfortunately CGI was way to slow and everyone pretty much had to start using the modules. Now we have FastCGI. It's secure and runs code even faster than Apache modules. Concerned about security? mod_php, mod_perl, mod_py, and even mod_ruby all have MAJOR security problems. Use FastCGI.

      I personally prefer using Ruby/Rails + FastCGI over PHP. So, I'm not exactly a PHP fanboy. PHP has it's place though, and I wouldn't just dismiss it because so many people write bad code with it. There's plenty of poor python code out there and there are truckloads of _awful_ perl code.

    5. Re:I don't Mambo by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is that there is a lack of good programmers doing php work?

      Because these are not php issues, but rather programming issues. Which means you are saying the quality of work that common php devs write is less then the quality of work that other devs write.

    6. Re:I don't Mambo by dracvl · · Score: 1
      Did they stop sending the cleartext username and password of the users as a mime-encoded cookie on every request already.

      I normally don't feed the trolls, but since this is our system: Encoding is a policy decision you make when you install a Plone site, you can easily use SHA-1 if you want. Normally people authenticate against LDAP or some sort of database, where we really shouldn't be dictating their encoding. It's a policy decision, and if you want encrypt it, you can.

    7. Re:I don't Mambo by slughead · · Score: 1

      Stamp Out Literacy.com uses Mambo and the writers couldn't be happier.

      Most of the security issues aren't that significant. Mambo is so versitile, patching it doesn't break anything (largely because just about everything you can imagine can be handled without modifying the PHP).

      As someone who has written his own CMS (See for yourself), and has tried just about every single one out there (including PHPBB with a portal I wrote myself), I think Mambo's probably the best solution for me and most of my clients.

    8. Re:I don't Mambo by Penguin+Programmer · · Score: 1

      As much as Plone seems great and wonderful, I installed it and couldn't figure out how the hell to access it or set it up. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a CMS that's easy to setup and sits quite transparently on top of the excellent Apache/PHP base.

    9. Re:I don't Mambo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So what your saying is that there is a lack of good programmers doing php work?

      That I doubt, so I would not say that.

      Is the problem based on the design/architecture of PHP and associated libraries? Is the problem with 3rd party tools not being properly vetted? Could be either, both, or neither. For now, I'd bet on design/architecture. PHP wasn't initially designed to do what it's called to do these days.

      Because these are not php issues, but rather programming issues. Which means you are saying the quality of work that common php devs write is less then the quality of work that other devs write.

      I'll leave that up to you. I've already made my assessment; if PHP based, take extra care.

    10. Re:I don't Mambo by someone247356 · · Score: 1

      Um, shouldn't SHA-1 be considered "broken" for all intents and purposes?

      Can you use SHA-(something else)?

      or even a non-SHA hash?

      --
      Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
    11. Re:I don't Mambo by burnstone · · Score: 1

      pre-image-attacks (you have a hash, search the original string) are impossible atm, even against md5. but it is (possibly) possible to find two strings/.../whatever that have the same hash-sum...

    12. Re:I don't Mambo by mikaelhg · · Score: 1

      Well, excuse me for taking the word of Plone consultants that Plone is ready for prime time, putting tens of thousands of euros in development, and then finding out it's not worth shit unless you're willing to keep on paying through the nose to the hard-to-find consultants who have actually read through the whole Zope and Plone codebase (because unlike with the better competing systems, the documentation is really the worst I've seen during my years of practise,) and even then it's unscalable, slow and breaks horribly with Oracle and OpenLDAP.

    13. Re:I don't Mambo by Aldric · · Score: 1

      I'd say PHP is ready but the vast majority of PHP developers aren't. PHP5's clone of Java's object model means that a PHP application can consist of solid maintainable code, but even simple object programming is beyond most PHP coders never mind design patterns.

    14. Re:I don't Mambo by 1110110001 · · Score: 1

      With a good CMS you don't have much scripts to the outside user. A CMS is made for mostly static content. The tranformation to HTML and stuff like that can be made with some CLI tools. And you'll get static pages, which are a vulnerable as your webserver.

      The heavy scripting part in a CMS is in the backend stuff. That's what your editors and other staff gets to see. This stuff should be in a seperate space, or even a seperate server. The only user who is able to attack these scripts are you and your editors - if you can't trust them you have a bigger problem, than your language of choice.

      BTW you should take a look at the Bitflux CMS. You can also get a test space at freeflux. It's based on Popoon, which is something like the PHP version of Cocoon and has driven the new XML libs in PHP5.

      b4n

  13. MIRO Gets Control... after all... by lonemamber · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why I am amazed at the things that get slashdotted these days, last time it was the Mr. Shreves 20 questions interview and now this old news.

    What surprises this ol' cowboy is that some news apparently isn't as worthy of such attention from ya'll. Like Mr. Robert Castley resigning from the Foundatiob board and leaving only Miro members and a somewhat suspect Jim Begley. A man, I've heard, has been in the business of mergers and aquisitions in the past...

    For those of ya'll who aren't followin' these events, this Foundation is little more than a attempt at legitimacy by Miro, given it's chairman is the CEO of Miro.

    If you wanna be a 3PD member, it's $1000. If you're a bigger business, it's $50k. The first rule of membership, and I'm not kiddin ya'll here, is to show full public support at all times for the Foundation. Break the rules, and any member can be fined $500. Seems like someone has been drinkin' too much of their own snake oil here.

    Little more than the smoke 'n' mirrors we used to have at the county fair when I was a boy. Hell, we had to pay admission to that as well, come to think of it.

    If ya'll are interested in full coverage of this debacle with Miro, feel free to mosie on by to my blog coverage of the events. First to report on this terrible calamity that has descended on the project formerly known as Mambo, still not afraid to tell it like it is.

    Thankye for your time,

    The Lone Mamber

    More news quite likely to come from the people who really care about our community, .

    1. Re:MIRO Gets Control... after all... by anothy · · Score: 1

      just FYI, it's "y'all", not "ya'll" - a contraction of "you" and "all".

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  14. you're being redundant and repeating yourself by aggieben · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Holy capitalist pigsty, Batman! A commercial company? How evil can it get?

    It can't Robin. We...must...pray...that Gotham will...survive this...unthinkable scourge...

    --
    Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
  15. copyright, copyleft by millette · · Score: 1

    Hmm, isn't the foundation itself a little suspicious ? How does it help developpers to know it now has the copyright to the mambo source code ? And does it really matter anyway ? GPL depends on Copyright, true. But who cares, once the source has been released and permission given to hack on it ?

  16. OpenSourceMatters by mporcheron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OpenSourceMatters is proves that despite power-hungry companies such as Miro can't always win, as in this case it shows that not everyone goes with the flow.

  17. Re:Except the devs specifically say this isn't a f by VonSlatt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Our branch isn't the fork! the other branch is the fork!

    While I tend to agree with the sentiment, yah can't claim it's not a fork if the end result is two development trees.

  18. Foundation controlled by CEO I beleive by augustz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My understanding is that the Miro CEO appointed all or most of the board members of the foundation, without much community involvement.

    This contrasts with most open source foundations where the folks developing the code or trusted parties end up as the board.

  19. Re:Except the devs specifically say this isn't a f by nacturation · · Score: 1

    What does it matter what they say? They're trying to spin this in the most favorable way to themselves and redefining a commonly acceptable term (fork) to mean something which it doesn't. Objectively, the codebase will branch out into two (or more) separate efforts. Pop quiz: what does one call such a branch?

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  20. Re:Except the devs specifically say this isn't a f by eric_brissette · · Score: 1

    Nobody will argue that a fork isn't the end result of this. The problem is that the branch that will continue along the same path that is has been all along is also the branch that will be required to change its name.

  21. Re:1992 Called.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A very nice troll.

    I thank you for the chuckle.

  22. Now what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the foundation get the intellectual property rights or the copyright? There's quite a difference, after all!

  23. What I really wonder is by melted · · Score: 1

    Whether this "Mambo Foundation" will simply "fork" each of the successive releases by these folks and sell it as their own, thereby reducing their R&D budget to nearly zero.

    1. Re:What I really wonder is by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Whether this "Mambo Foundation" will simply "fork" each of the successive releases by these folks and sell it as their own

      which would be entirely fair...

      thereby reducing their R&D budget to nearly zero

      You underestimate the steadily increasing cost of merging against a diverging code base. Or if it is to be an identical code base, then the reason for not using the original is what, exactly?

      Note that Miro or its proxy foundation will not own the exclusive copyright any more if they take outside code without obtaining copyright assignments, which they are highly unlikely to obtain under the circumstances. Basically, they have taken aim at their own foot and blown it off. Developers were willing to assign copyright in the past, now Miro has lost that nice little perk forever.

      Of course nothing stops Miro from continuing in business selling the outside code under their Mambo brand. They just won't be setting the development agenda, and won't be able to do dual license deals without taking the full cost of development on themselves.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    2. Re:What I really wonder is by melted · · Score: 1

      Who said it would be "merging". I'm saying just fork every god damn release, clean, unmodified, and change a thing or two to make it look legitimate.

    3. Re:What I really wonder is by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Who said it would be "merging". I'm saying just fork every god damn release, clean, unmodified, and change a thing or two to make it look legitimate

      What do you mean, "look legitimate"? It is legitimate, so long as they don't go filing off anybody's copyright notices.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  24. Re:Except the devs specifically say this isn't a f by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

    Given that the majority, by far, of previous developers will be working on the non-Miro version, I would call that the trunk. Whatever Miro's new developers do with the code is the fork, despite the fact that they get to keep the name.

  25. Plenty of forks to go around... by PhoenixPath · · Score: 0, Troll

    But there is no spoon....

  26. Mambo was doomed before it started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was doomed to fail from the fifth character typed on the first source file.

  27. Re:Except the devs specifically say this isn't a f by XO · · Score: 0, Troll

    This depends on what you mean by "is". /I did not have sex with that woman. //I did not fork this source!

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  28. More corrections needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Miro didn't just fail to transfer copyright. They also:

    - Dumped long-time forum admins and contributing users without explanation when they expressed agreement with the developers or pointed at the developers' new site.
    - Deleted messages that, without hostility, pointed to the developers' letter or new site.
    - Failed to place any developers on the foundation board.
    - Setup a payment scheme for membership to the foundation that is prohibitively expensive for small developers and pipes money to Miro.
    - Failed to publically respond to the developers' letter for days even while banning forum users and deleting event comments.
    - When finally responding, filling the response with marketing speak and false claims of rule violations to justify censorship actions in the forums.

    And that list is just off the top of my head.

    No, Miro has many bridges to build if I am to ever work with them again. Turning over copyright is one small bucket of dirt to fill the large hole they dug themselves in over the last few days.

  29. 1992 Called.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    ...they want their worn-out trolling technique back..

    --
    Trolling all trolls from 1992_Called to Zonk

  30. I RTFK by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    and I still don't know what the hell it's talking about. What is Mambo? What is Miro?

    1. Re:I RTFK by mporcheron · · Score: 1

      Miro made Mambo in 1999 and in 2000 they released it as GPL. Miro forked the project back then creating MamboCMS (now called Jango) and Mambo Open Source. Mambo Open Source (now just Mambo) is a complex CMS made to make running a website as simple as possible.

  31. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is only you. Please adjust your threshold level. Go to the User Preferences Page (or to Hell, if you prefer).