This has been going on for YEARS! I'm a bit surprised that they've not stopped. It's not just AT&T though -- it's standard fare for carriers to do this.

Sigh... Looks like another spammer has crept into the Google index way up at #1: www.bigresource.com -- simply garbage. Complete garbage.

This is just funny:

http://www.telegraph...TION-WITH-LIBYA.html

KOREA SEEKS U.S. VIEWS ON CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH LIBYA
Passed to the Telegraph by WikiLeaks 9:30PM GMT 31 Jan 2011

Ref ID: 10TRIPOLI8

Date: 1/7/2010 15:16

Origin: Embassy Tripoli

Classification: SECRET//NOFORN

Destination:

Header: VZCZCXRO2584PP RUEHTRODE RUEHTRO #0008 0071516ZNY SSSSS ZZHP 071516Z JAN 10FM AMEMBASSY TRIPOLITO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5651INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 0111RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 0015RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES PRIORITY 0003RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 0874RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0047RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 0020RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0100RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI 6202

etc. etc.

"Passed to" -- They're just posting raw cables now, and not even "reporting". Ouch! Looks like the media is turning on WL like a rabid dog.

It's not that anything must change license, just that the license must be GPL to be distributed legally.

-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 08:05 PM)

Here's the thing that I don't get...

1) I go and get program X (GPL). (e.g. A GPL database.)
2) Then I go and get program Y (non-GPL). (e.g. WinAmp)
3) *I* write some software to connect the two (license irrelevant at the moment). (A program that processes what the database is doing to create playlists and integrates at a low level - Ok stupid program, but that's besides the point.)

So far this is all fine and dandy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now...

4) I release my plugin/software as GPL. I do not bundle it with the DB or WinAmp.

*MY* software *IS* released under the GPL.

And so?

I don't believe there is any requirement for any software to actually function properly, so whether or not my software works there is irrelevant to the license. You can plug it into the GPL DB fine and all is well for the license.

But, what happens once the software plugs into WinAmp? I didn't do it. The user did it. I've not violated anything. And since the user is not bound to any special usage terms and because the user isn't distributing anything, he's not violating the GPL.

So??? What's up? I don't get it.

Here's the thing though, as Jfusion proves, it depends on *how* something is written and how it interfaces GPL to non-GPL. It *can* be done legitimately, as Jfusion again shows. I think the key is in how separate it is. For example a Joomla-integrated system that presented a Joomla plugin UI would be using Joomla deeply enough to require being GPL itself. If it then integrates with a non-GPL system, it would simply need to do so in a way that did not A: use that system's API or B: use any proprietary elements of that system besides data. In other words direct data access would be acceptable, i.e. Jfusion directly reading and writing to SMF's SQL database info. I'm not actually sure that's how it works, but that's my understanding of what would be legal.

-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 08:05 PM)

I should go back and read more on Jfusion. It seems very interesting. I have no idea how they'd do what they claim though.

Oh, I can think of 1 way, but I still don't get the whole licensing thing... (use a provider model then have Joomla/SMF consume the provider)

This is really off-topic, but... to digress for a moment...

Addendum: (minor point) Just because somebody does something you don't agree with (or understand) doesn't automatically make them an "asshole." And characterizing them as such doesn't add anything to either the tone, or the caliber, of the discussion. (Just my tuppence.)

-40hz (January 31, 2011, 12:09 AM)

Ok... I finally put my finger on it...

The GPL restrictions have to do with distribution. Plugins, themes, and whatnot are distributed independently, and not with the GPL'd software. As such, I have a difficult time seeing how the GPL applies to them. After all, it's not restricting anyone's freedom to use or distribute the GPL'd software or any bundled software. What it is restricting is HOW the GPL'd software is used. That's very far from freedom.

So while a bridge/forum/plugin/adding/module/whatever may use GPL'd software, it's not distributed with any GPL'd software. So I can't see how the GPL applies in those cases, like the SMF<>Joomla bridge software.

Their definition of "content" and how it's not affected by the GPL seems to me like a weak cop-out in the light of such a radical interpretation of the GPL (in order to make it not entirely useless). I'm really only seeing inconsistencies and silliness there.

Here's what I mean (as it's the same issue but easier to use as an analogy or discussion jump-point):

http://wordpress.org.../themes-are-gpl-too/

One sentence summary: PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required.

It seems reasonable, but I still have a bit of a hard time with it.

First, themes are not distributed with any GPL software. They have independent distribution.

So, if I write:

This is a WordPress call:
wp_head();

The part "This is a WordPress call:" is GPL as well because it's part of a derivative work. Ooops. This entire post is. Ooops. This entire thread is. Ooops. This entire forum is. Ooops. This entire site is. Ooops. The entire Internet is. Ooops. The entire world is. Ooops... Since I read it, and that knowledge is a part of my being, and I'm now GPL'd myself~! My wife is gonna HATE that~!

I know that's entirely ridiculous.

What I mean is that it's a case of "we want to have our cake and eat it too." The distinction between PHP code vs. artwork and CSS are entirely arbitrary. The artwork and CSS rely on the PHP code, and I don't see how they can't be considered a derivative work in kind.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

...snip...

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

The red section seems pretty clear. Themes seem to be independent as they are distributed independently.

The blue section is clear about "the whole", i.e. "each and every part", so I fail to see how artwork or CSS escapes that. "cake and eat it". The purple section is clear about "control the distribution". If the CSS and artwork are a part of the distribution of a theme, how is that they do not constitute "part of a whole" or "each and every part"? This genuinely confounds me.

In the purple section, the contentious part seems to be "based on". If something adds functionality to a GPL program, then it seems to be "based on" the program according to that interpretation. THIS is the problem. If someone writes software to extend a commercial platform, and releases it as GPL, what then? All software that is non-GPL that runs on Linux extends the functionality of what the computer can do. How is it "not based on" Linux?

In the same way that WordPress themes require WordPress to run properly, software written for Linux requires Linux to run properly. I do not see any significant difference there. i.e. Is that what "based on" means?

It just sounds like a very radical re-interpretation of the GPL in some very bizarre ways.

One last thing...

On the basis of that version of WordPress, and considering those themes as if they had been added to WordPress by a third party, it is our opinion that the themes presented, and any that are substantially similar, contain elements that are derivative works of the WordPress software as well as elements that are potentially separate works. Specifically, the CSS files and material contained in the images directory of the “default” theme are works separate from the WordPress code. On the other hand, the PHP and HTML code that is intermingled with and operated on by PHP the code derives from the WordPress code.

In the WordPress themes, CSS files and images exist purely as data to be served by a web server. WordPress itself ignores these files[1]. The CSS and image files are simply read by the server as data and delivered verbatim to the user, avoiding the WordPress instance altogether. The CSS and images could easily be used with a range of HTML documents and read and displayed by a variety of software having no relation to WordPress. As such, these files are separate works from the WordPress code itself.

Now, let me rewrite the last paragraph there in terms of SMF/Joomla...

In Joomla bridges, the bridged software exists purely as data to be served by a web server. Joomla itself ignores these files. The bridged software files are simply processed by the server as data and delivered to the user, avoiding the Joomla instance altogether. The bridged software could easily be used and read and displayed by a variety of software having no relation to Joomla. As such, these files are separate works from the Joomla code itself.

It's not perfect, but close enough. SMF processes information over there, and Joomla process information over here, and bridge lets them deliver that information to the user at the same time.

The bridge on the other hand, I supposed that would have to be GPL.

I suppose I should instead just be rolling my eyes and shutting up though. It's not going to change anything. I just hope that interpretation of the GPL doesn't get picked up in other places.

Anyways... Just trying to explain in part why I came off as a jackass above. (That and my diet is seriously making me cranky lately, but I'm still losing weight.)

Most CMSes will do that.

Joomla boasts better control in that area in 1.6 -- dunno.

You can do it in DNN though.

WP allows it as well.

For a full site, I'd say look at DNN as you want to exclude WP. It has truckloads of power and tons of modules available. Otherwise WP is easy and can do it.

Is this just a shortcoming that I have or do others have a similar difficulty quickly switching their focus?

-bscott (January 31, 2011, 02:32 AM)

No, it's not just you. Switching gears is time consuming.

I do a lot of different things, and it can take me several days to get "in the zone".

It's generally very easy for me to switch into localization mode, but switching into different programming modes is rough sometimes.

Hm, sorry you missed my post, earlier in this thread. I pointed to my blog to the script we used for JottiQ, that is modular, and can detect .NET 4, and download and install it during the setup phase if it's missing. I looked at the kynosarges page before, but I missed the automatic download feature, so I upgraded another initiative.

If you can wait a few hours (I'm now at the start of my working day, and I'm busy for the next 10 hours or so) I can update your script to have that incorporated.
The whirlwind at the JottiQ thread shows it's quite tested a few times And it'd be for free ofcourse

-Ath (January 31, 2011, 01:35 AM)

Oh! I didn't know that it needed .NET 4 or that you did that in the installer!

And I'd appreciate that. I checked out the stuff at the Code Project, but it was just long, and I wanted to just get it done. I didn't know that it did the install during setup like that.

This makes me wonder if in fact the techie audience here tends to have search terms that are particularly susceptible to SEO gaming (or particularly targeted). That could explain the higher perception of results in Google being less relevant by users here.

-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 12:42 AM)

I've thought about that, and it would make sense. You have some techie spammer that turns to familiar sites - tech sites -- and writes his own spammy sites.

However, online shopping... Nightmare. You never get the manufacturer site. Whenever I try to search for anything I end up with a lot of crap. I mean when I want to buy something and need to do a bit of research -- I'm swamped with junk.

Admittedly, I'm usually searching for car or camera stuff...

Yeah... I know... I'm being overly cranky about it.

But it's a new thing, relatively.

It's like a 5-year old kid asking to rewind and have a "do over". The GPL never had those meanings before. So why now? Why not issue a new license that DOES cover those cases?

I've got nothing against the GPL/FSF, but really --- let's have a "do over" because that's "not really what we meant"?

My snide comment about Linux and the GPL is perfectly in line with what they've done. If software that's written to run on Linux runs on Linux, and needs Linux to run, then shouldn't it be GPL as well? I see no difference at all between the two cases. "If you don't want your software to be GPL, don't write for Linux." That's what it sounds like. I'm not bashing Linux -- I'm just using it as an analogy there. They retroactively changed the license to mean something different.

It's just such an antagonistic stance/interpretation of the GPL.

As for the comments by Simple Machines... Well... You can't expect them to come out and call a spade a shovel because that's not PC.

People that don't like the terms of the GPL should feel free to go out and purchase whatever software they feel would suit their needs better, and conveniently disregard the fact that the EULAs on such products place even greater restrictions on the user than GPL ever would.

That's the thing -- the GPL doesn't give you all that much freedom in cases like this. I am interested in USING the software, and don't really care that much about tweaking it or playing with it or any of that. I also want to use another piece of software with it. The GPL stops me from doing that.

As a simple user, my concerns aren't really about the license -- I just want to get a job done. BSD or GPL or proprietary is irrelevant to the task at hand.

But in cases like this, proprietary licenses give you a lot more freedom. It's just a different kind of freedom.

Well, I looked into Joomla again, and it's out. Their assholeish strict interpretation of the GPL rules out too much. The SMF forum bridge killed there. Sigh... Babies and bathwater...

I also looked into CMS MS, and it looks like it doesn't have any support for any major forum software, so that's out.

Thinking about WordPress... and same problem as Joomla. GPL. Oh well.

So, I pretty much decided on SMF or vBulletin. Which don't go with WP or Joomla.

There is a jfusion program that lets you integrate other software with Joomla, but... That's yet another thing to cobble together... And another point of possible failure...

I think I'll stick with DotNetNuke. It has 95%+ of everything you want already built in and ready to go. While their forum software isn't a nice as SMF or vBulletin, it's adequate.

Sigh... I was kind of looking forward to a change there. Oh well.

I'd hate to be a kid these days. There's no way you had the fun we did in the 60s and 70s.

-zridling (January 30, 2011, 06:13 PM)

Hahahaha~!

Yeah... You haven't lived until you've said, "Guys... We've been like stoned for the last 3 weeks solid... Let's try something else for a change."