Author Topic: Choosing a CMS (Read 42522 times)

Renegade · « **Reply #50 on:** January 31, 2011, 11:25 PM »

Honestly this is now getting outside of the range of my own understanding of GPL and licensing law. It *is* complicated stuff, which is unfortunate because it needs to be understood by many "lay" people to really be properly respected. This is part of the problem with the way the GPL is constructed; it asks things of the developer and, in some cases, the user that are not necessarily intuitive. Software use and selection shouldn't be this complicated...

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 08:52 PM)

Contemplating the GPL is a dizzying decent into madness.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:02 AM »

Poor chris pearson- designer of thesis theme (wordpress) got screwed because of this GPL hoopla

Seriously, if you want to make money from the software then never release it under GPL. If you want to be a hippie and 'love thy neighbor' type then go ahead GPL is for you.

By the way, i found a new CMS while registering to blogcritics.org. And unfortunately i lost the login details last month so i don't find any way to go inside and check the name of it. But it's very simple multi-author CMS for blog and magazine sites.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #52 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:05 AM »

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

http://www.gnu.org/l...DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

Tell me this is not in favor of piracy ?

Renegade · « **Reply #53 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:10 AM »

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

http://www.gnu.org/l...DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

Tell me this is not in favor of piracy ?
-mahesh2k (February 01, 2011, 01:05 AM)

Well, that's kind of the point of the license -- to make it so that you can't pirate the software like that.

Though if you used GPL code in a proprietary program with a non-GPL license, that would be stealing, and I suppose a kind of piracy if piracy is just stealing.

But yeah -- I know what you mean.

40hz · « **Reply #54 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:22 AM »

If you want to be a hippie and 'love thy neighbor' type then go ahead GPL is for you.
-mahesh2k (February 01, 2011, 01:02 AM)

Yeah. Can't allow too much of that to be going on.

Look how much better the world got, now that everybody finally got their heads on straight and started focusing on the important stuff - like making a buck, watching out for number one, and national security...

Love thy neighbor? (Only if she's pretty and understands it's just for one night, right?)

And hippies? (Whatta buncha losers! It's yuppies that made the world what it is today!)

Yeah, good thing all that 60s and early-70s B.S. is over!

mahesh2k · « **Reply #55 on:** February 01, 2011, 09:36 AM »

Love thy neighbor? (Only if she's pretty and understands it's just for one night, right?)

40hz · « **Reply #56 on:** February 01, 2011, 10:27 AM »

By the way, i found a new CMS while registering to blogcritics.org. And unfortunately i lost the login details last month so i don't find any way to go inside and check the name of it. But it's very simple multi-author CMS for blog and magazine sites.
-mahesh2k (February 01, 2011, 01:02 AM)

For commercial multi-author magazine type sites, ExpressionEngine is the best IMO. (Note: Not open source and not free - licenses run from $100-300 USD. Usage restrictions also apply. See user and developer licensing for details.)

EE is a great product. One of the best working and supported CMS products out there. No bad surprises with options since 22 add-ons and 100+ plug-ins have been fully vetted and ship with it.

And because it's a commercial release, there's none of those pesky and annoying GPL issues to worry about.

Doesn't get much better than that I suppose.

40hz · « **Reply #57 on:** February 01, 2011, 10:58 AM »

Honestly this is now getting outside of the range of my own understanding of GPL and licensing law. It *is* complicated stuff, which is unfortunate because it needs to be understood by many "lay" people to really be properly respected. This is part of the problem with the way the GPL is constructed; it asks things of the developer and, in some cases, the user that are not necessarily intuitive. Software use and selection shouldn't be this complicated...

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 08:52 PM)

Contemplating the GPL is a dizzying decent into madness.
-Renegade (January 31, 2011, 11:25 PM)

When it first came out, GPL was very easily understood.

It still is very easy to understand.

It only gets complicated if you try to come up with a way to talk your way around it.

The GPL got "wordy" once certain businesses and people started looking for ways to "legally" beat it. That's when all the verbiage and details started getting added. Not because anybody in FSF wanted it that way. It was because their attorneys determined things needed to be added to the text if there was to be any hope of making the GPL enforceable.

There was once a time when Microsoft argued that GPL was both illegal and unenforceable because it ran (in their opinion) counter to US commercial, copyright, and IP laws. If I recall correctly, Steve Ballmer even went so far as to say something about it being "unconstitutional." But that's Ballmer for you.

Apparently offering software to the public for free is a violation of the rights of the monopolists to squeeze as much out of the people as possible.

IF the GPL has gotten complicated, thank Microsoft, Verizon, D-Link, Fortinet, TomTom, and all the other jokers who tried (and failed) to find a way to incorporate FOSS software into their own products and not live up to their side of the bargain.

Renegade · « **Reply #58 on:** February 01, 2011, 02:57 PM »

The thing is that it's not really free. Sure it's free to modify and distribute, but it's only free to use in certain ways. i.e. You can't use it in conjunction with non-GPL software.

Where a while back the GPL seemed to be about distribution, now it's about usage as well.

So just like many other licenses, it only offers limited freedom.

Most licenses let you use the software however you want. (Now) The GPL doesn't allow that.

The GPL allows you to redistribute the software. Most other licenses don't.

It's a radical about face turn.

@40Hz - Do you know if this case is ok or banned by the GPL:

1) Program A is commercial non-GPL (e.g. WinAmp)
2) Program B is a plugin for A and is GPL (e.g. A WinAmp plugin)

Is that permissible? B can't change A's license, so is it permissible to write GPL software that interfaces with non-GPL software?

40hz · « **Reply #59 on:** February 01, 2011, 03:42 PM »

AFAIK it is ok. The rules don't apply upstream. Nor has anyone in FSF ever tried to argue it overrides any licenses in the tool chain developers use. GPL conditions only apply to the GPLed code itself and downstream code that incorporates it's source. The FSF has stated numerous times that the GPL does not (and legally cannot) override any existing software licenses.

If Joomla is insisting anything that attaches to Joomla must also be GPL purely because of GPL, I think they're misinterpreting the rules. Commercial add-ons get developed for GPL products all the time. If they're saying an add-on which incorporates actual Joomla code must also be distributed to the public under GPL, then they are correct.

Note: GPL only applies to code. Nothing else It does not recognize the notion of IP. If you make a functional lookalike of a GPL product, call it something else, and release it under a commercial license, that's your business and it's ok by them. It's only when you incorporate GPL code into something that the rules go into effect.

Try doing that to a commercially licensed piece of software.

JavaJones · « **Reply #60 on:** February 01, 2011, 03:54 PM »

There are commercial Joomla extensions too, but evidently they also must be GPL compliant.

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #61 on:** February 01, 2011, 04:03 PM »

AFAIK it is ok. The rules don't apply upstream. Nor has anyone in FSF ever tried to argue it overrides any licenses in the tool chain developers use. GPL conditions only apply to the GPLed code itself and downstream code that incorporates it's source. The FSF has stated numerous times that the GPL does not (and legally cannot) override any existing software licenses.

If Joomla is insisting anything that attaches to Joomla must also be GPL purely because of GPL, I think they're misinterpreting the rules. Commercial add-ons get developed for GPL products all the time. If they're saying an add-on which incorporates actual Joomla code must also be distributed to the public under GPL, then they are correct.

Note: GPL only applies to code. Nothing else It does not recognize the notion of IP. If you make a functional lookalike of a GPL product, call it something else, and release it under a commercial license, that's your business and it's ok by them. It's only when you incorporate GPL code into something that the rules go into effect.

Try doing that to a commercially licensed piece of software.
-40hz (February 01, 2011, 03:42 PM)

This is what I don't get about the Joomla/SMF issue. Sure, the bridge would need to be GPL, but... Why would that stop things there unless the SMF guys didn't want to release the bridge under the GPL. I can't see why not. If it only works with SMF, I can't see how it would matter. The SMF license wouldn't be affected.

But you can do it for commercial software -- create functional copies -- it happens all the time. I've seen it several times in the JoS forums and ASP newsgroups.

40hz · « **Reply #62 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:41 PM »

unless the SMF guys didn't want to release the bridge under the GPL
-Renegade (February 01, 2011, 04:03 PM)

I think that's exactly where the crux of the issue rests.

Who knows? Maybe the SMF people think they have some 'really good code' in there that they just don't want to reveal to other people. Their prerogative. Be triff cool for them if that were the case.

Either way, we have to respect all the player's opinions on the matter. Especially since both sides apparently made a good-faith effort to come to an accomodation that would satisfy everybody.

Too bad it didn't work out.

Life moves on...

But you can do it for commercial software -- create functional copies -- it happens all the time. I've seen it several times in the JoS forums and ASP newsgroups.
-Renegade (February 01, 2011, 04:03 PM)

Oh you can.

And heaven help you if they:

can show you purchased a copy of their software (which makes you subject to their EULA)
can show you ever used a copy of their software (which makes you subject to their EULA)
have deeper pockets or better attorneys than you have

...and included a reverse engineering or "agreement not to make an equivalent product" clause in that EULA.

Because lawsuits over this sort of thing "happen all the time" too.

And it doesn't matter that most of these lawsuits have absolutely no legal merit. In a civil suit, those with the deepest pockets usually win. $:-\$

Renegade · « **Reply #63 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:45 PM »

And it doesn't matter that most of these lawsuits have absolutely no legal merit. In a civil suit, those with the deepest pockets usually win. $:-\$
-40hz (February 01, 2011, 05:41 PM)

Sigh... And that's the sad thing... It's got nothing to do with legality, or right or wrong. So much for justice...

adi_barb · « **Reply #64 on:** February 02, 2011, 01:12 AM »

we can help you build your own custom cms from scratch depending on how complex you want it to be. could you please show some live example of similar sites or describe its structure briefly?

mahesh2k · « **Reply #65 on:** February 02, 2011, 01:44 AM »

EE looks good to me for magazine publication, only problem is custom plugins which is going to cost more in comparison to WP. (Nothing commercial vs gpl into this though, it's because software is too complex to manage and code)

Renegade · « **Reply #66 on:** February 02, 2011, 01:44 AM »

we can help you build your own custom cms from scratch depending on how complex you want it to be. could you please show some live example of similar sites or describe its structure briefly?
-adi_barb (February 02, 2011, 01:12 AM)

That's actually one of the things that I want to avoid. I want a more or less out-of-the-box CMS that I can upgrade in line with the CMS's development. I don't want to have to do development for things I don't need to. Why reinvent the wheel?

The site is small -- a dozen pages or so. I basically just need a CMS to do all the heavy lifting for me. At the moment I'm playing with WordPress. But I'm borderline ditching it because it's simply not working properly and I'm having to go in and start messing with the internals. (At the moment I'm screaming inside about some database issues.)

Anyways, the site so far is http://supersimple.me/.

I think I'm going to go back and rip it out though.

adi_barb · « **Reply #67 on:** February 02, 2011, 01:50 AM »

if you want a portfolio website than wp is just perfect especially with a nice design, or maybe joomla
I thought you wanted to have a complex portal which is better to be made from scratch... for a better development and potential.

allen · « **Reply #68 on:** February 02, 2011, 05:05 PM »

The site is small -- a dozen pages or so. I basically just need a CMS to do all the heavy lifting for me. At the moment I'm playing with WordPress. But I'm borderline ditching it because it's simply not working properly and I'm having to go in and start messing with the internals. (At the moment I'm screaming inside about some database issues.)
-Renegade (February 02, 2011, 01:44 AM)

What is it you're trying to do that is forcing you to mess with the internals? It doesn't seem like what you're doing would require anything anywhere near complex enough to not be do-able within simple page templates. Feel free to pm or e-mail me if you want to discuss it outside this thread.

Renegade · « **Reply #69 on:** February 02, 2011, 06:57 PM »

The site is small -- a dozen pages or so. I basically just need a CMS to do all the heavy lifting for me. At the moment I'm playing with WordPress. But I'm borderline ditching it because it's simply not working properly and I'm having to go in and start messing with the internals. (At the moment I'm screaming inside about some database issues.)
-Renegade (February 02, 2011, 01:44 AM)

What is it you're trying to do that is forcing you to mess with the internals? It doesn't seem like what you're doing would require anything anywhere near complex enough to not be do-able within simple page templates. Feel free to pm or e-mail me if you want to discuss it outside this thread.
-allen (February 02, 2011, 05:05 PM)

You wouldn't believe it...

Pages simply aren't showing up properly. I create and edit a page, but it shows other content, and not what I wanted.

I started trying to delete irrelevant rows in the DB and edit there, but it's just a waste of time. If I'm having these kinds of problems after trying to create the 4th page... I can only imagine that it will get worse.

I'd already spent several hours correcting errors and tweaking the theme I liked, in which time I re-learned just how horrible spaghetti code is. Sigh... Well, I suppose that I'll just call it a day and move on.

allen · « **Reply #70 on:** February 02, 2011, 09:30 PM »

Perhaps it's a really poorly put together theme... I've never had any such nightmares. In an ideal world, creating a page would be as simple as making a new page (or post, depending on how you're organizing things) in the admin panel, they'd all inherit the default page theme. No more difficult than posting on this forum. You're not finding that to be the case? (It doesn't look like there's complex design on your site to require individual page templates)

Bamse · « **Reply #71 on:** February 02, 2011, 10:12 PM »

Theme was last updated 2010-04-13 so a few months before 3.0 = likely compatibility problems. Test with default theme should work then? The theme I follow a bit has 30000+ code lines, much come from tons of ever breeding theme features but changelog often have references to WP it self or popular plugins. You can get pretty screwed if what you use is dead or dying, what happens now 3.1 is around the corner? Part of the fun

Renegade · « **Reply #72 on:** February 02, 2011, 10:32 PM »

It's bizarre.

I supposed that I'm somewhat spoiled by the DotNetNuke world where there is very strong separation between the data, business logic, and presentation layers. WP themes are spaghetti of while loops and all sorts of nastiness.

I supposed it could be compatibility...

The weird thing is that I can't think of why the wrong data would get returned (the duplicate photo finder page). That's just bizarre to me. I really don't see how a theme could cause that.

(I had encountered the problem, then deleted the page, emptied the trash, recreated the page... all to no avail.)

Renegade · « **Reply #73 on:** February 02, 2011, 10:35 PM »

Part of the fun
-Bamse (February 02, 2011, 10:12 PM)

I wish I could agree with that right now -- but it's not fun right now.

While I really wish that I could get in there, figure it all out, sort it, and get on with things, I just can't afford the time right now.

It's entirely about just not having time... Which kind of pisses me off, because I know that at some level there has to be some weirdness that I could solve. WP works all over the place, and I've used it many times before with success. This time though, it's being a bit of a pig, and I just don't have the time for it.

I'll just hope that at some point later I can get back to WP with more time on my hands.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #74 on:** February 02, 2011, 11:54 PM »

I'm sure this has nothing to do with WP, looks more like DB issue to me. If there isn't any data in it then you can simply delete the wp installation and start from scratch.