Thread: Dolphin License Discussion

If it didn't have any effect, why would the GNU GPL Statement still remain in the headers of the majority of the files? They released Dolphin as a whole under the GPL, and as such, yes they could rename it now and re-release it as something else, but once Code is put out into open source, is there any other choice but to leave it there? I mean can it really be taken back out of Open Source just like that? I think not, otherwise it would be a useless licensing to begin with... ( Even the Derived work would have to have the GNU GPL Licensing in it if they did just Rename it)

conundrum

1: a question having only a conjectural answer

2: A paradoxical dilemma

Smoge

You got that right Smoge... They need to State Their License Plainly and DIRECTLY That is their responsibility as a "reputable" company to their customers as well as the people they have released this under Open Source to. CC-BY is not much better in their case than Open Source, but it does require that others that do modify and re-release their work give them credit, although that does not mean that the people that get it from You Smoge, or anyone for that matter should have to go back to Them or PAY them to remove their links from the GUI itself, being under the GPL still counteracts that..

I don't think the software could be "un-GPL'd" and Boonex should not have gone down that road. Judging solely by the link removal fees and the newly posted license fees, the GPL+CC licenses have apparently become a revenue drain for Boonex. What I really meant by questioning the effect of the GPL license issue is this - the fundamental business problem is not the license per se - it's Boonex's lack of value added services and poorly developed "ecosystem" revolving around Dolphin. People make money off of GPL'd software by providing added value services just like Smoge and MMS do with phpfox and userplane (etc). The difference between Boonex and MMS is that people clearly want what MMS is selling, so they are willing to pay for it. Boonex's "added-value" products don't add much value, from what i've read on this forum. IMHO, they should have GPL'd Ray and Orca instead of their core product, Dolphin. That way the ancillary products would be improved through open source development and nothing would stop Boonex from being able to sell integration services for Dolphin + Ray + Orca (which would then be in demand, assuming the software worked).

NOW they need a new core product or they need to add value with an improved (or replaced) Ray and Orca. If 4ppl.com is any indication of what they are focusing on, then the confusing GPL/CC Dolphin thing won't matter for too long. 4ppl seems to be pretty stable and the underlying software may just be worth paying for.

Originally Posted by rscott4581

If it didn't have any effect, why would the GNU GPL Statement still remain in the headers of the majority of the files? They released Dolphin as a whole under the GPL, and as such, yes they could rename it now and re-release it as something else, but once Code is put out into open source, is there any other choice but to leave it there? I mean can it really be taken back out of Open Source just like that? I think not, otherwise it would be a useless licensing to begin with... ( Even the Derived work would have to have the GNU GPL Licensing in it if they did just Rename it)

How does being GPL'd eliminate the requirement to pay to remove links? Maybe I'm a little slow, but I'm not seeing a clear connection. I know that section 2A of the GPl requires you to attribute the work to the original creator- and smoge clearly does that - and i know that you can release GPL'd software for free if you've paid for it, but the problem is that Boonex isn't charging for the software. I don't know how you can get around paying for the right to remove their footer links because they state that the payment only covers to one machine or server. Help me out here.

Originally Posted by rscott4581

You got that right Smoge... They need to State Their License Plainly and DIRECTLY That is their responsibility as a "reputable" company to their customers as well as the people they have released this under Open Source to. CC-BY is not much better in their case than Open Source, but it does require that others that do modify and re-release their work give them credit, although that does not mean that the people that get it from You Smoge, or anyone for that matter should have to go back to Them or PAY them to remove their links from the GUI itself, being under the GPL still counteracts that..

Simply because under the CC-BY people can modify etc as long as the work is attributed to them, but the links on the bottom aren't there on Clean, so when I download Clean and use it, why should I go pay Boonex for link removal that has already been done? Not to even mention the fact that if I took clean, modified it again and Re-Released it yet again! Basically I can not control what the person that has re-released it does as nobody else can, that makes going to Boonex a moot point... Smoge spent a good amount of time Modifying CLEAN for us and I personally feel it is ModMySite that has re-released this Product and NOT Boonex. GPL basically allows Free reign with a product as long as your work still contains the GPL license, Creative Commons allows you Free reign with the software as long as you maintain attribution as well as the license core itself.. Who says Smoge didn't buy the unlimited removal license then give it to everyone, ( Which I might add BOTH Licenses Allow completely) I don't see how or why people should have to go pay for something that has already been done... That's all

Originally Posted by rscott4581

Simply because under the CC-BY people can modify etc as long as the work is attributed to them, but the links on the bottom aren't there on Clean, so when I download Clean and use it, why should I go pay Boonex for link removal that has already been done? Not to even mention the fact that if I took clean, modified it again and Re-Released it yet again! Basically I can not control what the person that has re-released it does as nobody else can, that makes going to Boonex a moot point... Smoge spent a good amount of time Modifying CLEAN for us and I personally feel it is ModMySite that has re-released this Product and NOT Boonex. GPL basically allows Free reign with a product as long as your work still contains the GPL license, Creative Commons allows you Free reign with the software as long as you maintain attribution as well as the license core itself.. Who says Smoge didn't buy the unlimited removal license then give it to everyone, ( Which I might add BOTH Licenses Allow completely) I don't see how or why people should have to go pay for something that has already been done... That's all

I understand your point of view - I don't want to pay for something that I don't have to, and like you I also wonder if Boonex is taking advantage of the confusing situation. Now I think that the 6.1 version is covered by the CC and not GPL but also still believe that issue is debatable and could be argued in court. Legally and financially it would be safer to comply with the more restrictive, CC 3 license.

IANAL so I may be wrong! But In my mind your argument and the following quotes from Boonex and CC settle the issue for me - if Smoge pays for the unlimited license one time (not per machine or per CPU), according to the below definition of "attribution" by Boonex:

From http://www.boonex.com/products/dolphin/download/ ...

"License.

Creative Commons License Dolphin is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. This means that you are free to use it the way you need, adapt it, change code, distribute, share with friends or even sell it. You must, however attribute the work as specified by BoonEx. And the specification is dead simple - don't remove links to BoonEx and the Dolphin Page in the footer of all Dolphin pages, unless you paid for it."

So if I'm understanding this correctly, then "attribution" is defined (by Boonex itself) as either leaving the links in or paying to have them removed. On that page, Boonex also provides a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ...

Attribution 3.0 Unported
You are free:
* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
*
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
* Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

So the problem comes down to how attribution is defined and Boonex has not only been very specific on defining attribution, its failed to restrict the rights of the licensee to one machine as I originally thought that they had. On the right side panel/column of http://www.boonex.com/products/dolphin/download/ , Boonex again fails to restrict use to one CPU/Server: "Dolphin is free, but since it's licensed under the terms of CC-BY you have to keep reference to BoonEx. You can remove those links for the small fee of just $39 per year or $99 unlimited."

I believe that the Code added to dolphin to take it from 5.3 to 6.0, 6.1 etc is under the CC-BY, but I also believe the original code it was built from is still under the GNU GPL from 5.3, and since it was released under that has now to remain under it as they don't want to violate the GNU GPL licensing of it as that in itself would be another mess for them to have to deal with. But, they do not explain it out for people to see that plainly.. The CC should be followed in any case, I have to agree on that as it is the more restrictive license, but that does go back to the point at hand above about someone purchasing the unlimited then re-releasing it to me or you and in turn us doing the same at that point.. it essentially does satisfy their terms as far as I can see although if I were them I would never want that to happen either, but it was their choice to make it open source under the GNU GPL to begin with, and they should just accept that in any case...

Wait 3 days for the license to change, new name to come out, and become unsupported. I of course originally paid for the ad-free Dolphin BEFORE I found this site, so I can legally um, what? Still haven't figured it out.

You paid for the Unlimited License... Well dang you should Change it and Re-Release it per the CC-BY agreement as you are not required now to shift the links from them onto us.... LMAO