WebsiteBaker Community Forum
General Community => Off-Topic => Topic started by: johnp on June 27, 2009, 01:35:02 PM
-
We would like to invite everyone within the WebsiteBaker Community to visit
The Pacer Edition Project
Link to Project: http://www.jcwebden.com (http://www.jcwebden.com)
-
hi guys,
you stolen the logo of WebsiteBaker Portable.....;)
this grafic is released by the user Stefek - he is the designer of this logo and the owner of the creative rights...
regards martin
-
Dear Martin.
Dear John.
Yes, Martin is right, this is the Logo (https://forum.WebsiteBaker.org/index.php/topic,12192.msg74880.html#msg74880) produced for the WebsiteBaker Portable Edition.
Martin released the Portable Edition earlier as I predicted.
My fault, I didn't place any copyright notice in the release.
However, only Martin and People involved, dedicated and supporting the Portable Edition are allowed to use it - as it is.
I will talk with Martin about this issue and I know that we will find a solution for that, as a family affair :-D
John, I hope you understand that point, right?
If there is any need for unique graphics, logos etc. feel free to communicate (via PM).
I am short in time for the moment, but I will see what I can do - but won't promise anything yet, we will see.
Kind Regards,
Stefek
-
i've wrote back....let me know!
regards martin
-
Hello Martin.
Thanks for your PM.
Here for all:
I didn't know about the usage of this Logo by John.
As mentioned before:
The Logo I created for Martins WB Portable Edition was created ONLY for this purpose.
If Martin wants to use this Logo in the next release, we will need to place a copyright notice to the footer in order to avoid such mistakes for the future.
I think the Logo and all the Graphics done for this Project are good and loudspeaking and I would like to keep them for that purpose.
I talked with John over Skype tonight and he promised to remove the Logo as soon as possible.
He didn't want to steal anything, he told. He just wanted to show a familiarity to the WebsiteBaker Project, which I think is OK and understandable.
BTW I took a look at the feature list, which sound nice and I am curious as I also am curious about the edgeCMS being created by Ryan.
But I am mostly interested what will happen here:
https://forum.WebsiteBaker.org/index.php/topic,11680.0.html
So long....
Stefek
-
Too bad, this could be the beginning of the end. Instead of working together on the same project, after Ryans departure, people decide to create forks. I don't even see any real differences, there is some untrue info, and and there's lots of information missing. I don't like this a bit. Of course anyone is free to create a fork, but it will weaken the project as a whole.
-
I mean, "There can be only an one"
Dietmar
-
For me, it's not a thread, it's an challenge to bring out WB 2.8 as soon as possible. After all there's not much new in the fork, most features we have already in the form of modules. And there's no forum like this, with so many helping people.
But I aggree that's a pitty that some people that have contributed so much to WB leave and start their own CMS. It's time to investigate why this could happen, what could be the reason and what we could do to prevent things like this in the future.
Hans
Edit: made some changes because my English is not wat it should be (hope there are no more spelling issues, but I doubt, hope I'm understandable though)
-
Hi,
I regret that there is a fork of WB.
If the coders of WB and WB Pacer puts there heads together for a good dialogue, it can result in a very good version of WB 2.9 or 3.0.
Most of the people will stay with the original WB! But some go for the fork choice. And in the long run we will all choose the strongest product. Whether this is the 'original' WB or the Pacer Edition, the future will tell.
Grtz,
Luc
-
@all ... this fork exists because there are too many people involved who are unwilling to compromise ... the dialog was quite exhaustive last year.
cheers
Klaus
-
Sorry, then I develop a completely new, but no 1:1 copy with a few own changes. On Web there are good free php frameworks or libs to do that.
Dietmar
-
I don't think I understand what the last two posters mean... Who are behind this new fork anyway? And why did they decide to move away from WB? And will they stop contributing to WB? And why should people use thsi fork instead of WB? There are a lot of questions...
-
If you have questions about this post argos or even anybody else, I suggest to actually ask them about this directly. Personally I don't see the fork as a threat ...
The fact that this Fork has nothing that WB does not have as a module comes from the fact that the makers contributed to WB first and then took their contributions into the core of their fork.
cheers
Klaus
-
We would like to invite everyone within the WebsiteBaker Community to visit
The Pacer Edition Project
Link to Project: http://www.jcwebden.com (http://www.jcwebden.com)
Please remove EasyMenu from the download. This module is created for WebsiteBaker only. Thank you.
-
Please remove EasyMenu from the download. This module is created for WebsiteBaker only. Thank you.
Interesting! As this is released under "GNU General Public License" then can't this be used by anyone?
-
Please see the header of each file:
Module developed for the Open Source Content Management System WebsiteBaker (http://WebsiteBaker.org)
Copyright (C) 2008, Bianka Martinovic
-
I am no expert but having had a quick look at the GPL as far as I know there is nothing wrong with saying what your software was develeoped for but there are statements such as:
"modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone. It means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version. "
That's what GPL is all about - anyone and everyone, regardless of whether you like it or not, can do what they like with your software - providing they keep your copyright intact and keep it licensed under GPL.
If you want to restrict the use of your software then GPL isn't the licence to use.
Perhaps a legal expert can assist.
-
I didn't want to start a legal discussion. I just asked to remove my module from the bundle. I think that's legitimate.
If the people who created this fork would like to get help and assistance from this community, they should meet this request. Without discussing licenses.
-
I'm afraid they have full right to use and distribute the module if you have published it under GPL... But they have to do that under GPL as well.
You can request anything, but it's up to them to comply with your request or not.
Personally I don't like the way these guys act. It would have been better to discuss their intentions with the community and WB developers, and ask cooperation from core and module developers. But legally I think they have the right to do what they do.
-
they also took the "WebsiteBaker Portable" Logo without asking me or the designer (stefek) of this Logo!
i will add CC 3.0 for Text&Graphics... to this project!
stealing graphics to irritate users is no penny!!
(just a little turning&bright it up...)
it is no good start for a fork - if they build up on 100% WB techniques - only bundle them.... :-P
if this was a joke - i go and me a "mr-fan-CMS" with the WB core and my Fav-mods.... :lol:
it shows the intent :evil: - that noone real ask for such resources!
angry regards
martin
-
@Argos: Yes, I know that. So I asked to remove my module. I think it's a good test to check out how these guys act. :roll: As I said: I don't want a license discussion.
-
Hello Martin,
no need to becoming evilish.
As I stated before, I talked to John and he will remove the Logo from his project completly.
Bianca, also John produced a lot modules and as he started with some guys the fork, he asked to remove some of his modules from AMASP.
But the fact is, his productions were also under the GPL License. So.... we are still working with his contributions.
Even if I love WebsiteBaker, I do not think that there is a need for us for a battle like this.
They do not have such a manpower as WB got, but they have their own goals and ideas.
Some kind of a "minority religion" with heir own "gurus". LOL
So I think we are not in the mid age and do not need this inquisition ;-)
Kind regards,
Stefek
-
I still wonder who is behind the fork and why they have chosen to split...
-
I don't want a battle. I just asked to remove my module from the bundle.
As far as I know, John asked the same for his work, and AMASP was responsive to this please. So why are we discussing legal rights here?
-
@Bianca,
I don't know all the facts what happened.
Maybe you're right.
Maybe talking to John directly is an good option.
@Jurgen
The Fork is why the open discussion by Ryan begun. So read it for answers.
Regards,
Stefek
-
@Jurgen
The Fork is why the open discussion by Ryan begun. So read it for answers.
I see several discussions about the future development of WB. I don't see any relations with creating forks, I don't see any reasons why people started this fork, and I don't know who is behind it. I don't understand why these guys don't communicate better about their background, reasons and future plans. They just drop a fork, and that's it. The info on their own site is still empty, and it's unclear (to me) who is the team behind it. Very annoying.
-
The fork was announced last year - here:
https://forum.WebsiteBaker.org/index.php/topic,11671.0.html (https://forum.WebsiteBaker.org/index.php/topic,11671.0.html)
-
hi again,
i don't evil the fork! i only want show my state of the play!
if there has been a real alternative to WB i would be much curious and test it out! if a user see a better tool for his work he change - always keep eyes open for alternatives make you more flexible in your tasks...
yes - i know that John remove the logo! SORRY that i don't wrote that in my last post! sry john, too
but - i want that all who read this threat know that nowone ask for using this - there is no bond among you/me/portable and this fork
the Pacer website don't show any leaders/devs/... so i want not beeing implicated with this fork!
WebsiteBaker is more than the sum of his individual items! and a fork is just a splint - a splint can hurt but it is fast pulled out...
regards martin
-
the Pacer website don't show any leaders/devs/... so i want not beeing implicated with this fork!
That's the point. Thanks, mr-fan. :roll:
-
Hello,
just some background information about the fork. We have and we had permanentely discussions about how to develop WB in the future. Starting from the discussion about WB3 from Ryan wich is currently named EdgeCMS over if and how to use and integrate PEAR, JQuery or rewritng the whole WB core we had different opinions. Unfortunately JohnP and scharmpro only accepted their positions and due to a lack of a really developement team here in WB they decided to make a fork.
For me this fork is also a chance for WB and i hope we got in the near future a really working dev-team wich again discuss all posibilities of the future of WB and also try's to get people like JohnP and scharmpro back to here. To get WB forward we should not battle against us self or people who try to make WB better and better, even if we have personally another opinion. Our target must be to bundle all good devs in dev-team where they can dicuss and decide.
Matthias
-
Wow, I absolutely agree with you, Matthias.
Every single point.
Regards,
Stefek
-
Take note EasyMenu was Developed for an open source community for the open source community to use as is... Though [EDIT by kweitzel] Link removed[/EDIT] is a forked Edition to WebsiteBaker it still under the WebsiteBaker GNU General Public License. The Pacer Edition is released by JCWebDen.com and WebsiteBaker core is released under the GNU General Public License.
Website baker is open source community and so is the pacer edition the difference between the to versions is we have moved forward when others would not.
So the easymenu is staying in place.
Now for those out their in the Website baker community posting.
I will only say this once the logo thing with martin has been put to rest. So drop it! The team leaders knew the fork edition was coming as per the post Here (https://forum.WebsiteBaker.org/index.php/topic,11671.0.html) and they know who they are. About wanting to know who the pacer team is download the beta version to find out give it a try don't pass judgment on something you haven't even downloaded.
JohnP
-
About wanting to know who the pacer team is download the beta version to find out give it a try don't pass judgment on something you haven't even downloaded.
:? :?
What a silly approach.
Well, I'm not going to spend more time on this...
-
So the easymenu is staying in place.
So I will withdraw EasyMenu from the WB community, too.
Edit: Thank you for showing your "style" to this community. I think it will not help your project, but it's your turn.
-
Whilst I agree about your comment about the "style", I can't see how you can withdraw EasyMenu. You have licensed it to be used by anyone and everyone, providing they follow the licence (GPL) rules. (It's a bit like Microsoft saying everyone who has a licence for MS Office can't use it anymore. The fact that GPL licence is issued free of charge makes no difference.)
You could of course issue your next version / release of EasyMenu under a different licence, thus stopping WB and others from using your updates. This will force WB & others to update your earlier version themselves.
-
I did not say you can't use it anymore. I'm just not going to provide it for download or to support it any more.
-
That's a shame. Let's hope the rest of the WB community / developers are happy to continue sharing their good work with the Open Source community.
-
I'm just not sharing my module under this name anymore. I will be happy sharing my work with the WB community and any other who doesn't make a difference between law and good style.
BTW, as far as I know, JohnP requested to not link TinyMCE on AMASP. But he's not kind enough to let others request the same from him. THAT'S a shame.
-
I will be happy sharing my work with the WB community and any other who doesn't make a difference between law and good style.
Not allowed under any Open Source Licence - you will need to move away from Open Source. See point 5 on the OpenSource website: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd :
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
-
I hope you're just kidding.
-
No, serious. Issuing software under a licence is not to be taken lightly.
-
Maybe I should point out that this was a test.
I wanted to know how the people behind Pacer act. A fork normally has the goal to be "better" than the original, and in most cases the people who make a fork do so 'cause they don't succeed in ensuring that their ideas are really good and important. (For different reasons.) Sometimes the developer(s) of the original are no longer interested in developing, or they don't like the ideas, or they are not able to implement them, or whatever.
WB has a nice, helpful community and a (mostly) co-operative development team. But does Pacer have, too?
Doesn't look like this.
I think requesting the removal of a module (which is in beta state, just to mention it) from the bundle was a very simple test. They failed. They could have asked 'Why?'. They could have said: 'We like your work, we would be happy to bundle it. It's in your interest.' But instead, they just said: 'No, you released under GPL, end of discussion.'
So how will they act on other requests? Maybe more expensive (time consuming) ones? When asking for a backend enhancement, for example?
It's very interesting that this leads to a "political" discussion, insisting on licenses and such things. It's interesting that you're blaming _me_, telling me I shall leave the Open Source Community.
That's what I called "style". :-P
-
Hello everybody,
I'm someone who tried to get things moving on WB! Where was the community when the discussion about the fork took place?
Only some of you, now concerned by our move, where then there.
In several month the thinking heads of WB couldn't came out with a realistic plan for a feature that could meet the 'minimum standards' to bring WB to the next level so in only 2 month and only few people involved, the Pacer Edition came to a point.
We feel sorry for the everyone feeling about the ideas and code we picked up along the way thinking of a better use for our project than the present one on WB.
Feel free to express your concerns about the use of your initial idea, but please don't ask the community to stop using it!
The idea of a new project is (maybe) bringing some new life under the sun. It's not a war and for sure not a personal one.
As many projects start from a previous idea and code, any new developments can profit of the 'status quo' and then proceed with new implementations. Our idea is as simple as "get the good ideas and bring up a new (possibly) better product".
I personally took some code and add my small or huge modifications to get at the end a complete new product (sometime a better one) to make available for the public and never got jealous of something ment to be public.
Having some of my work taken in consideration and even bundled in any project, actually would make me proud!
The restrictions of use of some modules I see happening now and in the near future is the opposite on what we're doing.
Regards
Stefano
-
@scharmpro
Feel free to express your concerns about the use of your initial idea, but please don't ask the community to stop using it!
With your decision to announce your fork in the WB Forum you accepted the discussion here about your fork. So one thing is clear, you are here in the WebsiteBaker Discussion Forum and it must be allowed a open discussion about your fork, even the opinion to not use your fork must be allowed. If you don't wanna have discussed your fork in this way, you should have not opened this thread in the WebsiteBaker Community.
And as i see on your posts it looks like you definetely not interested in any discussion. This was the same as you decided to built a fork. You didn't accept other opinions then yours, how WB should be developped further.
So WebsiteBaker will be a community Project and your fork is a product of you and JohnP. I really hoped you find back to our community, but the way you do things (not allowing TinyMCE on AMASP, using graphics without asking the developper if you are allowed using it, the handling of EasyMenu ...) shows again that you are not interested on a community. So i think you only wanna use this fantastic and helpfull community to marketing your fork.
By the way, tested your fork and i never saw a beta wich produces more errors then yours. Starting from the install script where you are not able to allow higher php versions then 5.2.6 ending with your advertised sidebar wich didn't work on all tested servers. So your announced "next level" is a deeper (a very deeper) level and definately not a higher level. I Invite alll WB users to test the fork and built their own opinion.
Matthias
-
I'm someone who tried to get things moving on WB! Where was the community when the discussion about the fork took place?
Which discussion? You mean that simple post in 2008 in a forum that is not read by regular WB users? No one responded on that post, as obviously no one knew about it. I for sure didn't, and I am a forum regular.
Look, it's perfectly allright to create a fork, why not? But why didn't you try to communicate about it better? Why not introduce your team and project properly? Why not tell us clearly why you decided to create a fork, why you think it is better, why you have lost faith in the WB development and community, and what your goals are. You don't even give that basic info on the project site.
Instead you drop an announcement on the WB forum, ask people to visit the project site, and when people go there, many basic questions are not answered. And when people are a bit agitated in the forum, nothings is done to callm us down, to explain, to try to cooperate, etc. All this together doesn't really create a positive attitude towards your project and team. That's a shame, cause combined efforts to make WB better could be a good thing.
-
Hi everybody,
personally I think the discussion about the fork is a good thing! It didn't really happened when was the time to talk about the future development of WB.
And this wasn't promoted by anyone of the existing community.
May be the 'status quo' is what WB wanted.
BTW feel free to use, modify, repack, bundle and possibly make some $$ out of the modules I released for the community, I did it exactly for these porpoises.
Regards
Stefano
-
Hello,
have downloaded the Pacer Editon and gave it a try on a local webserver (XAMPP 1.7.1 (http://www.apachefriends.org/de/xampp-windows.html)). Installation stocked but a colleague changed something in the install script to get it running. However, non of the Pacer Functions worked for me or my colleague. Will try it again once a more stable version gets released :wink:.
Also looking forward to test the announced release candidate of WebsiteBaker 2.8. Good to see that things are progressing.
so long
mysoft
-
As said above, it appears that the only purpose of this post was to blatantly advertise the pacer edition. Not to provide open discussion about it, not to clarify the reasons for its existence. It seems this post is only adding to the confusion. I might not have read clearly enough, however from what I have gathered I doubt I will support future posting about this fork as all it does is seem to cause FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).
-
Exactly.
BTW, nice to see you again, Ryan.
-
Ryan, nice to meet you! :-D
I think this thread shows a great discrepancy in the intentions of the Pacer Fork authors. They want the WB community to support their fork, well, they need the community to do so. But they don't seem to be willing to give the same goodwill back to the community.
There was a good reason to request the removal of EasyMenu from Pacer: That time, it seemed that they had stolen the WB Portable Logo for their CMS. (It's a strange behaviour, anyway, to not create a very new logo for something distributed under a very new name, too. It leaves a bad flavour.)
Of course, I was proud to see that EM was chosen to be bundled into another CMS. If the response to my request would have been less unkind, that guys would have proven that the misuse of the logo was a mistake. All they've proven instead is that they don't want to cooperate with the community. (Only as far as it's to their own benefit.) That's very annoying. :-(
I'm sure no one - especially not me - wanted to start a "religious war" here. Things started to get out of control when insisting on licenses instead of offering some will for cooperation. I'm sure the community will support WB Forks the same way it is supporting WB itself - but this is not the right way to introduce a fork. I think the damage that was done to Pacer is serious.
-
Things started to get out of control when insisting on licenses instead of offering some will for cooperation
As it was I who was mentioning the licence issue I had better make something clear. I am not associated with the fork at all - all I was offering was advice on the legality of licence use.
-
But John insisted on the license, too. See his answer here. It was the one and only answer to my request.
https://forum.WebsiteBaker.org/index.php/topic,14309.msg88979.html#msg88979
Edit: Thought I should quote it here, as people sometimes remove parts of their posts.
Take note EasyMenu was Developed for an open source community for the open source community to use as is... Though The Pacer Edition is a forked Edition to WebsiteBaker it still under the WebsiteBaker GNU General Public License. The Pacer Edition is released by JCWebDen.com and WebsiteBaker core is released under the GNU General Public License.
Website baker is open source community and so is the pacer edition the difference between the to versions is we have moved forward when others would not.
So the easymenu is staying in place.
-
From the point of view of a user who made the decision to go with WB despite of all the CMS opposition products at the time and ever increasingly so now, I am deeply disturbed by the turn of events. I've always received admirable support from WB.
It seems to be more a matter of a lot of egos and bruised egos rather than setting about a renewed collaborative effort to move WB forward to the benefit of its community.
If the original difference was one of which framework to use in further development, or to rewrite the whole thing and a compromise could not be reached which satisfied all the participants then why not allow those people to breakaway and develop their own version with the full knowledge of the consequences. That being that the success / failure of their endeavours will inevitably be decided by the community? Is that not the democratic way? Is that not what Ryan decided to do? Not sure of the circumstances as to why he chose to distance himself from WB but I see no difference between the two. The manner in which the Pacer chose to do it though is debatable and needlessly shrouded in secrecy.
In terms of the Pacer team announcing their product launch on the forum, does it not indicate that they still have an affinity and allegiance to WB, the first place and natural place to announce the result of their hard work ?
Ethically though (and that's what it comes down to) using code without prior consultation and first asking for permission from its owner (developer) in my opinion does amount to plagiarism and common sense & courtesy would have demanded better behaviour from Pacer.
I think they know that have acted wrongly, having difficulty accepting it and can't justify it which is why they demonstrate such recalcitrance and stubbornness. When pushed into a corner that's a common defence mechanism where hotheads rule. You can sense in one of JohnP's replies his disappointment at receiving criticism rather than being judged on his contribution. Surely a simple apology and an equally simple request to the developer would have been sufficient to bring all concerned on board? The Pacer, you may be completely convinced of the validity and value of your work but your ultimate success surely depends on acquiring the support of all stakeholders , so a defiant attitude will only work against you.
The basic question to me as an end user is how does The Pacer differ from version 2.8? Is the Pacer team willing to resume genuine discussion with established developers to settle any outstanding issues and differences? Are WB developers willing to objectively investigate the product to see if it has any merits, if indeed their product represents an advance in ease of use, operability, breaking technology that can be included into WB? How can the work that they've done benefit future versions? If not then what is the alternative?
You have all the same objective in mind, just taken different avenues, so how can you converge again into the one road that will take the best of both worlds and combine it into a whole which places WB at the forefront of CMS development? The accolades would then with great pride be equally distributed to all concerned.
The Pacer team could also learn a lesson from their impulsive behaviour. In your haste to release the product there is very little assistance afforded to a non tech minded person like myself. If you expect us to make judgements on your product then some simple installation instructions will be welcome. None is provided on your site and neither in the file that I downloaded so I can't even begin to make a comment.
In conclusion, I hope that cool heads can prevail so that a collaborative effort is once more restored to allay as Ryan puts it FUD. The community and its users will then I am sure will be even more pleased to lend its full support and thanks to the altruistic sharing of your experience, hard work and dedication.
-
@Potain: Excellent comments. (Love your fantabulous, erudite vernacular. :-))