Last week, I mentioned that the the Drupal SMFforum Integration module was no longer being supported by the module's project leader, "vb". Apparently, Simple Machines had not granted permission to the module developer to distribute code found in the SMF application as required by the Simple Machines License. While some discussion followed this announcement at the SMF forums, as well as here at CMS Report, none of this discussion compared to what took place at the Open Source Community.

The good news is that Simple Machines LLC has granted vb to continue distributing some of the SMF code to work with the Drupal SMFforum Integration module. vb wrote:

I am glad to announce that distribution of the smf_api_2 package is resumed due to the express permission granted from Simple Machines LLC.
You can download the new package from http://vgb.org.ru/download.

"Orstio", SMF CMS Bridge Developer, added the following at Open Source Community:

Development of the SMFforum Integration module for Drupal is no longer.  Amy Stephen over at OpenSourceCommunity.org pointed out on her blog that the module's project  leader, "vb", pulled the module due to licensing disagreements with SMF LLC.  Amy references vb's original post at the Drupal forum, but she has a lot more to say.  Amy's an active participant in the Joomla! community, a community which had their own issues with a bridge between Joomla! and SMF.

According to vb's post, an email sent by Michael "Oldiesmann" Eshom, Project Manager, Simple Machines LLC stated that:

The problem isn't with the smfforum.module file or the packages distributed on drupal.org. The problem is with the "smf_api_subs.php" file that you're distributing as part of the smf api package - it contains modified versions of several SMF functions, and you did not ask for permission to use this code or distribute it.

It appears that Simple Machines LLC doesn't have so much of a problem with bridging SMF and Drupal as much as they have issues with their own code being used without proper permission.  The Simple Machines License clearly states that "Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC."  No word on whether Simple Machines LLC would endorse the use of their code if permission is asked.

IBM developerWorks: One of the most dramatic changes in software development practice over the past ten years is the building of "composite" software systems -- a combination of homegrown, open source, and third-party components, which allows teams to rapidly deliver advanced, comprehensive solutions. However, the unmanaged use of open source and third-party components adds risk. It can violate intellectual property rights, create unknown royalty obligations, increase maintenance costs, and introduce unidentified security vulnerabilities.

Complete Story

"SharePoint 2007 (MOSS) is described by Microsoft as an enterprise content management system. However, under the covers it sports web content management, document management, search, collaboration and business intelligence, among other talents.

If you ask the experts, the primary target market for SharePoint is small and medium businesses (SMBs). If you ask SMBs you might get a different answer though — as the licensing model alone is enough to send most of them running, with tails tucked tightly between their legs."

Complete Story at CMS Wire

"Are you a crafter of icons, sounds, backgrounds and splash screens, or even window manager themes? Selecting the right license for your artwork to coexist with free software is no trivial task. Creative Commons (CC) and Free Software Foundation (FSF) licenses each have their advantages, but they are mutually incompatible. The two groups are beginning to move toward simplifying the situation, but in the meantime there are several things you can do to make license compatibility easier.

The crux of the problem is that non-software artwork like the examples above occupies a strange niche inside free software applications and operating systems. They are not code, but they are tightly integrated into the system. Artists frequently create them as standalone works, but they are also -- by necessity -- bundled into software packages and distributions, many of which are under the FSF's General Public License (GPL)."

Complete Story

eWeek has a slideshow of Microsoft's top 25 open source projects.

With a bid underway to obtain the blessing of the Open Source Initiative for two of its software licenses, Microsoft is working to burnish its open source credentials. Here are the 25 most active projects, as of August 21, on Microsoft's CodePlex open source project hosting Web site, along with the licenses under which the projects have been released.

Let me ask you this, what would likely happen if Microsoft opened up Windows Vista?  Do you think open source developers would pitch in to improve Vista or would they gut the code and start building a new Windows operating system from scratch?

I ask the above question because after three months of using Windows Vista I'm about to give up.  I haven't been this frustrated since Windows ME and I'm now counting the years instead of months before I'm comfortable enough to deploy Vista in the office.  At home, I'm ready to buy my wife a Mac (something I said I would never do) and convert my own Dell E520 into a Linux box.

I am not an anti-Microsoft person but make no mistake I'm anti-Vista all the way.  I know I'm not the only one about ready to give up on Vista and many of us will likely give Microsoft a chance to put things right with Vista's first service pack.  However, if the Vista operating system is still buggy after its service pack, this long time Windows user will be saying adiós Microsoft.

"It is fair to say the GPL does not intend to make it easy for proprietary software.The intention is to liberate code and ensure continual downstream benefits to users. So, yes, it's going to be easier to integrate open source code into a GPL'ed environment. And, as it should be!

It is important that community environments also ensure that open source developers benefit more than proprietary developers. It hasn't been that way in J! [Joomla!] or in Mambo."

 --Amy Stephen, OpenSourceCommunity.org, Comment to CMS Report's Is bridging a GPL application with a non-GPL application legal?

Amy Stephen over at Open Source Community has put together a good summary for how differing open source CMS projects have interpreted the impact the GPL has on third-party extensions/modules/plugins/add-ons.  Movement in the Joomla community ensuring GPL compliance for extensions is what prompted her comparisons of license interpretation between Drupal, Joomla, Plone, Typo3, Wordpress, and XOOPS.

Joomla!'s announcement from June 15, 2007 that began Joomla! is moving to ensure the future of the project by committing to compliance with the GNU/GPL license was a bit shocking to many accustomed to the Mambo proprietary extension licensing exception.

Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer because it really is difficult to know who is right and who is wrong in their interpretation of the GPL.  Probably the most confusing interpretation is in the area of bridges where a third-party module is used to connect a GPL application with a non-GPL application.  The significant impact of a strict interpretation of the GPL license can be clearly seen though Simple Machine's announcement of a SMF Bridge for Joomla! being discontinued due to the license interpretation change.  If you read the correspondence between SMF's developers and the Freedom Software Foundation representatives you come to the conclusion that even though the bridge is GPL you could still have legal issues if both applications being bridged are not under the GPL.

"When a community grows to this size, we all must look inward to see where our core values will lead us. In this case, the entire core team and OSM have spoken in unison, and in this project’s case, the values include compliance with the GPL.

Some people have argued that this is a “strict interpretation” of the GPL. I’m not sure what they mean, however, as this simply is the way the GPL was written. In fact, those providing legal guidance to our community on this issue, the Software Freedom Law Center, are the people that helped write the GPL."

Complete Story | Found via OpenSourceCommunity.org

"He's very right about why you should choose to use an open source project. But what about why you should start one, or release your own code open source? As a developer, that's a far more interesting question for me.

The answer is simple, too: I want the opportunity to show that I'm the best. Not just be the best, but put my skills to the test against others."

Complete Story