And then you reply by using your same arrogant tone - no wonder the plugin developers don't want to work with you - who would

So what do you want me to say? Should I just let everybody understand he has a forum and I'm an idiot for saying he doesn't? What do you want from me? I took my time and tried to help the Geeklog project and then I stand alone while everybody attacks me. And then even though I'm about the only one in this topic who didn't use a flame word, I'm considered the attacker because I have the nerve to defend myself.

You want arrogant? I sit for weeks fixing millions of bugs in 4 outdated plugins and then get flamed by anonymous users that have probably never contributed a single line of code to Geeklog.

This was supposed to a topic in which people report about the plugins and ask for new features, not a who's got a bigger *$# competition.

Try something like:

"Ooops, sorry everyone, I screwed up. I realize now that this was a bad idea and that I should have talked to all the plugin authors first, at least out of courtesy, but also because of purely practical matters. "

And don't add anything to it that looks like you are trying to place blame elsewhere or point out other people's mistakes, so that it's clear that you know you were the one messing up here.

It's really that simple.

So it's not ok to politely point out others' mistakes, but it's ok to point out mine and flame me. Makes sense.

Well, I did write in Blaine's forum and told him over e-mail I plan to update myself if he doesn't (and offered the fixes to make it register_global free, etc.). That was like a year ago.

What LWC did is commendable. To everyone else in this thread: SHAME ON YOU!

As long as he kept credits intact in the source, LWC's actions fall under the full spirit and intent of GPL. Those chastising him here show ignorance of its terms and give the open source movement a bad name.

Under GPL, there is no requirement for anyone to ask permission or contact the original programmers before releasing modified versions. If you don't like this, use a different license because you all sure look stupid going after someone who is correctly following a license which the authors chose.

I too can buy a Chevrolet, remove the Chevrolet symbol, replace it with my own, make modifications to the engine, interior and wiring and then re-sell the call as a "Shevrolet".

Sounds the same, looks the same, but its not the same. The Buyer couldn't take the "Shevy" back to a "Chevrolet" dealer for service and may be absolutelly confused as to why.

This has nothing to do with the GPL, but more to do with proper ethical forking of a project and not releasing it under the same name.

Hi,

this is part from GPL (general public license)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
--- copied text ---
If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations. 

Of course you are right! no-one is using those forums on sourceforge.
but if people dont ask questions in those forums and dont leave comments on the website, I do not see a reason why I would need a forum installed on my site.
People send me email, and thats fine.



No-one is blaming you for releasing new versions of the code. The problem lies ONLY within using the same name. Only that. You can release 10 new version of my code as long as it has a different name for the plugin. I would be happy. I would not look down to you ONE BIT or write ANY negative comment on the release-announcement.

[QUOTE Wikipedia]
Open-source software is computer software whose source code is available under a copyright license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified form.[/QUOTE]

I thought you'd be happy to take my code and go from there, now that it's register_globals free and all, but you say you rather leave your version outdated until you do it yourself (and probably just repeat what I did) than accept fixes you didn't ask for. You rather leave the links in the stats broken (until you fix them personally) than accept my fix for that and so on.

The bottom line is everything has to go through you because it's your open source software - how can you not see the paradox? I still don't understand what ever drew you to open source code. Obviously you hate the very concept of open source software. As long as your code's name is used, you want your code to be yours and yours alone (and if you don't update, tough for us. Like Samson, you're taking the temple down with you), you want everything to go through you, you want to have total control. I'm not saying everyone must like open source, but you don't see Microsoft using open source in the first place.

By what you said above, it sounds to me your philosophy is more of that of a freeware concept. Unfortunately, you're in the wrong project.

What you have to understand is that the version you held was not the version that is the most advanced in existance. I continued to make a version that would work with GL 1.4.1

It is the same as if you took version 1.1 and made a version 2. I do not want to work again on version 1.1 even though you fixed 1 or two things that I did not fix until now. That is why I do not want to work with your version. And I want to continue workin on the sf.net site, and on tokyoahead.com since thats where the users come to get the "Multifaq" plugin.

Just the fact that you have a forum does not change anything. I had a forum installed on my site and closed it since the people kept sending email and it was not used.

And you are right, it does not have to go "through me". But if there is a change from me to you there has to be a proper transition so that no code is lost and that the users are taken along the path so updates would not break.

And I will have to be ready so that it goes "through you". If I do not want to do that for whatever reason, you will be forced to use a different name since that is what the release license says. You are simply not allowed to release a modified version under the same name without me allowing you to do so.

Open source does not equal no source control. Every project has controls on the software development process. You have designers, coders, code reviewers and qa. It is not a free for all.

It's quite simple, if someone makes changes to an existing project, you work on the current code base or submit changes that can easily be merged. Current code base doesn't mean the lastest version. If for some reason the above doens't work out, then feel free to FORK the project and call it a NEW NAME AND VERSION. That is the double edge sword of GPL. But you do need to call it something else.

Some decisions need to be made. Either work with the existing plugin authors or fork the plugins. I would like to see you work with the authors. It looks to me that tokyoahead has opened the door your you to help. I would continue the conversion on the plugin mailing list, IRC or email.

Hopefully the decisions made will help the community.

D

What you have basically said (through your actions) by releasing these projects as newer versions of the existing ones is that you are taking over those projects.

As a user, this could be a simple "oh ok, the development has shifted from Mr X to Mr Y" but this is not the case ... Mr X is still carrying on. Now the problems for the average user are "Whose version do I use? Who do I turn to if there are problems? What happens when Mr X releases a new version after I have taken Mr Ys version?"

You have said in a previous post that you don't want to take credit for the basis of the plugins, which I think some others may have overlooked. I don't think anyone is slamming you for making an effort, just the way you are doing it. If you are unhappy with the way the current projects go then, as GPLd code, you can take it and make a fork and drive it in the direction you wish. If you choose to do this though then you are the one that has to do the work if the original plugin author(s) release a new version and you want to keep up. You will have chosen to fork, not them. However, I would say that making a fork should be for a better reason than just to provide a few updates to an existing (in development) plugin.

As a wise person recently said "Hopefully the decisions made will help the community". I think you can clearly see that the current course is not doing so, yet the solution is so simple.

I tryed to instaling forum v4 and chatter block v4..
forum gived some errors and chatterblock cannot installed..

i am not recommend this plugins!!!!

---

_KEMAL_

Would you change your code quote to just quote? The wrapping was crippled because of this.

Anyway, I said from the start I'll only release them officially after public testing, so if you don't feel like testing and don't want the new fixes and features (especially if you're talking about Chatterblock), just don't download instead of causing a mayhem.

You've already reported the forum bug in my forums and thanks to your report I quickly solved it for everyone, re-uploaded it, and also wrote to you how to personally fix it in your specific situation. If you reported the error about Chatterblock there, it would probably have been fixed by now, but that's not as exciting I guess.

So as for Chatterblock, I'd like to ask you to also quote Geeklog's own error log. Plus tell me this - are you completely sure you didn't mix files with the old version? Because I haven't even touched plugin_uninstall_chatterblock. It's right there in functions.inc

LWC, just as a reminder:

If you continue distributing under the original names, you are violating the GPL.

Please stop doing so. Do all of us original authors the favour of respect, avoid take those versions of your website and change the names before you put them back or send versions of it out by email.

To the best for the community
Yes, please. I will not defend or offend anyone.
Many plugins are outdated, and when updated this comes fairly late after a upgrade of GL that require some changes in the plugins.
Geeklog could be even better, if all plugins and themes could be updated and released at the same time as an upgrade og GL.
In that way all elements could function together!
If anyone have a fix or update for any plugin, why not use the help that are supplied? (plugin developers)
I have the impression that if a plugin developer does not find his/hers plugin usefull for theirselves, the plugin are laid dead.
There are many plugins that I, and others, have found usefull, and had to track down via all sorts of sites to find an old version and rework several functions to make it work on newer installs of GL.
When a plugin has had no development for over a year, often it seems that plugins for GL are not a priority!
To be a bit on the edge; often it seems that the only plugins for GL are forum (when will v 2.5 be ready btw), filemgmt, and .. well thats it.
If all plugins for GL could be updated along the way with new versions of GL, Im sure that the other good features of GL would be considered to be taken in use by a lot more users than for now.

I find LWC effort to improve plugins that has had no or little development in the last a very good initiative, but I agree in that releasing under the same name as the old plugin in best case would be confusing and make the users lose control over what plugins has what features and so on.
There are a few examples when a take-over of a plugin has been a good thing, an example is the stats-plugin who are continued under the name GUS.
But when the original author has not stopped working on his plugin, of cource this can not be done. But I hope that in the future an plugin-author could be available when a user finds things that could be improved, and work together to update the codebase.
I have several times in this forum or by mail helped with fixing bugs and find new features for plugins, and almost as many times talked to a brick-wall with other authors. The result varies likewise.

How to make the plugin development and maintenance more smooth and keep up the work to follow new versions of GL?

you are right. There is only one problem:

manpower.

For example, I am developing 3-5 different projects now, next to my normal job. On of them is the geeklog core code, another a completely different CMS. Over the last two releases I have re-written polls, links & the calendar plugins in adition to that. All other developers for the core and the major plugins have the same issue. And I dont get a cent for that, not even the link back to my site that I ask for in some of the code I write. There is more abuse then praise for that matter.

Further, most people who ask for features are even too lazy to help the developers by filling out a feature request form or a bug report on the project pages of the software, let alone contributing code.
Its not that I get tons of emails for my plugins, and you see my tracker on sf.net and there is nothing either. How can I know what is important for people if there is only 1 person asking for something in 6 months?

The upcoming issues with hackers and spammers take even more time for the core away from the plugins. And in adition, there is not always a necessity to update the plugin when its working allright with the current release of GL. Most of the time its about nice-to-have features, not great new developement.

I have to agree totally with Tokyoahead not only because I know how hard he has worked on the Core GL 1.4.1 release the past months but because he also spends a great deal of time supporting users with questions. I have the same priorities and demands on my time and have been very active on the most recent GL release - you may want to subscribe to CVS updates to see how much time and late evenings are freely contributed, or read the included history file. We don't ask for much - but yes, that effects the many other projects we have contributed in the past as plugins.

Our plugin projects are not abandoned but are prioritized and we are not always able to release as many updates. It takes a lot more effort to release and support a new version then one first thinks and so releasing a plugin with one change unless it's a security issue or serious SEV1 (can not use - no workaround) bug then it should be combined.

Example: I have over 100 hours into a new forum release (yes - I got your indirect reference Casper) but my progress gets delayed and my free GL times first goes to User support then GL 1.4.1 work. I have often set aside time to work on the Forum and have had to spend the weekend on GL 1.4.1 work the past months.

Working together on a plugin (which I have done many times) first requires being able to work together (respect, appreciation, enjoyment) and scheduling of our time. We are very fortunate that the Core GL team has all of this.

I can not stop someone from taking my hard work and freely contributed plugins and stomping all over them, changing a few lines and releasing a new version. I only ask as Tokyoahead has stated - change the name and ensure they do not in anyway reference the same name or conflict with an original installed version - And yes - retain all references to the original author.

---

Geeklog components by PortalParts -- www.portalparts.com

As someone who has both taken over from another author [Visitor Stats/GUS], and had a plugin taken over by someone else [GL_Gallery2/G2 Bridge], I thought I'd chime in here.

In both those cases, I discussed with the other developer the ifs/whens/hows/ to make a smooth transition. In both cases, the names were changed to avoid confusion. In the case of the stats I worked damn hard to make sure the old data could be migrated to provide continuity between the two plugins. In both cases, all parties involved were mature about it and worked together.

When I read the first post I thought it was quite arrogant of LWC to proceed the way he did. After reading the whole thread through, I still think so. It's not the fact that he made changes and wants to release them - it's that he is releasing them with the same names [and presumably the same db table names which will cause a headache for sure]. To me this isn't about what's allowed/not allowed by the license. It's not about open source vs. closed source mentalities. It's about common decency and respect for others and their work. LWC has failed on both counts.

Now as for what Casper wrote, I think Tokyoahead and Blaine covered that quite well. I just want to vent a little and comment on this:



Frankly, they're not. All of the developers of the core and the plugins work for free. This means they are the ones who set the priority - not the users. Family comes before GL development. Paid work comes before GL development. Sitting around relaxing with a whisky [or whiskey depending where you're from] comes before GL development.

The developers have to get something out of it - personal satisfaction, recognition, beefing up the CV - otherwise they would not spend their free time working on free software.

You have to understand that the vast majority of feedback we get [I'm basing this on almost all open source/free source projects I've worked on] fall into these categories:

• "this is broken, fix it for me now for free"
• "I would lower myself to use your work for free if you did X to it"
• "this is a stupid piece of shit - why would you work on that?"
• "I've created the mother of all patches to fix the kitchen sink - include it now"
• some form of entitlement ["I'm the user I'm entitled to X"]

Not all developers can put up with this day in and day out and still remain interested in what they're doing. Kudos to the core developers.

So please don't bash us because we aren't living up to your expectations - be happy that there is a group of dedicated developers providing cool stuff for free. [By dedicated I mean of course the other developers - I did lose interest and only update things occasionally.]

But now I'm ranting [maybe even raving?]...

I Googled for info about GPU and name changes and found such a parallel world it's scary - just thought I'd share.

Blaine, you did leave loop holes because you spoke in general, but I wouldn't call pages and pages of fixes (I just wrote the highlights in this topic and even those were a lot more than) "changing a few lines and releasing a new version". You guys can say a lot of things (and you sure did), but saying what you said is insulting after my weeks of work the results of which I shared with you all for free and with credit inside every file of every plugins. If you even take one element from the list, like making them register_globals free, it's insulting.

asmaloney, you forgot the most evil category of all. The one that even the worst of the worst of your categories can't compete with:
"I know you don't have time and this is broken, so I fixed it for you for free."
The message is simple, no one expects you to work on the plugins, but also not to stop others from doing so (Blaine specifically answered neither e-mail, my topics in his your own forums, nor runs CVS for his plugins that I know of). Especially when they're willing to hand you back the plugins whenever you want to continue your work and all they wanted was for you to have an easier job because the bugs are fixed and you could focus on new features.

With that said...I'm in the process of changing the names (read: tables, paths, function names) which takes a huge amount of time (that could be spent on new features) because you guys didn't really develop the plugins with a possible name change in mind (what's for sure, when I'm done, my versions would have that in mind and I did learn a lot about automating a plugin's properties of all kinds).

I'm finally done with the none MultiFAQ MultiFAQ and it's now in its testing phase (if anyone wants to volunteer, this is the place).

Of course, it means the communitee loses the ability to naturally have their old forums/files/news/(Multi)FAQ in the new versions, but that's the price. I will however work on importing facilities, which of course would take even more time.