On May 10, 1:36 pm, Rusty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After a lot of researching on CPL vs GPLv3 and reading the comments in > this discussion I have come to the following conclusion: > > The change to GPLv3 from CPL will severly stunt FarCry's growth. > Please Don't do it! > > Why? The future is plugins baby! > With FarCry 5 being able to be deployed to shared hosting (and > possibly compatible with Blue Dragon?) this is its first big chance to > convert the masses, this is its first time it has a chance to not only > be the best CF option for CMS or web application development but a > real contender VS the Joomla, Mambo, Drupal's.
You do realise that Joomla, Mambo and Drupal are *all* released under GPL? > FarCry 5 is a very slick framework with good out of the box > functionality. Is Mambo or Drupal successful because of its good core > features? Nope its the mountains of modules or plugins that have been > developed by the community that are available that make these CMS's > very attractive. Does ColdFusion currently have an army of developers > willing to submit there work and contribute to open source projects? > Not quite. The ability to easily develop & install plugins to FarCry 5 > is great but it’s the amount of plugins + quality that is going to be > to a major factor in whether it not only survives but thrives! GPLv3 > will hurt plugin development not encourage it. What? But history would suggest that despite plugins being an option since the release of FarCry 4.0 I can count on one hand the people who have released their plugins to the community -- the rest have been kept closed source. Admittedly this means that nearly all the plugins are of a high quality -- unlike other communities where you have to wade through 30 plugins of a particularly type just to work out which would be any good. These modules you refer to in other communities -- certainly in the case of Drupal and I suspect Mambo -- are GPL. Can you point to plugins in the Mambo, Joomla or Drupal community that are closed source? Or even released under a different license to GPL? > The best way to encourage plugin development within the CF community > is allow the ability to release and market them without restriction. I > know there is plenty of love in the CF community but the majority of > CF developers are unfortunately not selfless open source contributing > types so you need to play to the strengths of the average CF dev. > Forget about the typical FarCry 4 install at the moment (government, > corporate etc) and think about the potential install base for version > 5 with shared hosting...by keeping the CPL model you have the chance > to make it a no brainer for every ColdFusion developer out there to > pick FarCry for their next CMS based web app. I'd dispute this would be any different under GPL. I'm not sure why there is this belief that people after a free CMS would not consider FarCry because its GPL vs CPL. It doesn't appear to be an issue in any other programming community. Selfish or selfless -- there is nothing stopping CF developers using FarCry under GPL to deploy sites in a shared hosting environment. In fact, I'd argue that the type of project deployed to a shared host hardly needs to jealously guard any particular aspect of their code base in any event. Again specific examples of how GPL would prohibit development are needed. > If you change to GPLv3 and the majority of FarCry installs are under > this license, plugin developers can't sell their plugins to be > installed into GPL FarCry, they would be forced to distribute under > GPL. You then get less plugins developed and the result being that > FarcCry will always be behind the other major CMS's in terms of > features. If FarCry is plain GPL, without a modification to the license, *all* plugins would be GPL, because they extend the underlying framework directly. If we provide an exception to the GPL we could allow plugins to be licensed differently. Perhaps as LGPL or even Commercial. However, its true that users are always going to have negotiate potential complications trying to distribute their GPL based FarCry application with a Commercial plugin. Of course a commercial license for the FarCry core would remove any complication. We are drafting an exception for templates and considering another for plugins. Would an exception allowing plugin developers to release under different licenses allay your concerns? Again I would remind you that the "other CMSs" you refer to as being ahead are in fact GPL today, and have been since inception. And do *not* have commercial licensing options available. Thanks for the feedback - its appreciated! -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ PS. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
