Hi Bruno, thank so much for your movuca
i tried this version: rochacbruno-Movuca-ed8c8dc but got error:
run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca
/setup/installhttp://localhost:8000/sns/setup/install
--- it shows: bootstrap
run : http://localhost:8000/ movuca
Looks like you have an error because of your web2py version.
Movuca requires web2py-trunk, it needs the new user_groups key in auth,
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:45 AM, kokoyo hoatre2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno, thank so much for your movuca
i tried this version: rochacbruno-Movuca-ed8c8dc but
Exactly, It works like a charm after updated web2py version as you said.
Amazing
speed
thank a lot Bruno
regards.
On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 4:54:28 PM UTC+9, rochacbruno wrote:
Looks like you have an error because of your web2py version.
Movuca requires web2py-trunk, it needs the new
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:06:26 -0200
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I want every one to be able to use it, customize it and deploys, sell
support, sell as a service. But I want to keep it Open Source (I
mean, I dont want someone to take the code and release a tool called
Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network features (as
likes, shares, users and connections...)
By now Movu.ca is in Alpha release, there are a lot of work to be done and
some areas to improve, but now it is a nice base to start any development
which needs social+CMS features.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:17 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network
features (as likes, shares, users and connections...)
We just need general-purpose CMS without neeed for socila network stuff.
By now Movu.ca is in Alpha
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:17 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS with focus on social network
features (as likes, shares, users and connections...)
Tried to install according to:
https://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca#readme but got error ticket:
have you done it first?
- http://localhost:8000/appname/setup/install
??
It is needed to populate the config db
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:17 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Movu.ca is a general purpose CMS
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:15:32 -0300
Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
have you done it first?
Opps, forgot it. :-(
Thank you...it works now. ;)
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to
Yeah, something simple like Tumblr would be nice.
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:22:33 AM UTC-7, Gour wrote:
We just need general-purpose CMS without neeed for socila network stuff.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM, pbreit pbreitenb...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, something simple like Tumblr would be nice.
tumblr has a lot of social networking features
--
Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]
You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the
CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is
just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against. Because how
useful would that changes be to others? I believe it would make more sense
You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the
CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is
just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against.
I don't see how that is abusive if the license allows it.
It is not possible to
Wow this topic is still going on. It seems clear if you want to use non-GPL
licensed code then you require LGPL. If you want all your code to be public
domain then use GPL. It seems pointless to keep telling someone to use GPL
after reading the requirements with the other code they want to
thank you all, this post is a livensing tutorial.
I changed Movuca to LGPL, I will talk to Michele about facebook contribs.
I am finishing the instalation interface and admin panel. Planning to pack
and release b0.1 until next weekend.
Thank you all for the help.
http://zerp.ly/rochacbruno
Em
Sorry, I was not precise. I was describing a case in which there is a
dependency on a code under a license which is GPL compatible and not
compatible with LGPL. So I meant simpler in that context. I agree that
for projects with no such dependency there would be no difference in
difficulty.
LGPL is designed for libraries. Static or dynamic linking to LGPL code is
allowed without enforcing copy-left. That means that the derivative work
can even be a proprietary software. However, if you change the library code
itself, you modification has to be released under LGPL. Since version 3
With web2py being licensed under LGPL it is possible to build applications
which are proprietary software. To some degree it is even possible to build
another web framework that uses unchanged web2py code as back-end. In
practice, however, the latter is too complicated on a technical level. The
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
GPLv3
Whats the key differences between GPLv3 and LGPLv3 ?
--
Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]
Here is why openoffice moved from GPL to LGPL:
http://blogs.oracle.com/webmink/entry/openoffice_org_goes_to_lgplv3
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
GPLv3
On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:09:56 PM UTC-5, rochacbruno wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
GPLv3
Whats the key differences between GPLv3 and LGPLv3 ?
I think basically LGPL allows linking of proprietary software and GPL
well, I did it, LGPLv3
https://github.com/rochacbruno/Movuca/blob/master/LICENSE
I needed to choose today because I will start a big project for one client
using Movuca as base, and I read too much (do not understand everything)
but I think LPGP will fits it.
Only question I have is:
I am using
CKEditor is licensed under LGPL, so you're good there. As for
plugin_ckeditor. I wrote it, but I haven't given it a license yet (on my
todo list). However, I will probably go with LGPL as well. It only makes
sense as web2py and CKEditor are both LGPL. So you are all set with the
CKEditor
Thank you Anthony, I am going to talk about it with Michele.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
Only question I have is:
I am using MIchelle's code to facebook and google Oauth. [
What I see you are trying to say is that by keeping the code secret one
gains a temporary advantage over the competition. That might be true. But
this is the way of thinking coming from the proprietary software
philosophy. How much will I loose by making the software free? If this is
your line
I can see your point even though I don't 100% agree with it. I write most
of my code opensource, however I also have been writing software for a
living for around 14 years so sometimes we don't have the choice between
open and closed source.
We also can't expect only people interested in free
*Movuca goals:*
*Everybody should be able to use it for free*
- Use it for creating sites, blogs and social networks (free or commercial)
*Everybody can sell it as a service*
- Use it to offer Movuca based websites as a service
- Use it for developing websites for customers
*Everybody can
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:
GPL = Doesn't want anyone making money off their code and forces people to
recommit their code. This is good because everyone gets the code, bad
because you don't have a choice.
This is not completely true.
GPL has
Yes exactly what I want.
I should go with GPL3 or LGPL3 ?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Mariano Reingart reing...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not completely true.
GPL has nothing to do with making money.
GPL do not forces anyone to recommit their code. It only says that if
you make a GPL
*Everybody can extend, create plugins and add functionalities or plug in
to another apps*
- If used to deploy a website for you or client, free or commercial I dont
care about modifications, you can keep it as a secret (because it can have
your own business logic)
*NOBODY can create or
Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients,
also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create
site tool.
But I cant use Joomla to create a : *Bruno's joomla commercial platform* to
compete with Joomla.
I think if you are going to keep the code
From your description you are wanting to go with LGPL3.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients,
also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create
site tool.
But I
Bruno,
You already wrote it: It is the Movuca License. :-)
Ricardo
2012/2/9 Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com
*Movuca goals:*
*Everybody should be able to use it for free*
- Use it for creating sites, blogs and social networks (free or commercial)
*Everybody can sell it as a service*
-
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:52 PM, R. Strusberg strusb...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
You already wrote it: It is the Movuca License. :-)
Legally, can I use this as a license? it has any matter? or I need to
choose an existing license
(I dont know how this things works, do I need to register it?)
For this case, LGPL3 or GPL3 are almost indistinguishable in this
context (web app)
AFAIK, LGPL3 is better if you want that subparts of Movuca being
used/distributed in other contexts (i.e., with other closed source
CMS, or with other open source software MIT/BSD licensed)
With web2py it is more
Example, I can use joomla to create commercial websites for my clients,
also I can use it if I am a hosting provider to offer as a service create
site tool.
But I cant use Joomla to create a : *Bruno's joomla commercial platform*to
compete with Joomla.
I think if you are going to keep
I bet you'll get better luck in courts if you use a well-known licence.
GPL has been written by lawyers and it has some enforcement
jurisprudence right now.
Mariano Reingart
http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
http://reingart.blogspot.com
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Bruno Rocha
I think it's good for people to advocate for their license
preferences.
I also think the discussion should be based on facts, so I would like
to offer some observations about statements that make me
uncomfortable.
The freedom in software also comes the freedom of choice, to either give
back or
Making money off the code, meaning you can't go sell the code. With BSD
code you can.
I said a lot of people, I didn't say MORE people. With BSD there is also a
lot of people using it that don't announce they are using the BSD based
software.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Cliff
I don't know what is meant by a lot of people. But there are some
statistics that seem to indicate a lot more people prefer the GPL. As
of June 2009, the GPL licenses accounted for ~ 65% usage. BSD
accounted for 6.3. Now I realize that's more than 30 months ago, or
two centuries in
I'm not sure if looking at the problem of license from the business point
of view is reasonable. If Bruno's goal was to make the business people
happy, he would put his software into the public domain. But I'm guessing
he is more interested in getting some help from others and maybe building a
Yes it does make it very bad for business but good for
customers/competition :D. For example the site I created made $5 million in
2 months, why in the world would I want that source code to get into the
wrong hands?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com
The assumed connection between the number of users and a scale of
contributions does not sound right to me.
I was just suggesting that it's an empirical question which approach will
yield more (and better) contributions, and that it likely depends on the
particular situation. AGPL will
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
- License changed to AGPL3 (Gnu Afferro GPL)
If I understand AGPL3 correctly, if someone deploys Movuca on a server,
they will be required to allow all users of their website to download the
entire source code of the site,
I agree with Anthony, I think this type of license will limit the adoption
greatly. Honestly I probably wont even look at the code now, not because I
wasn't interested. Instead because 99% of my clients require to keep the
code that makes their system unique and profitable.
--
Regards,
Bruce
On
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Bruce Wade bruce.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Anthony, I think this type of license will limit the adoption
greatly. Honestly I probably wont even look at the code now, not because I
wasn't interested. Instead because 99% of my clients require to keep the
The magic keyword is distribute, both the GPL and LGPL would
prevent proprietary closed forks (binary only releases).
But, if you want that every site that uses your app would have to publish
the source code, AGPL.
Best regards
Mariano Reingart
http://www.sistemasagiles.com.ar
LGPL would probably be the best choice, meaning they can use the code for
commercial however need to submit/supply source code changes that they make
to the CMS directly, but allows them to keep their own unique code built on
top of the CMS closed if they want.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM,
OK, I am going to change it to LGPL3 (the same of web2py)
--
Bruno Rocha
[http://rochacbruno.com.br]
- License changed to AGPL3 (Gnu Afferro GPL)
If I understand AGPL3 correctly, if someone deploys Movuca on a server,
they will be required to allow all users of their website to download the
entire source code of the site, including any customizations they make to
the Movuca code in
Bruno's work is given for free, and if you don't share your changes back,
keep it secret behind the server, it doesn't help the Movuca project. So
for Bruno the GPL or even AGPL is a good option, as it keeps the code free
(as in freedom).
CMS is very different to a framework like web2py, which
That is exactly what I had in mind, now I dont know if I stay with AGPL or
change to LGPL..
I chosen AGPL because I saw another related projetct using it (
http://noosfero.org/Site/About)
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Wikus van de Merwe
dupakrop...@googlemail.com wrote:
Bruno's work is
Bruno's work is given for free, and if you don't share your changes back,
keep it secret behind the server, it doesn't help the Movuca project. So
for Bruno the GPL or even AGPL is a good option, as it keeps the code free
(as in freedom).
Under a more permissive license, a smaller
I'm not sure how much my opinion matters here, but a lot of times, I am not
allowed to touch GPL code, especially AGPL code for a business project. The
legal department avoids (A)GPL like the plague. There are just too many
gotchas with it, whether real or imaginary. They much prefer I use MIT
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
That is exactly what I had in mind, now I dont know if I stay with AGPL or
change to LGPL..
I chosen AGPL because I saw another related projetct using it
(http://noosfero.org/Site/About)
Hi Bruno,
I'm completely
I am trying to understand the COns and Pros between BSD, MIT and LGPL
So I will choose one of that by the end of the week when beta will be
officially released.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Ross Peoples ross.peop...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how much my opinion matters here, but a lot
56 matches
Mail list logo
