Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

propel
Reply to message

* = Required fields
* Subject
* Body
Attachments
Send reply to
Topic
Author (directly in email)
Please type the letters in the image above.

Original message

Author hlellelid
Full name Hans Lellelid
Date 2007-02-18 11:33:51 PST
Message Ok, I understand. Yes, I guess that's what I was trying to describe by
mentioning the "branded" form. Anyway .... I should think we're fine
with Rob being copyright holder of the logo in question, right?

:) Hans

David Zülke wrote:
> I'm fine with people charging money for a Propel download. Well I'm not
> fine with that, since it would mean some people would get ripped off,
> but the license allows it. I was just saying that I don't want to see
> people using the Propel name and the Propel logo for such a product.
> PHP, Apache, Python, Smarty etc don't allow that either. See
> http://httpd.apache.​org/docs/2.2/faq/bac​kground.html#backgro​und.logo for
> instance (last section).
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> Am 18.02.2007 um 15:55 schrieb Hans Lellelid:
>
>> Let me interject a few things before this spirals out of control :)
>>
>> First off, I think I can identify with David's sentiments here; while
>> Propel is open-source, I think that we'd all feel a bit insulted/scammed
>> if anyone was charging people to download Propel in its open-source
>> branded form. That said, I don't any of us would be all that upset if
>> people were putting Propel on a CD, printing out a manual, and selling
>> the whole thing -- or, more likely, putting Propel on a CD with a bunch
>> of other open-source software and selling the whole thing with a
>> magazine).
>>
>> On the other hand, I believe in open-source software and believe it
>> should be free -- and of course part of that freedom is in allowing
>> people to do what they wish with it, even if that be something that
>> might make me feel a little "scammed" like charging for a download. Of
>> course, I do personally believe in some obligation in open-source; I
>> like the LGPL because it gives leverage to the developers who want to
>> submit back improvements (I really believe everyone wants to contribute
>> code, and I feel like the LGPL gives people a justification in asking
>> people who pay their paycheck to honor that & allow them to submit back
>> code modifications/improvements).
>>
>> I don't see your point about the GPL not allowing people to sell
>> software for money. I agree that it may not make much sense, since my
>> understanding is that it can be distributed for free by the receiving
>> party, but I believe the ability to sell is built-in to the GPL:
>> http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/gpl-faq.html​#DoesTheGPLAllowMone​y
>>
>> So, ultimately, I agree that we don't need to discourage people from
>> making money by selling, in some for or other, the Propel product. In
>> fact, selling Propel would be a good thing for the project. I do think
>> it's good to think about copyright issues when people contribute work -
>> like logos, etc. - but this is not something that is contributing to
>> keeping me awake at night :)
>>
>> I don't ever want to get into some sort of copyright battle over Propel
>> logo, name, etc. We've certainly have lots of documented use of the
>> name for years, but it is not a registered trademark (indeed, there are
>> several other "Propel" commercial products that might not take kindly to
>> that).
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> Pedram Nimreezi wrote:
>>>> This might actually be a good idea
>>>> since a smarty policy or a carefully chosen CC license could prevent
>>>> people from "selling" Propel for money,
>>>
>>> I have major issues with that comment, first it aggravates me that you
>>> don't
>>> understand that open source enables products to be made that are
>>> community
>>> oriented and not software that cannot be sold...
>>>
>>> Products are meant to be sold and/or supported. A GPL project is
>>> designed to counter the ability of companies to sell the GPL code
>>> since competition
>>> is effectively diffused when none of them can profit. LGPL code is
>>> different by nature
>>> in that it can be sold, it has little restriction except on
>>> attribution to the authors.
>>> GPL requires this and also requires the code to remain free ,
>>> furthermore
>>> it virally infects other portions of code making it all or mostly GPL as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Therefore as licenses go GPL is not as free as LGPL which is not as free
>>> as BSD.
>>>
>>> NonCommercial licenses aren't even friggin open source, so I don't know
>>> where it
>>> even comes into your mind as a solution, besides if thats the
>>> solution, well then
>>> whats the problem? You don't want people to use Propel for their
>>> products?
>>>
>>> That's funny... you use mojavi for your agavi framework don't you?
>>> You mean to tell me you never sold a copy of your software?
>>> (NOT THE INSTALL, THE ACTUAL SOFTWARE)
>>>
>>> If it were GPL, you could only charge for Install and Support not the
>>> actual software too.
>>>
>>> Firstly, you nor anyone else can authorize the decision to make Propel,
>>> GPL,
>>> even if you make every version from now on GPL there will still be
>>> LGPL versions,
>>> secondly, I believe you have confused the GPL with the LGPL, the LGPL
>>> can be
>>> sold for money- 1 line of code and an include would make it a PRODUCT...
>>> The LGPL is not as strict as the GPL, that is why the LGPL and BSD
>>> License
>>> is called "Actually Free" whereas the GPL is called "Virulent", lastly
>>> there is
>>> a BSD Licensed version of Propel as well which I am responsible for,
>>> that also
>>> can be SOLD... Example OSX remasters Darwin BSD, no where will you
>>> find a
>>> BSD Daemon Logo on the Apple website however.
>>>
>>> Propel's logo doesn't HAVE to be on my site, but I may want to spread
>>> its acceptance
>>> and to that effect I and hopefully many others will as well...
>>>
>>> My opinion is that the copyright holder of the image should give
>>> the propel project
>>> authority to put the logo on its site for redistribution where it can
>>> be linked to the
>>> propel site just like the propel project gave me authority to maintain
>>> the PHP4
>>> version of propel because I asked for it and followed procedure & no
>>> ones worked on it in
>>> years.
>>> I also believe there should be more versions of the propel logo,
>>> different back
>>> colors, or GIF/PNG and try to expand on that instead of thinking of
>>> relicensing it or
>>> any part of propel as NonCommercial which goes against the very concept
>>> of its
>>> current license(s). A CreativeCommons on documentation ONLY would be
>>> acceptable,
>>> but keep in mind that people taking the documentation to put on their
>>> site which links
>>> to propel will only increase the visibility of these sites.
>>>
>>> peace...
>>> ~~~~~~~
>>> ...pedram
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/17/07, David Zülke <dz at bitxtender dot com> wrote:
>>>> No, it's fine like this. As you pointed out, he's the copyright
>>>> owner, so the work is still protected (actually, it probably isn't,
>>>> since it's very likely that it, like many compositions of existing
>>>> works, lacks the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>>> Threshold_of_originality). He created it for the specific purpose of
>>>> putting it up free for everyone on the website. Of course, Rob _can_
>>>> declare a license or any limitations regarding usage, like http://
>>>> smarty.php.net/copyright.php. This might actually be a good idea
>>>> since a smarty policy or a carefully chosen CC license could prevent
>>>> people from "selling" Propel for money, with the official logo, for
>>>> instance. I believe a CC-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license would be
>>>> possible because putting the logo on a website or into a product for
>>>> the purpose of linking to the Propel site or declaring that the
>>>> software is powered by Propel is not a commercial purpose in the same
>>>> sense as, say, using CC-NonCommercial-licensed icons in the UI of the
>>>> application (and that is what the "non-commercial" in such a CC
>>>> license is about), but my guess is that a laywer would have to decide
>>>> that, any we'll be just fine without a license ;)
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.02.2007 um 03:01 schrieb Hans Lellelid:
>>>>
>>>>> On second thought I don't think we need any sort of licensed
>>>>> release. Rob is copyright owner for the images; that seems fine by
>>>>> me. David may have some input on this issue, though, since I know
>>>>> he's been thinking about some of these issues w/ Agavi, Symfony, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans Lellelid wrote:
>>>>>> I have no idea... David?
>>>>>> Cameron Brunner wrote:
>>>>>>> mwahahaha, me likey! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hans: do we need an email from rob saying that he releases these
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>> a blah license for us?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/17/07, Robert Bruce <rob@thirddimensi​ondesign.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Will this do?
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Hans Lellelid wrote:
>>>>>​>>> Yeah -- I wasn't thinking we'd change the main site logo. Just
>>>>>​>>> have the
>>>>>​>>> "powered" button; sorry, I guess my note wasn't clear.
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> ... I wish I still had the vector artwork ... I didn't design the
>>>>>​>>> original logo & well ... it's a long story :)
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Hans
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> David Zülke wrote:
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Yay, having ze Propel logo in vector format would be ace. Let's
>>>>>​>>> just not
>>>>>​>>> change it, however. It's genuis. Only "problem" _might_ be the
>>>>>​>>> lowercase
>>>>>​>>> first p, should we decide to have some kind of "CI" in the long
>>>>>​>>> term.
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Cheers,
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> David
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Am 16.02.2007 um 16:03 schrieb Hans Lellelid:
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Hi,
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> I think that's a great idea. I can create a page for that on the
>>>>>​>>> wiki.
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> I'd also be very willing to have anyone with some graphics
>>>>>​>>> experience /
>>>>>​>>> time on their hands to create a logo! (You'll get credit & tons of
>>>>>​>>> appreciation, of course!) :)
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Hans
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Robert Bruce wrote:
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Our company uses propel, we wouldn't object at all. Our product
>>>>>​>>> hasn't
>>>>>​>>> been released yet, but it due to be soon.
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> We've done some interesting stuff with using propel to obtain
>>>>>​>>> Smarty
>>>>>​>>> templates from the database, with some extra magic too.
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> On Fri, February 16, 2007 1:47 pm, Cameron Brunner wrote:
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Was just curious if anyone objected to a page in trac dedicated to
>>>>>​>>> sites/projects that are powered by propel (purely propel?
>>>>>​>>> symfony as
>>>>>​>>> well?) and/or companies that use propel? Perhaps even some general
>>>>>​>>> reports from users on why they use it blahblah?
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Also has anyone got a nice little powered by propel logo?
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> Cameron Brunner
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> Want a better web browser?
>>>>>​>>> http://www.spreadfir​efox.com/?q=affiliat​es&id=182780​&t=1
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​-------
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>​>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​-------
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>​>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​-------
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>​>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​-------
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>​>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​-------
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>​>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​-------
>>>>>​>>> --
>>>>>​>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>​>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>​>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>>
>>
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>