anyone looked at Chameleon closely?

[David Chait]

http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/

Looks to be WP with a modded admin system, a bunch of custom plugins, and
otherwise a claim to be their unique product.  Don't know how they 'sell' it
(or GPL issues) but thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks around
here. ;)

There are a few sites Flip has developed that obviously have things like
'wp-content/themes/...' in the HTML, though they've done a simply awesome
job making it look like a custom site.  They have some real freaking talent
on-board, imho.

I guess if they develop and host the sites (and basically 'own' the code
themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue?  But if they are actually
selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the core,
I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no?  Again, the difference is
between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
right?

Anyway, just though hackers could use some thought-provoking discussion --  
please don't go way off tangent on this, stay on topic. ;)

-d

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Douglas Stewart-3]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Chait wrote:

> http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/
>
> Looks to be WP with a modded admin system, a bunch of custom plugins, and
> otherwise a claim to be their unique product.  Don't know how they 'sell' it
> (or GPL issues) but thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks around
> here. ;)
>
> There are a few sites Flip has developed that obviously have things like
> 'wp-content/themes/...' in the HTML, though they've done a simply awesome
> job making it look like a custom site.  They have some real freaking talent
> on-board, imho.
>
> I guess if they develop and host the sites (and basically 'own' the code
> themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue?  But if they are actually
> selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
> themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the core,
> I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no?  Again, the difference is
> between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
> right?
>
> Anyway, just though hackers could use some thought-provoking discussion --  
> please don't go way off tangent on this, stay on topic. ;)
>
> -d
>

They're only obligated to pass on code changes to those they distribute
the software to, i.e., their customers.

- --
- ----------
Doug Stewart
Senior Systems Administrator/Web Applications Developer
Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Labs
dstewart@...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEhbMjN50Q8DVvcvkRAtAyAJ9Zh9iJkeoDcFwY/M003ivyb5EAvgCeIlVl
5YJrgHgIzmWTOwVM1MlfEi4=
=wAVx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Douglas Stewart-3]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Doug Stewart wrote:

> David Chait wrote:
>>> http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/
>>>
>>> Looks to be WP with a modded admin system, a bunch of custom plugins, and
>>> otherwise a claim to be their unique product.  Don't know how they 'sell' it
>>> (or GPL issues) but thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks around
>>> here. ;)
>>>
>>> There are a few sites Flip has developed that obviously have things like
>>> 'wp-content/themes/...' in the HTML, though they've done a simply awesome
>>> job making it look like a custom site.  They have some real freaking talent
>>> on-board, imho.
>>>
>>> I guess if they develop and host the sites (and basically 'own' the code
>>> themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue?  But if they are actually
>>> selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
>>> themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the core,
>>> I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no?  Again, the difference is
>>> between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> Anyway, just though hackers could use some thought-provoking discussion --  
>>> please don't go way off tangent on this, stay on topic. ;)
>>>
>>> -d
>>>
>
> They're only obligated to pass on code changes to those they distribute
> the software to, i.e., their customers.
>

I will allow, though, that their fairly blatant rip of WordPress and
their failure to acknowledge this in their documentation IS pretty skeevy.


- --
- ----------
Doug Stewart
Senior Systems Administrator/Web Applications Developer
Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Labs
dstewart@...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEhbQgN50Q8DVvcvkRAtHUAJ41zcZh2Vf646gqQj0Vg0Q8sT2lvgCfXxRM
/D5lOPX+7xH/Hpdn+/o3z+M=
=QfnW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Ryan Scheuermann]

Yeah, but check out the Datasheet PDF, the Plugin Management screenshot
says "Plugins extend and expand the functionality of Wordpress..."  "If
something goes wrong with a plugin and you can't use Wordpress..."

Doesn't look like they're working that hard to hide the Wordpress core.

I've developed something like this for my own company, but I'm not
arrogant enough to take credit for something I didn't write myself.  My
clients know they are getting a modified and extended version of the WP
core.  And they're made aware of the fact that the code is open-source
and licensed GPL.

Doug is right though, they don't have to release the source to the
public, just their customers.  And nothing in the GPL says you can't
charge for it.

Their "Menu Manager" and "Ecommerce" plugins are exactly what I'm in the
middle of working on.  I'm a little bummed they beat me to it.  :-)  
They are smart in making it a completely streamlined and integrated
package.  Often times trying to use an independently developed WP plugin
for professional clients produces poor results, if you know what I mean.

Gotta give them props, though.

Best regards,

Ryan Scheuermann

--
----
Concept 64, Inc. | Phone: [phone] | Web: www.concept64.com

David Chait wrote:

> http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/
>
> Looks to be WP with a modded admin system, a bunch of custom plugins, and
> otherwise a claim to be their unique product.  Don't know how they 'sell' it
> (or GPL issues) but thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks around
> here. ;)
>
> There are a few sites Flip has developed that obviously have things like
> 'wp-content/themes/...' in the HTML, though they've done a simply awesome
> job making it look like a custom site.  They have some real freaking talent
> on-board, imho.
>
> I guess if they develop and host the sites (and basically 'own' the code
> themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue?  But if they are actually
> selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
> themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the core,
> I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no?  Again, the difference is
> between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
> right?
>
> Anyway, just though hackers could use some thought-provoking discussion --  
> please don't go way off tangent on this, stay on topic. ;)
>
> -d
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers@...
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>  

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[David Chait]

Doug Stewart wrote:
| David Chait wrote:
| > themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue?  But if they are
actually
| > selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
| > themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the
core,
| > I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no?  Again, the difference is
| > between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
| > right?
| >
|
| They're only obligated to pass on code changes to those they distribute
| the software to, i.e., their customers.

Huh.  Really.  Okay...

I just re-read the GPL stuff.  That was a point I didn't quite understand,
an now do.  I'll explain my confusion and the 'resolution' as I see it. ;)

I thought if you sold GPL code/binary you had to make sources available to
the public.  THAT WAS WRONG.  You do NOT have to make modded sources
available to just anyone who asks.

HOWEVER, you DO have to make sources freely available to anyone who
purchased the GPL-based 'product' from you -- in fact, there must be a
'written offer' accompanying any GPL binary offering to provide source code
for free.  AND, since it is GPL, those people may then freely distribute the
source code all they want.

| I will allow, though, that their fairly blatant rip of WordPress and
| their failure to acknowledge this in their documentation IS pretty skeevy.

That's something I can't really find covered in GPL.  I mean, I believe that
original license and copyright must come with sources -- though, it might
only NEED to exist in the license/copyright file itself.  I can't find any
particular rules of attribution (like that original copyright notices should
be in every source file, or a modified source file must contain some
attribution to the original copyright, etc.).

Ah well, this is a good learning experience. ;)

-d


_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Trevor Turk]

This is similar to a discussion I followed on this list before:

http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2005-July/001836.html

or

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.wordpress.devel/3206/focus=3229

I'm not sure what the end result was - I think it was OK, but maybe because
the plugins used were made available. This case seems a little different
because it's semi-hidden that this is Wordpress. My personal feeling is that
this is somewhat uncool, but is unlikely to cause a huge issue. However, I
think it's the devs that have to make that decision. Nice to have the
discussion. I wish the GPL was more clear about this sort of stuff.
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[David Chait]

From: "Ryan Scheuermann" <ryan@...>
| Their "Menu Manager" and "Ecommerce" plugins are exactly what I'm in the
| middle of working on.  I'm a little bummed they beat me to it.  :-)
| They are smart in making it a completely streamlined and integrated
| package.  Often times trying to use an independently developed WP plugin
| for professional clients produces poor results, if you know what I mean.
|
| Gotta give them props, though.

Oh, definitely.  As I said, they've got skillz. ;)  Check out some of the
sites they've developed too... some slick stuff.

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Chris Williams-9]

Guess I don't understand why you wouldn't want to own up to its WP
roots, though.  Imagine being able to say "based on code in use by over
300,000 sites".  Or "core engine tested by millions of users every day".
Or "core engine proven to handle some of the largest sites around".

Seems to me that by trying to hide their WP roots they are only hurting
themselves.  I think "proudly based on WordPress" would have a whole lot
more meaning, market-push, etc.  And it wouldn't get all the rest of the
WP fanatics (like me) wanting to puke.

As it is, I don't know how they sleep at night...

Just my $0.02,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: David Chait
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?

| Gotta give them props, though.
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Arne Brachhold]

> http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/

"An automatic Google compliant sitemap generator is built into the
system. As and when new content is entered into the system the Google
sitemap service is notified in order for the Google crawlers to trawl
the site and index it."

"The Google sitemap module 'pings' the global search and indexing
company once content has been updated in order to make new and updated
information accessible through search engines on the fly."

Maybe I should use this text on my plugin site, sounds a lot better
than my "This generator will create a Google compliant sitemap of your
WordPress blog.".

Unfortunately they even removed the author names in the plugins. :(

http://www.marriottdining.ae/sitemap.xml


Best regards,

  Arne Brachhold


--
mail  himself@...
web   http://www.arnebrachhold.de/


_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Austin Matzko]

On 6/6/06, David Chait <davebytes@...> wrote:
> http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/
>
> Looks to be WP with a modded admin system, a bunch of custom plugins, and
> otherwise a claim to be their unique product.  Don't know how they 'sell' it
> (or GPL issues) but thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks around
> here. ;)

Two things from the pdf datasheet caught my attention:

1) "requires Firefox to administrate"
2) From the icon that appears in the screenshots on the upper right,
I'm guessing there's a way to lock checked-out content while editing.
That--or at least the plugin hooks to make it easier to implement--is
something that I'd like to see in WordPress.
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Computer Guru]

Is *that* allowed? The plugins are properties of their respective owners,
and I know for a fact many let you do whatever the hell you want so long as
credit is given (like me :D).

Computer Guru
NeoSmart Technologies
http://neosmart.net/blog/

-----Original Message-----
From: wp-hackers-bounces@...
[mailto:wp-hackers-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Arne Brachhold
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:13 PM
To: wp-hackers@...
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?

> http://www.flipcorp.com/chameleon/

"An automatic Google compliant sitemap generator is built into the system.
As and when new content is entered into the system the Google sitemap
service is notified in order for the Google crawlers to trawl the site and
index it."

"The Google sitemap module 'pings' the global search and indexing company
once content has been updated in order to make new and updated information
accessible through search engines on the fly."

Maybe I should use this text on my plugin site, sounds a lot better than my
"This generator will create a Google compliant sitemap of your WordPress
blog.".

Unfortunately they even removed the author names in the plugins. :(

http://www.marriottdining.ae/sitemap.xml


Best regards,

  Arne Brachhold


--
mail  himself@...
web   http://www.arnebrachhold.de/


_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Trevor Turk]

Good point. I'm pretty sure that Plugins come with licenses and copyrights
of their own - which almost certainly require attribution.

On 6/6/06, Computer Guru <computerguru@...> wrote:
>
> Is *that* allowed? The plugins are properties of their respective owners,
> and I know for a fact many let you do whatever the hell you want so long
> as
> credit is given (like me :D).
>
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Aaron Brazell-2]

On 6/6/06, Trevor Turk <trevorturk@...> wrote:
>
> Good point. I'm pretty sure that Plugins come with licenses and copyrights
> of their own - which almost certainly require attribution.
>

Hmm. Not so sure. Sec 2(b) suggests that plugins too, if distributed as part
of the product, would be under GPL:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Brian Layman]

How it is distributed, does not really matter.
Assuming Matt's team of lawyers don't disagree. ;)  That section means that
unless the plug-ins contain code originally contained in WordPress, they
don't have to be GPL.  

IMHO, licensing is up to the individual plug-in author UNLESS the plug-in
includes a WP unit.  If  the plug-in pulls in ANY WP code, /then/ it in part
contains a GPL licensed product and therefore must be GPL'd.

_______________________________________________
Brian Layman
www.TheCodeCave.com

Knowledge = Power = Energy = Matter = Mass
(Infinite Mass = A Black Hole)
A good book is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read.
Terry Pratchet - Guards! Guards! - Page 6 Footnote


-----Original Message-----
From: wp-hackers-bounces@...
[mailto:wp-hackers-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Aaron Brazell
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:25 PM
To: wp-hackers@...
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?


On 6/6/06, Trevor Turk <trevorturk@...> wrote:
>
> Good point. I'm pretty sure that Plugins come with licenses and copyrights
> of their own - which almost certainly require attribution.
>

Hmm. Not so sure. Sec 2(b) suggests that plugins too, if distributed as part
of the product, would be under GPL:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Aaron Brazell-2]

On 6/6/06, Brian Layman <Brian@...> wrote:

>
> How it is distributed, does not really matter.
> Assuming Matt's team of lawyers don't disagree. ;)  That section means
> that
> unless the plug-ins contain code originally contained in WordPress, they
> don't have to be GPL.
>
> IMHO, licensing is up to the individual plug-in author UNLESS the plug-in
> includes a WP unit.  If  the plug-in pulls in ANY WP code, /then/ it in
> part
> contains a GPL licensed product and therefore must be GPL'd.
>

I wonder if the WordPress API functions and add_filter()s and such would
code originally contained in WordPress?
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Rob Miller-4]

Trevor Turk wrote:

> Good point. I'm pretty sure that Plugins come with licenses and
> copyrights
> of their own - which almost certainly require attribution.
>
> On 6/6/06, Computer Guru <computerguru@...> wrote:
>>
>> Is *that* allowed? The plugins are properties of their respective
>> owners,
>> and I know for a fact many let you do whatever the hell you want so long
>> as
>> credit is given (like me :D).
>>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers@...
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>

I don't think they do - I'm pretty sure the GPL makes some sort of
distinction about how the code is used in the larger project. If it's
forked as a separate process from a binary I think it's ok, but if it's
executed like WP plugins are then the license must be GPL-compatible. I
can't remember exactly how it goes, though.

--
Rob Miller
http://robm.me.uk/ | http://kantian.co.uk/

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Trevor Turk]

More info from earlier on this list:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

via

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.wordpress.devel/3207/match=500+euros+skippy
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[David Chait]

Actually, the whole plugins licensing thing was a topic I was trying to
avoid. :)

The section you noted is really referring to 'the work' meaning 'the work
that was originally GPL licensed and modified'.  Plugins can obviously be
'works' of their own, separate from 'the work' that is WordPress (just my
opinion -- there are opposing ones...).  However, a later section notes you
could have GPL and non-GPL 'works' side by side, distributed together, and
that's fine by the GPL, it doesn't 'taint' either set.  At what point are
'two works' actually one is a gray area at best.  There are some black and
white areas when it comes to compiled code, but even with binaries there are
some grat areas... And the slightly gray goes completely blurry gray when
talking of interpreted code, let alone 'plugins'.

Some will say plugins should all be GPL, some say they can be whatever
licensing they want.  At the end of the day, there is little to no legal
precedence covering GPL, let alone plugins + GPL, let alone
scripted-language + plugins + GPL.  Again, this was the exact tangent I was
trying to avoid.  Let's just leave it as: there are multiple opinions, and
I'm not sure any can be 'proven correct'. ;)

Regardless, the overall answer should be: yes, Plugins can have licensing.
Whether it is GPL or otherwise may be a matter of debate, but that there IS
licensing and that it HAS rules to follow should be undeniable.  The end
result being: whatever the original license was, that copyright and
attribution should remain in any work, assuming that was a term of the
original license.

-d

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Brazell" <emmensetech@...>
To: <wp-hackers@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?


| On 6/6/06, Trevor Turk <trevorturk@...> wrote:
| >
| > Good point. I'm pretty sure that Plugins come with licenses and
copyrights
| > of their own - which almost certainly require attribution.
| >
|
| Hmm. Not so sure. Sec 2(b) suggests that plugins too, if distributed as
part
| of the product, would be under GPL:
|
| b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
|    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
|    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
|    parties under the terms of this License.
| _______________________________________________
| wp-hackers mailing list
| wp-hackers@...
| http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
|

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[David Chait]

What'll really cook your noodle is when you imagine a plugin that calls some
third piece of code.  The plugin obviously knows WP enough to call
'add_action/add_filter' (note that another system could use those same
function names, and same mechanisms, so that isn't necessarily WP-unique!),
and has to know how to call into the 'third piece of code' (call is 'alien
code').  But the alien code knows nothing of WP, nor the plugin.  Okay.
NOW, is the plugin GPL?  The alien code is non-GPL, so the plugin can't
possible 'pass on' GPL-ness to it by virtue of 'knowledge'.

Fun.  And gee, most of my plugins are structured just like the above
example... ;)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Brazell" <emmensetech@...>
To: <wp-hackers@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?


| On 6/6/06, Brian Layman <Brian@...> wrote:
| >
| > How it is distributed, does not really matter.
| > Assuming Matt's team of lawyers don't disagree. ;)  That section means
| > that
| > unless the plug-ins contain code originally contained in WordPress, they
| > don't have to be GPL.
| >
| > IMHO, licensing is up to the individual plug-in author UNLESS the
plug-in
| > includes a WP unit.  If  the plug-in pulls in ANY WP code, /then/ it in
| > part
| > contains a GPL licensed product and therefore must be GPL'd.
| >
|
| I wonder if the WordPress API functions and add_filter()s and such would
| code originally contained in WordPress?
| _______________________________________________
| wp-hackers mailing list
| wp-hackers@...
| http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
|

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

[Trevor Turk]

I guess that's the point that I'm pretty sure of - I think removing the
copyright, or at least attribution, of plugins you're using violates the
license of those plugins in most cases. So, if this package comes with the
Google Sitemap Generator plugin which has been stripped of any identifying
info, then there's a problem. I checked it out quickly, and I see a
copyright, so that would have to stay on there. I don't know how to check
the Chameleon program without buying it, but I thought I'd drop that point
in here.

http://www.arnebrachhold.de/2005/06/05/google-sitemaps-generator-v2-final#P18DL

On 6/6/06, David Chait <davebytes@...> wrote:
The end result being: whatever the original license was, that copyright and
attribution should remain in any work, assuming that was a term of the
original license.
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers@...
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers