You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I'm loving Monstra right from the beta! Keep the good work.
I have some questions i want to make:
Regarding the license, I need to whitelabel the CMS for client production (removing logo and all references to Monstra). According to the current license, am I able to do this?
Thank you.
>removing logo and all references to Monstra
No!
That's what I thought and I totally agree with you. But jut in case, are you going to provide any kind of paid license with copyright removal allowed? Just so I know and try to start elaborating my options.
CrusnikCore, I understand.
You say that you need a CMS that would be yours ?
For this you will delete everything that is connected with its Author and its Project Name ?
Monstra not for sold.
hm.
to Russian community:
Он получается говорит: Мне нужна CMS которую я буду выдавать за свою (для этого удалю все что связано ее Автором и ее названием)
The process it's called white labeling. Some CMS allow it, some require a different license and some don't allow it at all. Example: Wordpress allows it and it's free; ExpressionEngine (which it's paid) doesn't allow it; and others require a fee. It all falls to their creators.
I'm really liking the CMS so far, and if "Monstra" reaches a good level for production delelopment I would love to use it in many projects 
Regarding the white labeling stuff, if your final decision is a "No" I would use it anyway, so don't think i'm pushing too hard this topic of conversation.
Thanks.
EDIT:
I just noticed now the "Monstra not for sold" statement. Well then, i took all my doubts. Keep the good work. 
CrusnikCore wordpress can not just reach as many users and has a world-class...
if you want to achieve this level you need to follow the rules
upd ps:
License the work under the GNU GPL, the author retains the author
CrusnikCore
if you want to achieve this level you need to follow the rules
upd ps:
wiki wrote:License the work under the GNU GPL, the author retains the author
Didn't quite understood what you wanted to say, but from my deductions you're saying that if the project is under GNU GLP license all copyright stays with the autor, is that right?
But I already know that, and i was talking about and alternative license; however according to the Awilum reply he is not going to do that, so my question was answered.
Monstra is an open-source project licensed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE v3.
Note!
(!) All your changes that was made to program (on license GNU GPL base) must be provided to the community!
(!) The authors names are usually list in the source code or documentation (eg, in the file AUTHORS or elsewhere)
(!) By licensing the work under the GNU GPL, the author retains the authorship!
to Russian community:
(!) Запрещается создавать на основе свободной программы под GPL другой проект, не предоставляя его исходники пользователям. Таким образом, данная лицензия вовсе не позволяет делать с программами "что угодно", как могут ошибочно трактовать данную лицензию плохо знакомые с ней.
(!) Имена авторов обычно указываются в исходном коде или документации (например, файле AUTHORS и прочих местах).
(!) Лицензируя работу на условиях GNU GPL, автор сохраняет за собой авторство.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
CrusnikCore, Avilum give you complete answer
I already knew what GNU GPL licensed implied, there was no need for a detailed explanation, but thank you anyway.
Hope see more of Monstra in the months to come.
I don't know the GNU GPL in detail.
But I had a look at the english wikipedia article where i found the following text:
For example, a public web portal running a modified derivative of a GPL'ed content management system is not required to distribute its changes to the underlying software because its output is not a derivative.
Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
That means as far as I understand, I can make changes to the software (e.g. removing Monstra Logo and references) and the GNU GPL is fine with that if i just use this for my own website and do not distribute this.
If you want that your user must leave the monstra logo in the software you may use another licence.
amfa, You dont understand GPL License
GNU GPL License DON'T ALLOW YOU TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT WITHOUT ANY RESPONSIBILITIES!
RESPONSIBILITIES
(!) All your changes that was made to program (on license GNU GPL base) must be provided to the community!
(!) The authors names are usually list in the source code or documentation (eg, in the file AUTHORS or elsewhere)
(!) By licensing the work under the GNU GPL, the author retains the authorship!
(!) And one more. You can't change the License!
It does not matter in Russian or English, this article http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License GNU GPL License STAY THE SAME
The GNU GPL doesn't force you to distribute your changed source code. You're free to make any changes to the existing source code and use it for your own purposes. (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm … tedPublic)
As the removal of the authors notices (in the output) isn't a creation of a derivative, but a change of the output, you're free to do so.
If you're planning to release the modified source code you've to apply the terms of the GNU GPL and therefore to distribute a note for licence and author.
Well..
I know that it does not matter if the language is Russian or English for the GPL
But according to the English article you dont have to contribute your changes to the community as long as you use the software just for yourself and don't distribute it. So one of the articles is definitly wrong.
But what i can definitly do is to create a fork of monstra and then remove your logos and all references to monstra.
I don't plan to do this. I just wanted to point out that the GPL is not a good idea if you want your users to have the "Monstra branding" leave within the application.
>GPL is not a good idea
http://drupal.org/about
Drupal is Open Source
Drupal is open source software maintained and developed by a community of 630,000+ users and developers. It's distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or "GPL"), which means anyone is free to download it and share it with others. This open development model means that people are constantly working to make sure Drupal is a cutting-edge platform that supports the latest technologies that the Web has to offer. The Drupal project's principles encourage modularity, standards, collaboration, ease-of-use, and more.
>As the removal of the authors notices (in the output)
I talking about source code.
(!) The authors names are usually list in the source code or documentation (eg, in the file AUTHORS or elsewhere)
>As the removal of the authors notices (in the output)
I talking about source code.(!) The authors names are usually list in the source code or documentation (eg, in the file AUTHORS or elsewhere)
Licenses are always a big headache lol
I have been reading more about GPL and you're right. You need to list the authors but you are free to make any modification you want, like, as i stated, removing logo and version name/number.
I think everyone got a good idea of what this license involves. Thank you.
>I think everyone got a good idea of what this license involves.
Yes. RESPONSIBILITIES
Topic renamed: How to steal Monstra Legally
>I think everyone got a good idea of what this license involves.
Yes. RESPONSIBILITIES
Indeed.
Just out of curiosity, when are you going to release the first stable version?
And another thing just while we are at it, if we develop a plugin now will it be compatible with all further versions or will there be a need to update it everytime?
Mother Montra is Template CMS and two years of existence we had no such problems
Some sites Powerd by Template CMS for e.g.
http://www.piusardegna.it/
http://bustyle.com/
http://shrott.ru/
http://rem4life.ru/
http://cazamarta.ru/
http://borisov-ykt.ru/
http://poliv48.ru/
http://ubuntu-pak.tk/
http://orshagolubi.ru/
http://добровскаябольница.рф/
http://ab.kkos.ru/
http://кошкиндом48.рф/
etc...
I lol'ed at the topic title...
I thought this conversation was closed, that's why i made you those two questions above, but you are truly pushing this matter.
Awilum, we were just discussing what the license does or does not imply. Just because i suggested this and you're not happy about it, it really doesn't give you the right to backfire any comment made without a proper argument.
I am very excited about this new open-source CMS and I think it will be great, and I will respect your wishes towards the legality of the current copyright itself. I will not remove your "Monstra CMS" name and/or link just for the sake of letting more people know about Monstra and start developing more stuff for it.
I think you are a great coder - truly speaking, I couldn't build this myself, and I think that you're thinking that I'm raging some kind of open war in these forums but i'm not. I respect you and I expect the same, nothing else.
Just for the sake of it, here's an example:
You posted as one of your examples: http://bustyle.com/
No "Template CMS" frontend name nor link; and backoffice logo altered to "Admin Panel".
Hey I don't want to steal Monstra or whatever.
I just wanted to point out that you can not enforce (user notable) copyright notices or logos with the GPL.
That was the question in the first post in this thread.
So I answered the question.
But if you don't like the answer which is indeed yes instead of no as you pointed out in your answer, than the GPL was the wrong decisition for Monstra.
EDIT:
and this is true also for TemplateCMS.
Just don't use the GPL if you ever want to make a new project.
Okey okey http://forum.template-cms.ru/topic/195/zcorp-wtf/ he is a fuckin thief. That I mean!
Template CMS
http://template-cms.ru/data/simplegallery/themes.png
and Zcorp CMS
http://i.piccy.info/i5/80/11/1621180/8.png
He said that He is Author of this CMS to his clients
http://i.piccy.info/i5/02/95/1619502/20 … 51_800.jpg
He is a fuckin thief. no matter what licence is!
Okey okey http://forum.template-cms.ru/topic/195/zcorp-wtf/ he is a fuckin thief. That I mean!
Template CMS
http://template-cms.ru/data/simplegallery/themes.pngand Zcorp CMS
http://i.piccy.info/i5/80/11/1621180/8.pngHe said that He is Author of this CMS to his clients
http://i.piccy.info/i5/02/95/1619502/20 … 51_800.jpgHe is a fuckin thief. no matter what licence is!
Now that's a good example of "propriety theft".
He could have white labeled almost anything but he needed to provide you as the author/creator of that CMS and also he can't sell the altered CMS to his clients because the open-source GPL license prohibits that.
See the difference?
PS: A big mistake I made here. All of the above is incorrect.
