yes it makes a big difference - you simply cannot sell fixed therm memberships - only lifetime and subscription. So renewal is also no problem - it does not exist for lifetime - and for subscription it would mean just entering a new subscription number. Same problem until last week with Thrivecart - but they try to solve it now (and it does not seem that easy).
s2Member's future
Hi,
Ok, I hope it will be solved quickly then!
Thanks.
Well this is quite a problem!
I’d suggest migrating away from forms and payment systems and focus on membership tools (and at a minimum, keeping the system working!).
We use Gravity Forms rather than S2 forms, as outlined here: Add custom capabilities using gravity forms. There is no comparison between S2 forms and GF forms - and that makes sense.
I realize that it is more expensive to require GF, but it removes the burden of maintaining Stripe, PayPal, etc. and it will never be anywhere near as robust as a dedicated solution (just as GF would not be a robust membership management tool). Also, S2 is incredibly inexpensive so adding GF is not unreasonable.
You can’t be all things to all people, focus on the quality of membership management capabilities.
Latest news:
My fork of the plugin have a name: s4Members! 
Thanks for your suggestions!
Also I build a site, very simple at this time, with just a forum. Please everyone move to the new site and forum, as this one will die in 2 months. Bad news is that all the old threads with questions, problems, hacks and answers will be lost. Sorry, I find no way to get control over this (existing) site… So, the only solution I can see is to move to the new site and build them again. Also who can, please “harvest” all valuable info from this site and add to the new site. Meantime I work on the code of the new plugin.
I think with our efforts together we can save most of the info, and the plugin itself.
I don’t think you can legally do that.
Actually, he very much can. s2Member is open source, licensed under the GPL. So anyone can take the code and do what they like with it. That’s the whole point of open source.
Hi,
Thank you very much Krum, I look forward to seeing the result of your efforts.
Ok for your forum 
Didn’t mean the source code… I’m talking about the name and reference TO S2Member
Still no problem at all. The only thing to avoid is a suggestion of endorsement or approval by s2Member. And Krum has clearly avoided that, so he’s fine.
Well s2member has to stay as copyleft reference - s2member itself is fully GPL or in other open licenses (mainly excemption of logos and APIs which belong to other companies.
S2member Pro is fully GPS on all PHP files, but CSS, Javascript and other parts are copyrighted by Websharks/s2member. So the Pro Module basically has to be rewritten/written from scratch. As the proforms are anyhow utter rubb*** - that leaves the Stripe API to be implemented - which should not be too hard, and I guess the import/export tools which need to be rewritten (also not too hard).
The name s4Members should not be too similar to s2member I guess. It cannot be named a successor - but it could reference s2Member and user integration. It will need like Optimizemember to rename all those variables. So move from s2member everywhere (database, shortcodes, instructions) to s4Members (and please stick to one spelling - not like sometimes s4Members and sometimes s4members - I guess s4members should be used for any database and shortcode values to avoid confusion).
I must say that I do not understand why Optimizemember did not simply did this themselve and licensed s2member code - but well probably they got a good deal - and back in 2013 many things were much harder to write than right now (e.g.Gravity Forms nowhere close to today, Thrivecart or similar options did not even exist or just started, and so on).
Where do you get this garbage about different licenses for CSS and javascript? It’s ALL open source. See https://s2member.com/prices/
s4Member is absolutely fine.
It’s written n the S2Member Pro license info. Just look into it.(readme.txt) S2Member itself is free.
Oh and autocorrect got me, wanted to say also Pro, all PHP is fully GNU but got corrected to GPS instead of GNU - but the rest is not GNU - please read more carefully.
And open source does not mean it’s free to use. Yes s2member pro is also fully open source - but besides the PHP files it’s all copyrighted! It will help somehow to rewrite it though (but not much of s2member pro is useful anyhow). Pro-Forms should be rewritten from scratch (or using other plugins like GF or Thrivecart), Stripe implementation is buggy in parts so maybe also better start from scratch - and the importer/exporter tool really should be pretty easy to write from scratch too.
I did not claim anything to be closed source!
The readme file is irrelevant. You only see that after purchase, which is too late to form a term of the contract.
The source to which I linked is there at the point of sale, and so everything is open source. You also fail to understand that, yes, it’s copyrighted, but it’s copyrighted under the GPL. That’s what an open source license is.
Do stop spreading FUD when you really haven’t a clue.
s4Members is fine. The only things Krum can’t use from s2Member are the things that are trademarked, which is probably just logos. Code is not trademarked.
Where the heck do you find any notion of everything being GNU GPL??? Before buying it states that it is Open Source - which is correct. But it states nowhere under which license. Open Source does not mean it’s free!!!
If it were - then you could not sell single site license vs multi site license - because under GPL you could use as many instances as you like.
So no - Krum cannot use the Stripe implementation - and he knows that pretty well.
Or maybe you need to learn English?
“Buy the software and it’s all yours, including access to the source code. That means if your developer needs to review the s2Member source code or help you with an issue you’re having, they have access to all of the source code. Also, there are NO recurring charges, NO limit on the number of members you can build-up over time. Plus you get free lifetime access to updates; i.e., future versions of the software.”
It does not state anywhere you are allowed to sell or reuse the code. It means you have access to the source code - no more. That’s like saying - you can download this MP3 without copyright protection - it does not mean you can download this MP3 and do with it whatever you like. The MP3/song is still copyrighted, but it’s distributed without protection measures.
Also I won’t go down to the same level of language you are using here - this is unprofessional to the max (and not the first time).
S2member Pro is a constituted work - consisting of several parts - you seem to be unable to grasp that concept (which is well possible under GNU GPL)
Copyright: © 2013 WebSharks, Inc. (coded in the USA)
= This Software is Comprised of Two Parts =
- All PHP code (and integrated HTML) in this software have been released under a GPL license; just like WordPress® itself. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.
- With the exception of any Additional Acknowledgments (as detailed below); all other parts of this software; including (but not limited to) application-specific CSS/JavaScript/images, the overall design, and all support-related services and documentation; are licensed commerically and should NOT be redistributed. See: http://www.websharks-inc.com/product/s2member/
Unless you have our prior written consent, you must NOT directly or indirectly license, sub-license, sell, resell, or provide for free; part (2) of this software; or make an offer to do any of these things. All of these things are strictly prohibited with part (2) of this software.
1 Like
Who says anything about being free?! You are projecting. And you are utterly confused.
Open source means someone who has obtained the code can do what s/he likes with it. Krum has obtained the code. Therefore he can do what he likes with it. That’s it. He can give it away free; he can also resell or redistribute it as much as he likes. He can modify the code before doing so if he likes. s2member does not need to grant such rights explicitly. That’s the whole point of the GPL!!
If you still don’t believe me, you should look up the history of WooCommerce.
As for the Stripe implementation, once again, you really don’t have a clue. That simply follows directions given by Stripe as to how to interact with its API, so there is nothing there over which s2Member can claim proprietary rights! In fact, most of what is involved actually involves downloading a library provided by Stripe, and then copying and pasting a couple of lines of code that Stripe provides. So, once again, you are talking garbage.
Before posting nonsense about stuff covered by the GPL, you really should get paid, professional legal advice.
Open Source means you can look at the Source and usually modify it. Open Source does not mean you acquire the rights to redistribute the Source (yes GNU GPL grants you that right). It’s you who does not understand it at all.
S2member-Pro IS NOT GNU GPL licensed - except all PHP files! And that is stated clearly enough. Your understanding of the world seems like a disgruntled little child.
To quote wikipedia: An open-source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified and/or shared under defined terms and conditions.
Well s2member explicitly denies sharing the code! So they should rather say it’s a source available license. But Source available license will fall under the broad scope of Open Source licenses.
If you take the Eclipse Public License for example - redistribution is very limited. Still it’s considered an open source license.
1 Like
My understanding of the legal world is accurate. You completely misunderstand the point from Wikipedia that the software may be “modified and/or shared under defined terms and conditions.” Those conditions are set in the license.
There isn’t one open source license. So what those terms say depends on the specific one chose for the software. For s2Member, the relevant license is the GPL. It then doesn’t matter what s2Member might attempt to say in its readme file. That becomes available to the purchaser only after purchase, and so cannot become a term of the contract. That’s basic contract law.
It is true that many developers who have made their software available under the GPL license don’t understand the implications of what that means. So they purport to say that you can’t share it (you can) or use it on more than one site (you can do that too). What the more clued-up developers do is restrict the help they will give to one site, or enable auto-updates only on one site. Both of those restrictions are compatible with the GPL.
Attempts to restrict usage, though, are not. But it’s easy to see why developers include such attempts to restrict usage. People like you actually believe them! Of course, that’s you choice. What is not acceptable is to spread FUD generally. What Krum is doing is 100% permissible.
You haven’t looked up the history of WooCommerce, have you?
So where does it say that s2member-pro is GNU GPL licensed before you buy it? it only says it’s open source. No judge ever will take your side on that point.
They define that s2member itself is GNU GPL licenced - for s2member Pro they only claim open source - nothing more, nothing less. If they don’t tell before buying that it’s GNU GPL - you cannot claim that the licence inside the software is not.
Also your point about that only inside you find out how it is actually licenced has been ruled many times - e.g. Microsoft and the EULA. If you do not accept it - then you have any right to return the software (basically as long as you like if you have not used it yet). It does not give you the right to use the software as you like it though claiming you were informed too late.
So even if you claim s2member implied that s2member-pro itself is fully GNU GPS because of advertising - it would only give you the right to return it - not to claim that it actually is GNU GPL! So your understanding is still out of this legal world (US or EU).
1 Like
People, please stop the battle. If I have to save 30000 websites, I will do, no matter what is the license.
My understanding: License is “agreement” between us (users) and developers. Developers gone. We even have no idea are they alive. No valid agreement any more. There is a “need” of about 30000 site owners, and I am the one, who is capable to help them. And will do. So sue me.
Oh, please! Now you are trying to take rulings on shrink-wrapped software, where no license was mentioned at the outset, and apply it to code downloaded from the internet. Just stop this nonsense!
In this case, s2Member says explicitly at the point of sale that the software is released as open source. All open source software, regardless of the specific license chosen, permits re-distribution on the basis I have outlined. So something that appears later and which purports to contradict that comes too late to have any legal effect.
The real difference in the open source world is between permissive licenses (like the MIT license) and copyleft licenses (like the GPL). The latter group forces the release of code when the product is distributed. In this case, therefore, the only obligation that Krum enters into is that he must release his code when he releases s4Members. That’s it.
Strangely enough, I know literally hundreds of judges. On both continents you allude to. It goes with my job.
I have now made all the points I wanted to. I couldn’t care less whether Felix agrees with me. I have no idea why he wants to cast misleading aspersions on what Krum is doing. But, for those of you who are interested in making use of Krum’s fork, have at it. Neither he nor you will be doing anything wrong.