s2Member's future

#83

Also read here: https://torquemag.io/2013/08/youve-been-gpld/
it’s perfectly fine to release plugins for wordpress without having the whole plugin/theme being GPL. But the html and php files have to be GPL (at least that once was the understanding - Matt Mullenweg himself clarified that later in a bit).

So what do you do then as a company—how do you both protect yourself against what you may consider to be “theft” or unfair use of your hard work? Accept the fact that your PHP and HTML code is going to fall under the GPL, period. As highlighted back in 2009 by Matt in a letter from the Software Freedom Law Center, you could potentially copyright your CSS or images but then most plugins and themes also use other open source libraries like JQuery, Bootstrap, Foundations, Less, Sass as well as many others because of how quickly you can develop for them.

That means that most of your external CSS and Javascript may end up falling into some form of open source licensing in some way, shape or form as well. Accept it and let it go or go protect your copyright (aka brand name), not your code. Updates and bug fixes to your derivative GPL code that you’ve put behind a pay wall should not and cannot be considered part of your “service” either. Stop trying to make them one, do something or create something on your end that can’t be duplicated by the end user without your license. That’s how Red Hat makes real money off of RHEL.

Now you would need to find out for each of these files if there is a condition that they could also fall under another open source licensing.
If krumch wants to just make a copy of s2member-pro too - well I will certainly not pay a penny for it. If he reworks those parts - which really should not be too hard - and integrates Thrivecard or proper pro-forms - I will look at it.

I really cannot live with statements like:

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.

There is no problem to move to another plugin like Memberpress - which is to my understanding right now the most used for new websites membership system based on wordpress (if you can live with their very limited payment options - which are fundamentally different from s2member) - or move to Optimizepress which is still supported and a licensed fork of s2member. So I doubt many users will actually pay for s4members if it’s just a supported clone of s2member. If Memberpress supported member renewals without subscription - I would have got the heck out of s2member alltogether already. As that’s not the case I’ll most likely go OPM - and report how that goes/how well they support it.

1 Like
#84

And split license really is possible: http://wpandlegalstuff.com/wordpress-themes-gpl-conundrum-derivative-works/
So Tim, your opinion goes against common understanding of wordpress and GPS licensing.

While krumchs’ thinking goes against the possibility that someone still owns those rights - which should be assumed even if the s2member owner died.

#85

Actually I’ve looked into the code to see what you would have to change. If you get rid of the pro-forms - which is a must anyhow - there is basically nothing left in s2member-pro except images (which would need to be checked anyhow and 90% will be owned by other sources) and 1-2 css files which could be easily rewritten plus the menu-pages (also no biggie to rewrite them) - in order to cleanly fork it without breaking copyrights and maybe 2-3 more js files. Most is php anyhow.

Taking over the pro-forms will result in clearly stealing code as it will be very hard to rewrite the javascript files without actually breaking copyright (writing new css files should not be much of a problem).

That leaves the s2member tax system which is kinda part of the pro-forms which is of no use to anyone anyhow (with no proofs gathered) - and can be thrown away too also.

The importer/exporter tool is besides php anyhow only css - so that css needs to be rewritten. No javascript here from what I quickly gathered.

Also note that GPL clearly states - that if you do not modify code (and modify will mean changing something substantial - not just adding your own signature/copyright) - the owner of the forked code would stay with the original copyright owner - so Krumch could easily be sued for the income he gathered in a couple of years by the owner of current s2member code. So no - if you want to do it cleanly, then do it right and throw away those shitty pro-forms and recreate the s2member-pro from the ground up - it’s not much code anyhow that’s useful. Go with Thrive-Cart and make sure to clean out all the missed API calls, and I’m fine paying something for a fork.

I really do not understand why Optimizepress did not do it like that and took over the pro-forms (albeit they did mostly write their own css) and actually licensed s2member. I can only guess that them announcing to fork and threatening to just write the rest of the stuff themselves was enough to get a good deal that was cheaper than just writing it themselves.

#86

Hi,
Thank you very much for your constructive analysis!

#87

I didn’t say split licensing wasn’t possible. You are projecting, Felix.

I did say that s2Member Pro is sold – i.e. actually sold – under one license. It doesn’t matter that split licensing is possible, because that’s not how it is sold.

The “problem” here is that you have non-lawyers (i.e. the s2Member devs) perhaps trying to achieve a particular legal result but without success, and then another non-lawyer (Felix) who tries to put a ton of disparate and often unrelated stuff together to conclude that somehow s2Member has a split license, and who also claims that no judge would disagree with him.

Please tell that to the judge in California who recently came to the same conclusion as me. That’s because my opinion is 100% in accord with the opinion of every lawyer who works in the field. There is a reason why I know this stuff.

#88

And your basing that on one single fact/advertisement phrase:

Open Source + Lifetime Updates
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.

Which does not tell you a license. It tells you it’s open source - it does not tell you anymore. Now as already detailed, open source does not mean that you will have the right to distribute. That’s complete bullocks. It even clarifies that you have access to the source code - but does not say you get redistribution rights. There are open source licenses that forbid distribution. So where the heck did you read about s2member pro being GNU GPL?

As no license is mentioned at all - you have to assume it’s actually copyrighted. Nowhere does it say anything about being GNU GPL on the sales pages. And once you bought it you can well find out it’s a split license.

If you buy Microsoft Windows it also does not tell you the license and EULA before buying! If they said anyhwere on that sales page that s2member-pro is GNU GPL licensed - you would be correct. They however simply do not say it. So no way for you to assume it is.

s2member itself is GNU GPL - so Krumch can copy and distribute it according to the GNU GPL. He can also take large parts of the s2member-pro plugin, because they are also GNU GPL. He cannot however take those non GPL parts of the s2member-pro plugin without breaking laws.

Krumch could however provide updates to that code - if he is not distributing copyrighted s2member-pro code itself. I.e. via diff files.

#89

It tells you it’s open source - it does not tell you anymore. Now as already detailed, open source does not mean that you will have the right to distribute. That’s complete bullocks.

Nice try at English slang. But misspelled. Try again. And you’re wrong anyway. This is the definition of open source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/open--source
"pertaining to or denoting software whose source code is available free of charge to the public to use, copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute. "

Perhaps you are confusing open source software with free software. Either way, you’re just wrong.

As no license is mentioned at all - you have to assume it’s actually copyrighted.

Open source IS a form of copyright!

#90

First of all if you read above - I told you that any judge would allow you to return the product due to false advertising - but no judge would say the split licence is invalid due to the above quoted text.
Second it could be under any kind of Open Source license - so e.g.

Artistic Licence 2.0 - which does not allow you to charge for any modified product except for distribution costs.
Netscape Public Licence - which has really crazy terms on redistribution - effectively making it impossible to do so any way commercially.
Q Public Licence - which lets the original creator decide on the distributor. So if the distributor is not on a white list - no way to distribute derivative works.

All 3 are open source licences - all three would effectively rule out what Krumch is trying here. Yes there are discussions/rejection if you can split licence code under such a licence with GNU GPL - but as it’s not stated anywhere that s2member-pro is GNU-GPL split licenced before buying - that would be a non option to your point of view.

Even more as you could assume some sort of quirky open source licence after it states explicitly that you may modify the code, but does not mention anything about redistribution in the phrase wich for your constitutes the right to redistribute.

And no - dictionary.com can write what they want - there is no clear definition of what open source is. And most open source licences (like gnu GPL) actually have some sort of copyleft placing restrictions on redistribution.

Wikipedia definition (not any less or more legally binding than dictionary.com) states: “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.”
And if you read all kinds of licences - that’s definitely more accurate than the dictionary.com definition which is wrong because it includes “free of charge” which is not the case for several open source licences.

Yes open source is a form of copyright - but after the marketing speak you have to expect a much more rigid open source licence than GPL.

#91

Oh yeah - if Krumch is actually going to distribute a version of s4member that contains those split licenced parts of s2member-pro - I would from a moral point of view - not find any constraints on just redistributing that version. It would be no different in my eyes to what he maybe is going to do.

Certainly s2member owner could have an actual right to do so. Let Krumch fix it -then offer it themself. If Krumch however choses a clean way without reusing the code in question - I see no problem in him choosing a model that limits redistribution and enforcing it.

#92

But that isn’t what I said at all. I was explaining what your argument would mean for the sake of argument – and it would lead to punitive damages against WebSharks. So Krum – and anyone else who forked s2Member and then got sued – could claim punitive damages in return for their trouble!

Nor did I say that a judge would rule that way. S/he wouldn’t. Not even close.

But I’ve had enough of this now. You just keep on bringing up ever more spurious nonsense. So have at it!

#93

@openmtbmap - I agree with your assessment. The Pro software is split license. I have a number of clients using S2Member and I will need to fork and fix based on the basic open source version. I had to do this before when my theme provider MySiteMyWay walked away from their business and community so I can attest that a path forward is doable.

#94

For what it’s worth unless otherwise specified I believe both s2member and s2member-pro are both released under the GNU General Public License v2 which specifically does allow a licence fee to be charged for software. An old example of this is the old CMS system phpnuke, as can be read on its wikipedia page.

PHP-Nuke was originally released under the GNU General Public License as free software. Versions after 7.5 required a license fee; from version 8.3 it became free again. This is permitted under the GNU GPL (providing the source code is included), and the purchaser of the software has the right to freely distribute the source code of the product. Burzi no longer owns the PHP-Nuke site.

On reading the GNU General Public License wikipedia article this is made explicitly clear.

Below is the header section of the \wp-content\plugins\s2member\s2member.php file as example of s2’s licence.

If anyone has any other evidence of a licence that supersedes the version 170722 then please post a reply, otherwise I suggest this topic is closed and marked as resolved.

Gerard

<?php
// @codingStandardsIgnoreFile
/**
 * The main plugin file.
 *
 * This file loads the plugin after checking
 * PHP, WordPress and other compatibility requirements.
 *
 * Copyright: © 2009-2011
 * {@link http://websharks-inc.com/ WebSharks, Inc.}
 * (coded in the USA)
 *
 * Released under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License,
 * along with this software. In the main directory, see: /licensing/
 * If not, see: {@link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/}.
 *
 * @package s2Member
 * @since 1.0
 */
/* -- This section for WordPress parsing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Version: 170722
Stable tag: 170722

wp-content\plugins\s2member-pro\pro-module.php

<?php
// @codingStandardsIgnoreFile
/**
 * The main plugin file.
 *
 * This file loads the plugin after checking
 * PHP, WordPress and other compatibility requirements.
 *
 * Copyright: © 2009-2011
 * {@link http://websharks-inc.com/ WebSharks, Inc.}
 * (coded in the USA)
 *
 * This WordPress plugin (s2Member Pro) is comprised of two parts:
 *
 * o (1) Its PHP code is licensed under the GPL license, as is WordPress.
 *   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License,
 *   along with this software. In the main directory, see: /licensing/
 *   If not, see: {@link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/}.
 *
 * o (2) All other parts of (s2Member Pro); including, but not limited to:
 *   the CSS code, some JavaScript code, images, and design;
 *   are licensed according to the license purchased.
 *   See: {@link http://s2member.com/prices/}
 *
 * 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 the s2Member Pro Add-on;
 * or make an offer to do any of these things. All of these things are strictly
 * prohibited with part (2) of the s2Member Pro Add-on.
 *
 * Your purchase of s2Member Pro includes free lifetime upgrades via s2Member.com
 * (i.e., new features, bug fixes, updates, improvements); along with full access
 * to our video tutorial library: {@link http://s2member.com/videos/}
 *
 * @package s2Member
 * @since 1.0
 */
#95

Hi @Gerard.

Your post clearly displays the split-license clause…

“(2) All other parts of (s2Member Pro); including, but not limited to: the CSS code, some JavaScript code, images, and design; are licensed according to the license purchased. See: {@link http://s2member.com/prices/}”.

The reference to PHP-Nuke is immaterial. It does not relate to this situation as it is a re-license by the copyright holder. It would only relate here if S2Member publicly re-licensed S2Member-Pro to be fully GPL (which they haven’t and are unlikely to do). See Artifex Software v. Hancom (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/top-10-open-source-legal-stories-shook-2017 ).

Please don’t consider this a rebuttal of your post. You are certainly free to have an opinion that is glass half-full. I am not a lawyer but base my views on 35 years in the computing business including 4 patents, 1 defended patent claim, and 100+ contract negotiations as a senior R&D manager in two multi-nationals and 3 VC spin-out attempts.

Right or wrong, the interpretation of the licenses I will be following is as follows:

The basic S2Member distributed via WordPress.org is forkable. The S2Member Pro PHP is forkable but the non-PHP S2Member Pro files are out of the picture…they are proprietary, including the Pro API (since the Oracle / Google decision).

In two weeks I will publish a link to a GitLab fork I will be upgrading and managing for my clients. Anyone who wants to participate or just come along for the ride will be welcome. The fork will only be of the basic S2Member code. I will consider salvaging the S2Member Pro PHP code only after I have considered the probity of re-constructing an HTML / Javascript / CSS layer that does not breach the S2Member license. The S2Member Pro license likely extends to the PRO API (it falls under the term Design) so it is safest to fall back to the S2Member basic and re-design equivalent functionality to the Pro version in a different form (e.g. make an EDD add-on out of S2Member basic code).

2 Likes
#96

Very very interesting.
I’ll certainly have a look :slight_smile: Thanks Tim!

#97

I’m looking into this, as I still care about s2Member a lot. I messaged Jason and Raam, got replies from both. s2Member isn’t forgotten. I’m considering the possibility of coming back.

3 Likes
#98

Hi,
Cristian, here is some information I hoped to ear, as we thought we were abandoned by the official support s2Member …
I hope your comments will be confirmed.
Thanks.

Any news on S2 update?
#99

Hi Christian,

Thank you for being the one person left from the WebSharks crew who cares enough to reach out and communicate with us. It is appreciated.

While I am pleased that you may be considering coming back you may not have much to come back to.

Deployed sites need to be fixed today. The only way to get that done is to fork the basic S2Member code and upgrade it today. So that’s happening next week. No choice.

If I were to use an analogy the S2Member kids were abandoned by WebSharks mom & dad and 2 years later when the kids are grown up and leaving the squat where they have been living off scraps and rainwater an Uncle comes back and says “Maybe I’ll take you in”.

I can only speak for myself, others may be willing to keep waiting, I can’t wait…no choice…sites are broken.

If you are rejuvenating S2Member you need to commit and provide a timeline and some guidance as to where S2Member would go and whether you would be taking ownership. If you are in negotiations…state that.

Otherwise…you are just adding to the problem.

S2Member…Dead or Alive…you pick. A “Maybe” is not acceptable with brokern sites littering the landscape.

Sorry to be blunt but S2Member brand has 0% trust right now and a “Maybe alive” is not helping to start the trust rebuild journey.

Again…Thank you for being the one person left from the WebSharks crew who cares enough to reach out and communicate with us. It is appreciated. There is certainly no ill-will aimed at you as an ex-employee but, as the americans like to say, sh*t or get off the pot :slight_smile:

1 Like
#100

One thing that’s unclear to me is who’s currently in charge of the company? Who has the authority to make decisions?

Someone is paying for domain renewals and hosting. The lights are still being kept on.

#101

Cristián ! Great to hear from you again.

You helped me and many of my clients way back when.

Would love it if you rejoined.

I really think you need to bring back paid support, but at a higher price. Weren’t you doing it for something ridiculous like $19/year? It should be 50%-75% of the $89 purchase price. And you should raise that by $10 just for good luck.

1 Like
#102

Just to feed rumours: Don’t panic. The plugin will be alive and will be developed. We work on this, but needs some time to run the support again.

1 Like