Would we get sued if we sold a site that used mediawiki?
 

I got an site idea and involves an heavily modified mediawiki (which we'll be doing ourselves).

Is it legal to sell the site a couple years down the line even though we didn't write 100% of the code?

Mediawiki is a script developed for wikipedia. open source.

did u read their gpl?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

the right to run the program, for any desired purpose.
the right to study how the program works, and modify it. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this)
the right to redistribute copies.
the right to improve the program, and release the improvements to the public. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this)

Yes, and no.

If you sell it as a product that uses MediaWiki, you have to offer the modified code, or the plugins which enable it to work with what you're doing. For this purpose, for most tasks, people will offer their small shims which allow their proprietary product to hook the original code base.

So, so long as you write it as plugins, anything you add is pretty much yours unless you directly interface it with the GPL. LinkSys, Apple, and others have been using this way to skirt the GPL "ALL OR NOTHING" intent for years.

However, if you find something in the BSD code, man, it's truly free.

im probably wrong.

it says you have the right to offer the modified code, it deos not say you must.

That's technically, really gnarled. Parts that were GPL and freely offered, you need to offer 'some' of your stuff to, which is why I mentioned a plugin arch.

Really, in the end, it depends on how much money you have for a good lawyer, but it's always good to just not give up your shit, however, do offer the base that you used as well as 'adapted' modifications you've made. Anything that you code that just happens to use your shim is in the free and clear, because it just uses that.

so, let me get this straight. if we don't modify the core of the mediawiki script. build everything as plugins/extensions. we have the right to sell our site with the mediawiki script?

So, basically, when we sell our site. We would only be selling our addons + site idea+traffic.


if it comes to it, we could write the entire script ourselves. but if we could use the mediawiki script. it would shave off a great amount of development time. we would be able to release the site much sooner.

That's the idea. You can sell stuff based off of the GPL, but some people really like to twist your tits over it, so it's best to just give them something that will be worthless to them, and keep the rest of your code closed.

If you entirely rebuild the wiki but rewrite it with your own shit, it can get pretty hairy. Look at AutoBlogger Pro. It's technically a 'module', and as such, doesn't have to release it's code as it is hooked into WordPress, but if people bitch enough, they might get edge to release 'how' its hooked into WP, but he doesn't have to give up his own shit..

Most likely why Chio opted to use WP.. whereas I like to use TXP. When I sold my sites, they just ran on TXP, and I made my own custom module that did the other shit. No harm, no foul.

Thanks for clearing things up, I'll talk to my partner who is also the programmer to see how he wants to do this.

Hmmm, this isn't exactly how Autoblogger Pro works. Yes, there are some changes to WordPress, but those changes are clearly viewable in the source for WordPress that comes with ABP. The ABP code is custom, and is encoded using IonCube, because it's a commercially viable product that has proprietary code to protect.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I just want to point out that ABP doesn't fit into this mold.

The new version of ABP, the Standalone version, is written from the ground-up to post OUT to Wordpress, WordPress.com, BlogSome.com, Blogger/BlogSpot.com, and a bunch of others. It has NO ties to WordPress itself, and does NOT come bundled with it. Here are some screenshots of Autoblogger Pro Standalone 1.0: 1 2 3 4 5. The beta test began today, and the feedback has been very positive so far.

I think more Program Owners should Offer Plugins, Componants, or Modules to affiliates...Make it so thier ads, feeds, videos, or gallerys dynamically update.

Agreed. We're always ready to work with program owners to make sure that their RSS feeds are available to webmasters, either through Autoblogger Pro pulling them, or by CREATING new RSS feeds for programs that don't have them.

We have a brand new product that will "push" a sponsor's RSS feed onto an affiliate's blog (and soon, with a plugin, any site), eliminating the need for the affiliate to do any work to get the newest content. Program owners should feel free to ICQ me about this so we don't have a hijack going on.

When I was working with the company that released Python 2.0, we ran into this problem frequently. Companies such as Microsoft, Disney, Red Hat, Google, and others wanted to incorporate Python into their offerings, but weren't sure it would be GPL-compatible. If you know anything about Jimmy, you'll know that he's all about the "greater good" (just look at Bomis, haha). As long as you're not doing something overtly evil, most things are "fair game." If you'd like, I can open a dialogue between you and the people over there, but I do not anticipate any complications with this at all.

Feel free to ICQ me to talk over the finer points of GPL compliance, etc. I can put you into touch with Richard Stallman if need be, as well. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to clear up any issues you might have -- he was very helpful to me and the Python guys when we were trying to break out of an overly restrictive license .. he even signed a shirt for me, haha.

It should be fine..