Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Slash Open Source Project

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by step.ee (2154) on Wednesday April 11 2001, @09:44AM (#2248) Homepage Journal
    it looks more like aphpnuke [phpnuke.org] that sure is another derivative from slashcode. (is it?)
    Looks like there is a whole bunch of slash-like "sites engine" out there.
    If someone has the list, can you post it!?
  • by HongPong (2057) on Wednesday April 11 2001, @01:40PM (#2251)
    I got the following URL out of the site:

    http://www.cd-raiser.com/article.php?sid=10 7&mode= thread&order=0&thold=0

    This cannot be a slash site. IIRC I think that slash and PHP are incompatible, but I might be wrong.

  • by alessio (25) on Wednesday April 11 2001, @04:17PM (#2252) Homepage Journal
    It's definitively a PHP-Nuke [phpnuke.org] site, although slightly hacked (a trademark is the RSS channel at backend.php) [cd-raiser.com].

    PHP-Nuke is inspired by Slash, i.e. is as Linux to Unix :-) and has a huge number of installations

    --

    Check out the Slash in Italian Project [kenobi.it]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2001, @02:56AM (#2254)
    You can try daCode [dacode.org] which is also a convenient PHP news engine. They focus on quality of the code so anyone can make module or take a look at the source without taking 6 months to understand it :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2001, @02:15PM (#2256)
    Here I am, a phpNuke user merely because Slash has such deep installation requirements (and now I'm growing to like PHP far better than perl for the web anyway), and I get to give back to the Slash community. :)

    Here's the list of just about every weblog/CMS known to man: http://www.fox-hunt.net/viewtopic.php?topic=14&for um=3 [fox-hunt.net]

    JoeCool

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16 2001, @08:08AM (#2271)
    It brings up a good question though. Is the GPL really a good license for the Web? Using something with a GPL license on your web site is much like distributing programs in the physical world. (On the web users See the results of the code, and that's the interface they use) So even though the site may not be charging anything, they are distributing an (essentially) binary form of the code. Are there any liceses' out there that address web use?
  • by pudge (6) on Monday April 16 2001, @10:31AM (#2274) Homepage
    Is the GPL really a good license for the Web?

    I could ask if it is good for anything, but I won't. ;-)

    Using something with a GPL license on your web site is much like distributing programs in the physical world. (On the web users See the results of the code, and that's the interface they use) So even though the site may not be charging anything, they are distributing an (essentially) binary form of the code.

    How is that essentially different from using any GPL program on a public network? Should I not be allowed to use a modified Linux kernel on my router, because people who route packets through it are using my program, and I won't distribute the source? What about a GPL'd mail server or web server? Any time you use a program under such a (as of yet) mythical license that is accessible to users via a network, then you can't make changes, or you must provide the changes as source. That is a significant departure from the way things have always worked, since long before there was a web.

    The GPL works as designed. That it "doesn't apply" to web programs is not a flaw, it is part of the design.

    Are there any liceses' out there that address web use?

    I have heard the next version of the GPL will, though I hope not. It would absolutely cripple the use of Slash by commercial organizations who for one reason or another are disinclined to distribute changes, if Slash were to use such a license.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17 2001, @08:18AM (#2282)
    I think a lot of people really don't understand what the GNU liscense really says. Technically, a software developers is under no obligation to provide the code to anyone who does not purchase the software. Since it is within the pruchasers rights to redistribute the code at no cost, most developers will give it away, but not all. Also, the copyright needs to be prominently displayed in the source code. Since the PHP source does not end up on the page, they are not in violation there. Finally, you only have to provide the source code if you are selling an executable. They are only providing the output of that executable. Assuming they are not selling the code to their web site, they don't need to provide the source, and then, they only need to provide the source to those that pruchase the software.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.