CMSimple LE - any informations?

[Tata]

My understanding of this new opened "hot" discussion is about this:
1. CMSimple was the project based on the fact, that the content of a websites shall be stored in one only plain text/html file. Regardless if CMSimple x.x or CMSimple Blablabla - each of them keeps this principle. So any of them is to be named CMSimple.
2. There are already more variations of CMSimple with some additional markers (SE, LE, Flex, XH etc.) - here it is not important what way the markers are added to CMSimple, as long as they are always the part of the name. Using of any separator within a name is totally unusual and from purely linguistic point of view its even wrong (have you ever seen Jack_Daniel_Whiskey, Golden_Scotch_Whiskey, Oclahoma_Whiskey, or JackDanielWhiskey, GoldenScotchWhiskey, OclahomaWhiskey?)
3. It is absolutely correct if the names written as a text keep some rules. However, if they are used as a part of graphical element, the composition of it is fully in hands of the designer. There have no text rules what to do. The best rules are those born during a life. And so far they are as mentioned above (CMSimple LE, CMSimple SE, CMSimple 2.4., CMSimple 4.0.4 etc.) - spaces are put where they normally belong, no comas, underscores, dashes, slashes etc.
4. Whichever of mentioned above I see, I know they belong under a huge family of CMS working without any SQL.

So, guys, please, stop these discussions and let thing run their way. Nobody will be hurt. Soon, every user of CMSimple*** will know which one fits his needs, regardless if named with or without spaces, with brand mark before, after, above or below, with or without hyphens. That's all childish. This is absolutely out of any importance. It's a waste of time which would be better used to make your codes smart, simple, modern, reliable, safe...

PaedDr_Martin_Sereday

[Hugorm]

Hi

Does anyone know where to find the international trademark documentation of the ownership contents (Is it: CMSimple, cmsimple, etc.)?.

To own a trademark I believe there must be a mark (design) or a registrated brand.
(A license does not make a trademark or an registration).

This disquisition is not ending before the documentation is provided and thus killing the simple CMS.

Kind regards
Hugo

[Gert]

So, guys, please, stop these discussions and let thing run their way.

No

CMSimple is NOT a community project, and it was never before a community project. CMSimple is a commercial project like Peters CMSimple was, even if it produces free GPL software. I have paid a lot of EUR for it.

And I have a Marketing Concept, look at cmsimple.org, and you will see.

CMSimple_XH is an authorised Community Project, I have gotten the Authorisation for CMSimple_XH from Peter years ago, I have asked him. And we have started from version 1.0.

I never will tolerate a CMSimple 3.5 from anyone. Everybody had the chance to purchase CMSimple in 2012, and then he could make it to a community project, publish a CMSimple 3.5 etc., but now it is a commercial project, like it was ever,

Gert

[Holger]

Aber eines ist garantiert ein unanständiges Täuschungsmanöver: Ein CMSimple 3.5 anzubieten, und ein download file cmsimple3_5.zip.

+1

Das sollte er ändern, sehe ich auch so.

Aber Du solltest es halt "im Guten" versuchen, anstatt neue Regeln als Fakt einzuführen.
Erinnere Dich einfach daran als wir damals einen Namen für XH gesucht haben. Wie wir, auch Du, auf Peter geschimpft haben.

Du hast ein GPL-Projekt gekauft. Der Gedanke der GPL ist möglichst maximale Freiheit - auch wenn es Dir nicht gefällt.
Um Leerzeichen oder Binde-/Unterstriche zu diskutieren, passt da nicht dazu und wirft ein negatives Licht auf das Projekt.

Das war ja früher schon das Problem mit Peter und es scheint, als würdest Du jetzt im selben Sinne weiter machen.
Und Du eckst ja nicht nur mit Mitgliedern aus der XH-Community an, wie man aktuell sieht.

Also lass dem Bjorn halt den Namen und drück' mal ein Auge zu, egal wer da nun im Recht ist...

[Torsten.Behrens]

CMSimple is a commercial project like Peters CMSimple was, even if it produces free GPL software.

See http://cmsimpleforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 2009#p8739

[Gert]

Also lass dem Bjorn halt den Namen und drück' mal ein Auge zu, egal wer da nun im Recht ist...

Ich habe doch schon signalisiert, dass ich bereit bin, dieses oder jenes zu tolerieren, also nochmal:

... nee, lieber doch nicht ... Ihr könnt ja nochmal die vorherigen Posts lesen.

Björn muss ja nicht alle meine Wünsche erfüllen (wobei ich nicht verstehe, warum er es nicht einfach tut, es ist ja nichts unmögliches dabei, noch nicht mal eine Domain, die zu ändern wäre).

Zur Zeit bietet er aber unbeirrt CMSimple 3.5 an, und wir alle wissen, wie schnell sowas zu ändern ist mit CMSimple.

Ich würde sowas niemals tun, und ich habe sowas niemals getan, vielleicht war ich der einzige, der Peter gefragt hat (damals für CMSimple), würde mich mal interessieren, wie das damals gelaufen ist z. B. mit CMSimple SE. Ich hoffe, Jens liest noch mit.

Ich bitte ganz einfach um mehr Akzeptanz des Status Quo und etwas mehr Anstand im Umgang mit den Dingen anderer Leute, auch wenn sie kostenlos zum Download, zur Nutzung und zur weiteren Verwendung bereitstehen,

Gert

[Holger]

So, guys, please, stop these discussions and let thing run their way.

No

CMSimple is NOT a community project, and it was never before a community project. CMSimple is a commercial project like Peters CMSimple was, even if it produces free GPL software. I have paid a lot of EUR for it.

And I have a Marketing Concept, look at cmsimple.org, and you will see.

CMSimple_XH is an authorised Community Project, I have gotten the Authorisation for CMSimple_XH from Peter years ago, I have asked him. And we have started from version 1.0.

I never will tolerate a CMSimple 3.5 from anyone. Everybody had the chance to purchase CMSimple in 2012, and then he could make it to a community project, publish a CMSimple 3.5 etc., but now it is a commercial project, like it was ever,

Gert

Den Quote ich nur mal, damit Du ihn nicht gleich wieder editierst .

LOL. Du hast damals Peter gefragt, weil er auch eine komische Ansicht von freier Software hatte und CMSimple anfangs noch unter AGPL stand, wir keinen Ärger wollten und auch nicht auf Streit aus waren. Das hast Du damals für das von Dir immer heraus gestellte "Team" gemacht. Und nur weil Du damals die Mail geschrieben hast, hast DU Autorisierung für XH bekommen.

Vielleicht sollte einer in einem fernen Land bald ein CMSimpel 5.0 kreieren.....

PS: und hör' auf von Anstand zu reden, sonst mach ich noch die Tastatur schmutzig...

[Gert]

See http://cmsimpleforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 2009#p8739

As I have purchased CMSimple, the other licenses (AGPL) still was available, also the reseller offers and the reseller lists, an Mikey has purchased his templates on cmsimple.org.

I have removed that stuff and this licenses after purchasing CMSimple, nobody else.

And also GPL3 has nothing to do with "for free" and noncommercial, and even if CMSimple is GPL and for free, it not says that the project is noncommercial,

Gert

[Gert]

Und nur weil Du damals die Mail geschrieben hast, hast DU Autorisierung für XH bekommen.

Zumindest habe ich mir um solche Dinge Gedanken gemacht, und entsprechend gehandelt.

PS: und hör' auf von Anstand zu reden, sonst mach ich noch die Tastatur schmutzig...

Ich habe meinen Anstand gerade beiseite gelegt und bei allinkl.com einige Dinge geregelt, die ich eigentlich nicht machen wollte. Aber wenn es anders nicht sein soll ...

[cmb]

Hi,

Du hast ein GPL-Projekt gekauft.

No. CMSimple 3.4 is published under GPL -- but Gert has taken over the copyright from Peter, so he could sell new versions of CMSimple under any license he prefers, if they don't contain copyrighted code from others (e.g. without the CMSimple_XH extensions).

Does anyone know where to find the international trademark documentation of the ownership contents

AFAIK "CMSimple" is not registered as trademark anywhere.

It all comes down to the simple questions:

• is the name "CMSimple" protected by copyright laws?
• does the GPL license include the name of the program and impose any restrictions on the naming of forks?

I would rather wish, that we could settle on a reasonable agreement without answering these questions, what would require a legal expert and probably some legal process. IMHO we are all one "family", offsprings of Peter's CMSimple. We all agree that CMSimple is a great small CMS; can't we just agree on the naming issue?

One thing seems to be absolutely clear: it's best for everybody to avoid any confusion about the different CMSimple variants. So having a CMSimple 3.5 is rather confusing, as new versions will have to be called CMSimple 3.934 sometimes in the future to avoid to be confused with CMSimple 4. Gert has already agreed that CMSimple SE and CMSimple Flex can keep their name. Regarding XH: what's so bad about CMSimple_XH or CMSimpleXH? Maybe I'm too much a coder so I don't see the problem, as I can't use a space for any designator in any (well, nearly any) programming language, and so I'm quite accustomed to writing such composed names with an underscore or in CamelCase. But actually "CMSimple" is already using some kind of CamelCase and CMSimple_XH is distributed with this very name since more than 3 years. And every CMSimpler should be quite accustomed to the underscore: it's typical for CMSimple to have it in the URLs (AFAIK the only CMS doing this; all other prefer a hyphen). So let's be proud of the origins and keep on wearing the underscore in the name.

This disquisition is not ending before the documentation is provided and thus killing the simple CMS.

I would say: if we don't stop this discussion, it will hurt all variants of CMSimple badly.

Christoph