Does anyone has the credentials to access the administration demo?
alexmaster_2004 wrote:
It is the same like frontend (demo/1234).
Thanks,
El-Sayed
I guess we were posting at the same time. You beat me to it!
SmartStore.NET
MVP
- 517
- 4709
- 2/28/2012
- United States
mtek wrote:
If you download this by clicking on the large download button, then it will come in the no-source version... Like the no-source version of nopcommerce. To get the source version you need to go to: https://smartstore.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest and click on the download link.
Important notice: You might check with Andrei to see if you are allowed to add the "powered by nopcommerce" by yourself or if you have to wait till SmartStore adds it to the code.
I was not sure if he meant that ultimately SmartStore needed to add it but we could add it if we had a copy that did not have the "powered by nopcommerce." Or if we needed to wait. Here is what he said:
a.m. wrote:
Right. But it should not be done by you (a user of SmartStore). It should be done by SmartStore developers and be available out of the box. I mean adding back the "powered by nopCommerce" text.
Andrei, if you could clarify this I would greatly appreciate it. :-) Thanks!
Hi,
I like design and also some extra features added there .Example: added for theme setting to use css , delivery time etc ..
But they changed all nop core name to self such as @using SmartStore.Core.Domain. . And not gives open source them which
files changed without theme .
I like design and also some extra features added there .Example: added for theme setting to use css , delivery time etc ..
But they changed all nop core name to self such as @using SmartStore.Core.Domain. . And not gives open source them which
files changed without theme .
If you download this by clicking on the large download button, then it will come in the no-source version... Like the no-source version of nopcommerce. To get the source version you need to go to: https://smartstore.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest and click on the download link.
Important notice: You might check with Andrei to see if you are allowed to add the "powered by nopcommerce" by yourself or if you have to wait till SmartStore adds it to the code.
I was not sure if he meant that ultimately SmartStore needed to add it but we could add it if we had a copy that did not have the "powered by nopcommerce." Or if we needed to wait. Here is what he said:
a.m. wrote:
Right. But it should not be done by you (a user of SmartStore). It should be done by SmartStore developers and be available out of the box. I mean adding back the "powered by nopCommerce" text.
Andrei, if you could clarify this I would greatly appreciate it. :-) Thanks!
Silver Solution Partner
- 286
- 3432
- 10/23/2009
- Turkey
Tim2376 wrote:
Hi ,
Thank you for answer . I already knew that take the sourcecontrol latest code but needs compare cuz they changed all namespace (@using SmartStore.Core.Domain ... ) and I want to add nopCommerce 3.x version but ll be a bit hard .If not some good added can be add for next version for 3.x .
Also i agree for Andrei to add powered by nopCommerce sign.
Thanks
Hi,
I like design and also some extra features added there .Example: added for theme setting to use css , delivery time etc ..
But they changed all nop core name to self such as @using SmartStore.Core.Domain. . And not gives open source them which
files changed without theme .
If you download this by clicking on the large download button, then it will come in the no-source version... Like the no-source version of nopcommerce. To get the source version you need to go to: https://smartstore.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest and click on the download link.
Important notice: You might check with Andrei to see if you are allowed to add the "powered by nopcommerce" by yourself or if you have to wait till SmartStore adds it to the code.
I was not sure if he meant that ultimately SmartStore needed to add it but we could add it if we had a copy that did not have the "powered by nopcommerce." Or if we needed to wait. Here is what he said:
Right. But it should not be done by you (a user of SmartStore). It should be done by SmartStore developers and be available out of the box. I mean adding back the "powered by nopCommerce" text.
Andrei, if you could clarify this I would greatly appreciate it. :-) Thanks!
I like design and also some extra features added there .Example: added for theme setting to use css , delivery time etc ..
But they changed all nop core name to self such as @using SmartStore.Core.Domain. . And not gives open source them which
files changed without theme .
If you download this by clicking on the large download button, then it will come in the no-source version... Like the no-source version of nopcommerce. To get the source version you need to go to: https://smartstore.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest and click on the download link.
Important notice: You might check with Andrei to see if you are allowed to add the "powered by nopcommerce" by yourself or if you have to wait till SmartStore adds it to the code.
I was not sure if he meant that ultimately SmartStore needed to add it but we could add it if we had a copy that did not have the "powered by nopcommerce." Or if we needed to wait. Here is what he said:
Right. But it should not be done by you (a user of SmartStore). It should be done by SmartStore developers and be available out of the box. I mean adding back the "powered by nopCommerce" text.
Andrei, if you could clarify this I would greatly appreciate it. :-) Thanks!
Hi ,
Thank you for answer . I already knew that take the sourcecontrol latest code but needs compare cuz they changed all namespace (@using SmartStore.Core.Domain ... ) and I want to add nopCommerce 3.x version but ll be a bit hard .If not some good added can be add for next version for 3.x .
Also i agree for Andrei to add powered by nopCommerce sign.
Thanks
Team Member
- 16611
- 155790
- 10/22/2008
- Armenia
Tim2376 wrote:
You're surely allowed to do it yourself. Just manually add "powered by nopCommerce" or purchase the copyright removal key.
What I was talking about is that SmartStore developers also should add "powered by nopCommerce" to the official free version in the near time
Important notice: You might check with Andrei to see if you are allowed to add the "powered by nopcommerce" by yourself or if you have to wait till SmartStore adds it to the code
You're surely allowed to do it yourself. Just manually add "powered by nopCommerce" or purchase the copyright removal key.
What I was talking about is that SmartStore developers also should add "powered by nopCommerce" to the official free version in the near time
Team Member
- 16611
- 155790
- 10/22/2008
- Armenia
Mr. Pavlos Tsulfaidis, the CEO of Smartstore rejected to meet nopCommerce license terms. We'll go legal but such processes could take months (find a good lawyer, prepare all docs, independent expert opinion, etc). That's why for now I would like to share some points of my conversation with Mr.Tsulfaidis and his colleague (Murat Cakir). These guys knew about our license terms in advance (proof) but ignored it. Perhaps nopCommerce community would be interested in some of their arguments (my comments are also below). People, please be aware. SmartStore violates nopCommerce license terms.
1. SmartStore:
The problem is nopCommerce’s custom GPL license, which inevitably prevents it from being forked. You established a system, which we call Snowballing (“Schneeballsystem”) in germany. That means, that any derivative work on any level leads to payings flowing back to you, the initiator. In detail: if someone decides to fork SmartStore.NET (or any other direct fork of nopCommerce), he has to follow your copyright requirements and collect money from his users for the copyright removal and forward it to you. The same applies to 3rd level forks an so on.
...
Therefore our lawyers are convinced that your custom license undermines the “open source idea” alltogether. It’s fine as long as it concerns nopCommerce users directly, but not reasonable for derivations. We also believe that any nopCommerce fork makes your custom additions to the GPL license obsolete.
My comment:
First of all, there's no such legal terms as "open source idea". Please see the following page on the official GNU site about GPL and whether we (nopcommerce team) can create a derivative license such as NPL - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL. It states that we're allowed to create such a derivative license. GNU and FSF confirmed that we can create such a custom license. Maybe, our license is not compatible with the original GPLv3 (just maybe). But it's up to us (nopCommerce team).
Section 7, subsection (b) of GPLv3 permits that we can add a term: "... Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it ...".
That's the most important thing here! It means that we're allowed created such modified GPL license. SmartStore guys agreed to it when downloading nopCommerce and now don't want to meet its terms.
2. SmartStore:
You can’t base your work on GPL and close the source halfway. At least not for derivations. One the main principles of GPL is the viral spreading of open sourced projects, mainly by derivative work. No one is allowed to fork a GPL-based project and close it’s source, it also has to be made availabe to the community. And we’re determined to follow this principle. But – again – the “copyright removal license fee” undermines this intent and therefore makes your license additions obsolete for derivative work.
My comment:
Close the source halfway? Actually the entire source code is available for download and it's not closed some way.
3. SmartStore:
We absolutely have no problem with placing a copyright info into the footer or some other place (in fact we intended to do so already). We have a problem with you collecting the removal fees exclusively.
My comment:
Actually that was the only thing we (nopCommerce team) wanted. But later SmartStore guys rejected to place a copyright info into the footer as required by our license.
4. SmartStore:
It seems to me that you yourself are not quite clear about which type of license is the right one for your sales and distribution so that you have experimented with various ones. The one you are using currently is not so good for users – it confuses more than it helps, and what is worse ist that it contradicts all the logic of how the gpl should function.
My comment:
Actually we can move from GPLv2 based license to GPLv3 based license. Please note that I'm talking about our custom licenses based on GPLv2 and GPLv3. And we did it because Telerik MVC extensions moved to GPLv3 and we wanted nopCommerce to be compatible with the latest version of Telerik MVC extensions.
5. SmartStore:
When you take a look at the software we are offering for download at the moment you will notice that it has rather little to do with your software. We have altered much of the code and we have changed many components and we have programmed many more features within it – just as this is appropriate for a reasonable forking. This way the idea of evoluting software under the gpl is maintained.
My comment:
OK, they did a good job. But it absolutely doesn't matter how many code of lines they changed in the original nopcommerce because Smartstore is a derivative work. It's the fact. Changing a lot of code does not allow to ignore our license terms.
6. SmartStore:
We ask politely of you to put no more further requests to our address since we are sure that our opinion on this matter will not be changed.
My comment:
No comments.
7. SmartStore:
We have forked the version dating from august 1-8 (2012) and that is definitely GPLv2.
My comment:
nopcommerce never was licensed under the original GPLv2. It was licensed under a license derivative from GPLv2 at the moment they forked it (august 1-8 2012). Please find the previous license here. It has the same additional requirements. We had these additional terms about "powered by nopCommerce" since the project launch (october 2008) and never used the orginal GPL license without "powered by nopCommerce" requirement.
8. SmartStore:
In our file “credits.txt” we have written the following text which refers to the fact that smartstore is based on nopcommerce and other licenses
...
In the news release for our main market places in germany, austria and switzerland we have explicitly referred to the fact that smartstore is a fork derived from nopCommerce and I think we have therewith acknowledged your preworks more than enough.
My comment:
Thanks. I personally appreciate it. But we do not ask for acknowledgement in press reviews, news releases, or in the credit.txt file. Our license clearly states that any derivative work must have “powered by nopcommerce”.
Otherwise, the following scenario could be possible:
1. Somebody downloads nopcommerce, changes a couple of lines (doesn't matter how many lines), removes “powered by nopcommerce”
2. He releases a new software named “lolCommerce” under a new license. For example, LGPLv2 as SmartStore did
3. Now everybody can simply download this new “lolCommerce” without “powered by nopcommerce”
This way everybody will have “powered by nopcommerce” removed and nobody will purchase the copyright removal key.
Guys from SmartStore, if you want to comment anything or have something to add, you're welcome.
P.S. Personally I think that these guys just accidentally forgot or missed for some reasons these additional terms in our license when started the fork. They invested a lot of time and money to SmartStore. Recently they had read the entire license terms and now don’t want to include “powered by nopcommerce” into it because nopcommerce is the stronger and mature competitor. They could lose some of their clients (maybe). I understand them in this case. But our license terms should be met. And it’s their fault that they did not carefully read our license one year ago when started working with nopcommerce.
To nopCommerce community: can anyone recommend a good lawyer who has some experience with such cases (software license violation, similar)?
1. SmartStore:
The problem is nopCommerce’s custom GPL license, which inevitably prevents it from being forked. You established a system, which we call Snowballing (“Schneeballsystem”) in germany. That means, that any derivative work on any level leads to payings flowing back to you, the initiator. In detail: if someone decides to fork SmartStore.NET (or any other direct fork of nopCommerce), he has to follow your copyright requirements and collect money from his users for the copyright removal and forward it to you. The same applies to 3rd level forks an so on.
...
Therefore our lawyers are convinced that your custom license undermines the “open source idea” alltogether. It’s fine as long as it concerns nopCommerce users directly, but not reasonable for derivations. We also believe that any nopCommerce fork makes your custom additions to the GPL license obsolete.
My comment:
First of all, there's no such legal terms as "open source idea". Please see the following page on the official GNU site about GPL and whether we (nopcommerce team) can create a derivative license such as NPL - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL. It states that we're allowed to create such a derivative license. GNU and FSF confirmed that we can create such a custom license. Maybe, our license is not compatible with the original GPLv3 (just maybe). But it's up to us (nopCommerce team).
Section 7, subsection (b) of GPLv3 permits that we can add a term: "... Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it ...".
That's the most important thing here! It means that we're allowed created such modified GPL license. SmartStore guys agreed to it when downloading nopCommerce and now don't want to meet its terms.
2. SmartStore:
You can’t base your work on GPL and close the source halfway. At least not for derivations. One the main principles of GPL is the viral spreading of open sourced projects, mainly by derivative work. No one is allowed to fork a GPL-based project and close it’s source, it also has to be made availabe to the community. And we’re determined to follow this principle. But – again – the “copyright removal license fee” undermines this intent and therefore makes your license additions obsolete for derivative work.
My comment:
Close the source halfway? Actually the entire source code is available for download and it's not closed some way.
3. SmartStore:
We absolutely have no problem with placing a copyright info into the footer or some other place (in fact we intended to do so already). We have a problem with you collecting the removal fees exclusively.
My comment:
Actually that was the only thing we (nopCommerce team) wanted. But later SmartStore guys rejected to place a copyright info into the footer as required by our license.
4. SmartStore:
It seems to me that you yourself are not quite clear about which type of license is the right one for your sales and distribution so that you have experimented with various ones. The one you are using currently is not so good for users – it confuses more than it helps, and what is worse ist that it contradicts all the logic of how the gpl should function.
My comment:
Actually we can move from GPLv2 based license to GPLv3 based license. Please note that I'm talking about our custom licenses based on GPLv2 and GPLv3. And we did it because Telerik MVC extensions moved to GPLv3 and we wanted nopCommerce to be compatible with the latest version of Telerik MVC extensions.
5. SmartStore:
When you take a look at the software we are offering for download at the moment you will notice that it has rather little to do with your software. We have altered much of the code and we have changed many components and we have programmed many more features within it – just as this is appropriate for a reasonable forking. This way the idea of evoluting software under the gpl is maintained.
My comment:
OK, they did a good job. But it absolutely doesn't matter how many code of lines they changed in the original nopcommerce because Smartstore is a derivative work. It's the fact. Changing a lot of code does not allow to ignore our license terms.
6. SmartStore:
We ask politely of you to put no more further requests to our address since we are sure that our opinion on this matter will not be changed.
My comment:
No comments.
7. SmartStore:
We have forked the version dating from august 1-8 (2012) and that is definitely GPLv2.
My comment:
nopcommerce never was licensed under the original GPLv2. It was licensed under a license derivative from GPLv2 at the moment they forked it (august 1-8 2012). Please find the previous license here. It has the same additional requirements. We had these additional terms about "powered by nopCommerce" since the project launch (october 2008) and never used the orginal GPL license without "powered by nopCommerce" requirement.
8. SmartStore:
In our file “credits.txt” we have written the following text which refers to the fact that smartstore is based on nopcommerce and other licenses
...
In the news release for our main market places in germany, austria and switzerland we have explicitly referred to the fact that smartstore is a fork derived from nopCommerce and I think we have therewith acknowledged your preworks more than enough.
My comment:
Thanks. I personally appreciate it. But we do not ask for acknowledgement in press reviews, news releases, or in the credit.txt file. Our license clearly states that any derivative work must have “powered by nopcommerce”.
Otherwise, the following scenario could be possible:
1. Somebody downloads nopcommerce, changes a couple of lines (doesn't matter how many lines), removes “powered by nopcommerce”
2. He releases a new software named “lolCommerce” under a new license. For example, LGPLv2 as SmartStore did
3. Now everybody can simply download this new “lolCommerce” without “powered by nopcommerce”
This way everybody will have “powered by nopcommerce” removed and nobody will purchase the copyright removal key.
Guys from SmartStore, if you want to comment anything or have something to add, you're welcome.
P.S. Personally I think that these guys just accidentally forgot or missed for some reasons these additional terms in our license when started the fork. They invested a lot of time and money to SmartStore. Recently they had read the entire license terms and now don’t want to include “powered by nopcommerce” into it because nopcommerce is the stronger and mature competitor. They could lose some of their clients (maybe). I understand them in this case. But our license terms should be met. And it’s their fault that they did not carefully read our license one year ago when started working with nopcommerce.
To nopCommerce community: can anyone recommend a good lawyer who has some experience with such cases (software license violation, similar)?
- 187
- 2299
- 11/25/2009
- United Kingdom
Andrei, I am with you 100% of the way. It is a clear violation of your T&C's in my eyes.
I would just like to take this opportunity to mention that Andrei and the team have spent many years and lots of investment (be it time or/and money) making nopCommerce what it is today. I ask everyone to put yourself in Andrei's shoes and see how you would like it if someone came along, spent a couple of months on the UI and then created their own store of the back of your effort. Illegally.
I am all for open source software, we have our own open source CMS. With that in mind if someone came along and reskinned our CMS which took years to build and £000's of investment only for someone else to reskin it and call it there own, then I would be annoyed and on that principle will not be using SmartStore at our company.
It is the type of behaviour which SmartStore has shown that makes people scared to open source their software, and it shouldn't be like this.
I would just like to take this opportunity to mention that Andrei and the team have spent many years and lots of investment (be it time or/and money) making nopCommerce what it is today. I ask everyone to put yourself in Andrei's shoes and see how you would like it if someone came along, spent a couple of months on the UI and then created their own store of the back of your effort. Illegally.
I am all for open source software, we have our own open source CMS. With that in mind if someone came along and reskinned our CMS which took years to build and £000's of investment only for someone else to reskin it and call it there own, then I would be annoyed and on that principle will not be using SmartStore at our company.
It is the type of behaviour which SmartStore has shown that makes people scared to open source their software, and it shouldn't be like this.