CSS Dropdown menu for the header- With Categories!

[DivaVocals]

Seems you can ask for donations with a mod, but you can't make it easy for the "donators" by putting a button in the readme file for them to click.

This has always been the case..

Having "donate to me" buttons in the add-on, either admin-side or storefront-side or is not permitted. A single statement about where to send donations may be added to the documentation, but should be discrete and not plastered all over the place.

This submission rule is the main reason why the donate page/link was removed from IH2 module (it was not in the readme, rather there was a donate button in the IH2 admin module itself) Also Tim Kroeger hadn't supported IH2 for YEARS and his direct solicitation for donations for "continuing development" of IH2 seemed a tad inappropriate. We did leave Tim's contact data in the readme for those who still wanted to send him donations as a thank you for creating IH2.. This brought IH2 in compliance with the current submission rules.

While you can't put a direct hyperlink in your readme, this isn't stopping you from tastefully soliciting donations for your efforts by including the donation information in the readme file.. Having it "convenient" for potential donators by making it a click-able link is minor if you ask me..

AND seems that you can't copyright ANY of the code......It ALL has to be under GPL terms......hmmmmm...............not sure if I'm going to re-submit, or not.

Not with software written under the GPL license..

License: Must be GPL, since it's integrating into Zen Cart™ core code, which is GPL. A complete copy of the license should be included in the contribution files, preferably as a separate file. If an addon is free-standing (ie: doesn't use *any* existing Zen Cart™ files in order to operate) then it can be licensed under another license provided that license is fully compatible with GPL.

You can find the GPL license details at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL

hmmmmm...............not sure if I'm going to re-submit, or not.

Why not??

[Get Em Fast]

Why not??

Well, as I've got several menus' in 'the works' that I'm planning on putting on my site, and there's one little piece of code in there that I need to keep the copyrights to, and if I give up the copyrights for this, then there goes all the hard work on several different menu systems. Then they wouldn't be worth squat on my site.

You all know that I'm not a stingy person, and I love helping people out in the forum, but sometimes you've just got to put food on the table, and my site is my only income supply for doing that. These new menus' the I'm developing could be a big help.

I hope everyone understands, and doesn't judge me too harshly............

[DivaVocals]

No judgments.. Just curious 'tis all which is why I asked the question.. I do understand your POV..

Well, as I've got several menus' in 'the works' that I'm planning on putting on my site, and there's one little piece of code in there that I need to keep the copyrights to, and if I give up the copyrights for this, then there goes all the hard work on several different menu systems. Then they wouldn't be worth squat on my site.

You all know that I'm not a stingy person, and I love helping people out in the forum, but sometimes you've just got to put food on the table, and my site is my only income supply for doing that. These new menus' the I'm developing could be a big help.

I hope everyone understands, and doesn't judge me too harshly............

FYI.. It is my understanding that copywriting or monetizing modules which are meant to work with software written under the GPL is a violation of the GPL.. You might want to review the provisions yourself..

Copyleft and the GNU GPL

The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software from being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is called “copyleft”.(1)

Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it becomes a means for keeping the program free.

The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute modified versions—but not permission to add restrictions of their own. Thus, the crucial freedoms that define “free software” are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.

For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free. This ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if it is published. When programmers who have jobs as programmers volunteer to improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their employers from saying, “You can't share those changes, because we are going to use them to make our proprietary version of the program.”

The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to ensure freedom for every user of the program. The companies that privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to their systems and hardware. These changes were small compared with the great extent of X, but they were not trivial. If making changes were an excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone to take advantage of the excuse.

A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code. Such a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms are lacking for the nonfree part would be lacking for the whole as well. To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to sink a ship. Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug this hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program must be such that the larger combined version is also free and copylefted.

[Get Em Fast]

Yea, I understand that, but if I'm not selling anything but MY code and MY services to include MY code on a customers' site who already has a certain menu installed on their site, where said customer is hiring me to modify the files, and I'm not distributing the software, but ONLY MY code and MY services, then I'm still within the legal bindings of this..............aren't I?

Dr.Byte, if you was ever going to jump in a conversation.........now's the time, as I could REALLY use some advice about this, and I know you're the 'All knowing' around here.

I just need to know if what I'm pointing out above is within legal boundaries, or if there's ANY way or absolutely NO way to do this without getting myself in trouble. I sure don't need that!

[DivaVocals]

I believe you can market and sell your SERVICES to clients, but any code (module) written to expand the functionality of software written and distributed under the GPL MUST NOT be "exclusive/copywritten".. If one of your customer's decided to contribute back or share one of your "copywritten" modules, technically the GPL says they should be able to..

we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software from being turned into proprietary software

Copyright implies proprietary.. BTW, the placement of your code on a client's site is a form of distribution..

Yea, I understand that, but if I'm not selling anything but MY code and MY services to include MY code on a customers' site who already has a certain menu installed on their site, where said customer is hiring me to modify the files, and I'm not distributing the software, but ONLY MY code and MY services, then I'm still within the legal bindings of this..............aren't I?

Dr.Byte, if you was ever going to jump in a conversation.........now's the time, as I could REALLY use some advice about this, and I know you're the 'All knowing' around here.

I just need to know if what I'm pointing out above is within legal boundaries, or if there's ANY way or absolutely NO way to do this without getting myself in trouble. I sure don't need that!

[Get Em Fast]

Okay. I have been doing some researching myself, as well. And it seems no matter what, I cannot copyright my code AND include it with the GPL code, as that would be illegal............and I'm not one to be breaking laws.................ESPECIALLY ones that could land me in a federal prison. :)

So............I'll just continue down that same old path as I have been............

• Submit the jquery version to the downloads.
• Add a GPL license with it.
• Ask for donations for all the hard work (in text form only)
• Add it to my site as a product, BUT include a disclaimer that the so-called "product" is ONLY for INSTALLATION and/or STYLING the menu to the customers' exact specifications. AND include that the "product" is NOT a download, but ONLY a purchase of SERVICES, and that the actual module is freely available for download in the Zen-Cart downloads section.

Now, if understand it correctly, all of the above IS the correct way to go about it, right?

[DivaVocals]

Sounds like you got it straight..

Okay. I have been doing some researching myself, as well. And it seems no matter what, I cannot copyright my code AND include it with the GPL code, as that would be illegal............and I'm not one to be breaking laws.................ESPECIALLY ones that could land me in a federal prison. :)

So............I'll just continue down that same old path as I have been............

• Submit the jquery version to the downloads.
• Add a GPL license with it.
• Ask for donations for all the hard work (in text form only)
• Add it to my site as a product, BUT include a disclaimer that the so-called "product" is ONLY for INSTALLATION and/or STYLING the menu to the customers' exact specifications. AND include that the "product" is NOT a download, but ONLY a purchase of SERVICES, and that the actual module is freely available for download in the Zen-Cart downloads section.

Now, if understand it correctly, all of the above IS the correct way to go about it, right?

[Get Em Fast]

Sounds like you got it straight..

Well, maybe. But it does bring me to a question:

IF no GPL software can be modified and sold without it ALSO becoming GPL licensed software, then how does GPL software like Fast and Easy Checkout become Fast and Easy AJAX Checkout with a $75.00 price tag?

Don't get me wrong here..........I'm not trying to get anybody in trouble...........I'm just trying to find out what the difference is in Numinix doing that and ME doing what I was planning, and how he made the legal transition.

[Get Em Fast]

Jquery version re-submitted.

[gjh42]

Anyone can charge for any GPL code, they just can't require any exclusive rights over it. Someone who bought the $75 FEC/AJAX could legally give it away to as many people as they wanted, or even resell it (keeping the original authors' information in it).
The secret to making money from something like this is to have it be worthwhile for people to get it directly from you, with superior support etc. (you can't withhold support for something that is available from the support site, though you don't have to support that elsewhere.)