There has been a recent hoo haa about seemilgly duplicate plugins and one being removed because someone complained.... I think this is unfair, from what I can grasp the plugins were similar in some ways but one offered more than the other. To me this isn't duplicate, the concept is the same but the plugins themselves different.
Now if you look at the sore you see several other plugins with the same concept made by different people.
eg: http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/240
http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/484
http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/614
http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/210
all these are social shares, yet they are all slightly different, I don't see people complaining about these of asking for ones made 2nd and 3rd to be removed from the store.
This is only one example, I'm sure there's more.
I feel it's wrong to force a plugin developer remove a plugin because it is similar to another if it offers different options.
Personally I like the sound of the removed plugin as it sound more what I would be interested in, I also feel Oxwall users have the right to choose between the two plugins and not be forced to get one because the other was no longer available.
We build. You grow.
Get best community software hereStart a social network, a fan-site, an education project with oxwall - free opensource community software
Similar plugins | Forum
Abbey
Dec 15 '13
Personally I like the sound of the removed plugin as it sound more what I would be interested in, I also feel Oxwall users have the right to choose between the two plugins and not be forced to get one because the other was no longer available.
I concur. I'm guessing this topic sprouted from the thing about online user plugin's being released next to each other, and I guess one was removed. But as far as I'm concerned, Oxwall has stated or detailed any policies that disallow similar plugins to exist on the store, there are many that are similar that may do one extra thing or one less thing.
As I said on some other topic, on one of the recent plugins that were removed because of similarity, "You can buy a blueberry muffin from Joe's bakery, or you can buy a blueberry muffin next door at Tom's bakery. They're the same product, but both have different ingredient sources and prices."
Seriously it shouldn't matter if there are somewhat similar plugins, the customer who is shopping for plugins like you said should have the right to different options. This gives a variety and is much better for everyone.
~Jake
I agree. plus one of the muffins might taste better to one person but another might prefer the other.
IB
Dec 16 '13
I agree. Even if you have plugins that are exactly the same, with exactly the same features, they will be coded differently. One might be far more efficient than the other. In the end it's the power of the download and the comments that will decide who is better anyway.
Abbey
Dec 17 '13
Another example is the "snow effects" plugins, seemingly the same but different, neither of the developers seemed threatened by the others plugin.
Maybe Oxwall need to review their policies.
Maybe Oxwall need to review their policies.
Abbey
Dec 17 '13
I don't think their policies are the problem ;)
lol....maybe not.... I think my mind was elsewhere when I posted that post lol *pays more attention*
Team Daisy
Dec 18 '13
Guys, let me make it clear:
@Abbey, you are right, the plugins you've mentioned have the similar conception, but if you take a deep look, you will see that these plugins work different way.
As it's stated in our TOS (3.6 clause):
Non-acceptable Goods: The Goods that do not offer substantial value beyond what is already available in The Store.
However, each of these plugins has its own configuration possibilities and can be valued for one customer and unuseful for another. So, it might be fair to approve these plugins at that time.
If, let's say, the AddThis(http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/210) or ShareThis(http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/484) plugins would have been submitted now, after the other two plugins submission - we would definitely consider if these plugins do offer substantial value and can be approved.
Second aspect is that two of these plugins were submitted long before we had started to strictly moderate each plugin submitted to the Store.
Oxwal Store policy is to provide the goods with the highest quality for Oxwall Store customers. Thus, the submitted plugin with the advanced options will be definitely approved regardless of the existing plugins with the similar conception. The fact is that, unfortunately we have no rights to remove the existing Store items in case the new plugin with more options was created. By approving the plugins with the extended functionality, we want the developers to always stay tuned by the trends and new plugins functionality.
It's always up to developers if they want their plugins to be the best.
Abbey, could you please specify what plugin exactly you are talking about saying: 'There has been a recent hoo haa about seemilgly duplicate plugins and one being removed because someone complained'?
Most probably I could explain the situations.
Finally, regarding two plugins: Auto Online Members and Force Users Online. These plugins have similar idea: both plugins allow admins to set 'fake' online status for users automatically. But the fact is that these plugins are different. They have different set of features and configurations. They work radically different ways. Therefore both plugins were approved.
Guys, as I've said above, we are doing our best to provide the goods with the highest quality for Oxwall Store customers. We have rules which we are following for, but sometimes, the outside-in perspective added new insights. Thus, if you consider Oxwall Store regulation is unfair, please drop us a line via moderation_team@oxwall.org
@Abbey, you are right, the plugins you've mentioned have the similar conception, but if you take a deep look, you will see that these plugins work different way.
As it's stated in our TOS (3.6 clause):
Non-acceptable Goods: The Goods that do not offer substantial value beyond what is already available in The Store.
However, each of these plugins has its own configuration possibilities and can be valued for one customer and unuseful for another. So, it might be fair to approve these plugins at that time.
If, let's say, the AddThis(http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/210) or ShareThis(http://www.oxwall.org/store/item/484) plugins would have been submitted now, after the other two plugins submission - we would definitely consider if these plugins do offer substantial value and can be approved.
Second aspect is that two of these plugins were submitted long before we had started to strictly moderate each plugin submitted to the Store.
Oxwal Store policy is to provide the goods with the highest quality for Oxwall Store customers. Thus, the submitted plugin with the advanced options will be definitely approved regardless of the existing plugins with the similar conception. The fact is that, unfortunately we have no rights to remove the existing Store items in case the new plugin with more options was created. By approving the plugins with the extended functionality, we want the developers to always stay tuned by the trends and new plugins functionality.
It's always up to developers if they want their plugins to be the best.
Abbey, could you please specify what plugin exactly you are talking about saying: 'There has been a recent hoo haa about seemilgly duplicate plugins and one being removed because someone complained'?
Most probably I could explain the situations.
Finally, regarding two plugins: Auto Online Members and Force Users Online. These plugins have similar idea: both plugins allow admins to set 'fake' online status for users automatically. But the fact is that these plugins are different. They have different set of features and configurations. They work radically different ways. Therefore both plugins were approved.
Guys, as I've said above, we are doing our best to provide the goods with the highest quality for Oxwall Store customers. We have rules which we are following for, but sometimes, the outside-in perspective added new insights. Thus, if you consider Oxwall Store regulation is unfair, please drop us a line via moderation_team@oxwall.org
fbkca
Dec 18 '13
Thanks for clearing that up Daisy.
Finally, regarding two plugins: Auto Online Members and Force Users Online. These plugins have similar idea: both plugins allow admins to set 'fake' online status for users automatically. But the fact is that these plugins are different. They have different set of features and configurations. They work radically different ways. Therefore both plugins were approved.
Perhaps the "someone" who slandered my plugin may volunteer an apology, but I'm not holding my breath.
Mohammad
Dec 18 '13
I think there is no reason to not approval plugin if the idea isn't unique and new.even if functionality of plugins be the same.
for example the developers of Social plugins aren't first people who think about making such plugin.
it's better let people decide and choose between these kind of plugins.
but if the plugin was developed with a whole new idea,there should be a policy which Oxwall has
Team Daisy
Dec 18 '13
Guys, all depends on the quality of plugin development. If there had been two plugins with the similar idea, but one plugin was developed with the better quality than another one, we would have chosen the best one. If the plugins were developed good, we believe, it's fair both plugins to be approved. :)
Leader
Pete
Dec 31 '13
Not to mention that the only time it comes down to actual legal matters is if someone stole the code of a plugin 100% and somehow managed to have it published and they were making money with it. That's bad duplication, good duplication is more of competition. You have multiple plugins - that would offer variety and help Oxwall in a good way.
~Jake
Jake you can not prove people stole the php code ,due to all php being the same,if somebody changed just one item in the code then ,you could never prove it. if i changed some of your php code in your plugin ,even if you knew for a fact it was your plugin ,there is no way to prove it ,due to every php script ,plugin,etc uses the same php code
The Forum post is edited by Pete Dec 31 '13
Leader dave
Dec 31 '13
There are rules (if not in oxwall then someplace) that cover items "derived from" another item. Even though PHP code is all the same, there are ways to prove a "derived from" legal stance. If they use the exact same var names in the same places, if the pages of code look almost identical but minor changes.
It is much like the battles in court over book rights. And without getting into all that, you can tell if one book has been copied or "derived from" another book, and just minor changes made in the written word, and if it is more than likely a copy or not. It is the same with coding.
If the file names are the same, most of the vars are the same, the placement of code structure is the same then it is more than likely a copy. Everyone might use the same PHP code, but how they get to the final result can be quite different.
Every coder leaves a code style fingerprint on their code, over time they always do certain things a certain way and this can be quite obviouse to someone that pays attention and this style fingerprint is also used to prove or disprove a case.
Since i am not a dev for oxwall i will share one of my fingerprints. I always move the php open and close brackets to their own line in my scripts and i dont use spaces in my else and i comment my close
For example... most coders do this
if($whatever){
do this;
} else {
do this ;
}
i do this
if($whatever)
{
do this;
}else{
do this ;
} //close else
I line everything up so i can trouble shoot and read it better. Its just one of my fingerprints.
The Forum post is edited by dave Dec 31 '13
Leader dave
Jan 1 '14
this is not a bad article here, it does touch on some of the basics...
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-do-you-know-if-you-have-valid-claim-someone-stealing.html
Joey
Jan 1 '14
I think there is no reason to not approval plugin if the idea isn't unique and new.even if functionality of plugins be the same.for example the developers of Social plugins aren't first people who think about making such plugin.
it's better let people decide and choose between these kind of plugins.
but if the plugin was developed with a whole new idea,there should be a policy which Oxwall has
Agree with this.
When i see the News plugin, it is $30 or something. If i cam make it like that, maybe with some extra functions, and like to sell it voor 15 euro, there is nobody who can kick me.
People have choices wich one they take. Easy as that.
Sorry for my bad english
