Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

marwa — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:58:03 +0200

Hello,
I want to know a closed wiki, which (closed mean, one needs to logon first) which does'nt work. i want to know the sbest software to install it.

can any one help me.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

mcneely — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:34:31 +0200

I've been using sphider for what now seems like eons ... Ando did some good work, back in the day.

I don't mind a simple keyword search at all .. special characters seem to just get in the way sometimes, so the need for 2.0 isn't really there to begin with.

I did download the copy .. looked it over .. and will remain with my current, older Ando version. Version 2.0, I would guess, could work for some, but I'm the type that remains a bit more traditional when it comes to search .. I couldn't use the script if I wanted to really. I've established all of my own attachments, like site submit, for instance, and can run the search from any site, anywhere.

I've got all of my 'DIV's in place for ad rotations (ad API's), and have taken and placed everything else into tables .. I don't feel like starting over again .. really.

As it is, all of the dynamics would have to be removed from version 2.0 ... the actual site description would have to be displayed in the final search results, and the css features and quirks would really have to go away .. the 1998 design style does bring back a few memories though .. LOL. There isn't anything in the Version 2.0 that I can use.

I've worked with Ando's script for a while now, and though I may not be tied into several different databases at once, like version 2.0 is, I will be putting on a Google styled image search, and a media/mp3 search as well .. running off of the core of Ando's coding.

If the day ever came that I decided to sell my mods or upgrades to the core coding of this engine, I would make sure that Ando got a cut ... Afterall, it was Ando that peaked my initial interest in this little project, and I think that remembering him with regard to any future possible monitary gain would be the order of the day.

As an added note;

Would I be willing to pay for Version 2.0?
If it was something I found that I could use, I absolutely would .. afterall .. I expect to be paid for my work too, so I'm not seeing any problem with Tec wanting to be paid for his.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

billb — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:20:49 +0300

Hello Tec,

Thanks for your comment about my *professional* site. It's good to know that "the old dog still has teeth". I can honestly say that I have progressed from being a professional developer to being an amateur developer. Maybe if I moved to the Far East, I could find work in America and be a professional again .... ;-)

>>> Would be also the chance to integrate OOP and to throw away several of the time consuming PHP preg_match() functions.

There are some OO design principles which could provide theoretical benefits, but parsing is tricky, especially the performance of the engine.

I did a pure OO parser for business rule definitions in Java and was very slow. Thousands and thousands of token objects being created and destroyed made it very slow. We had to back off from creating OO tokens in the inner loop and implement it via tags in nested arrays and big functions with case structures. The code was harder to work with but It was much faster.

The basic regex parsing functions in PHP must be pretty fast, perhaps because the non-OO code for driving an array is fairly flat and gets into the PHP core modules very quickly. I've seen benchmarks where Perl is about twice as fast as PHP for paring, but that is actually pretty good for a simple language that doesn't require shell scripting, CGI and all that stuff.

I don't think there is any easy way to do an API. It seems to me that the API for parsing a web page would be essentially the same as the DOM, or at least very dependent on it. There might be a special description for the parsing of a certain type of page such as, "go to section id #mycontent and start parsing there", in other words don't bother with the rest of the page. I'm not sure if that is typical of most sphider-plus users or just something I would like to see.

My custom user functions are winding up in sphider.php and sphiderfuncs.php, but maybe there is a way to keep them separate for the core code. I've hacked with Sphider-Plus 1.6 to the point where I don't know what's original and what's mine ( I can do a file diff and find out of course, I'm just lazy ).

The functions index_site(...) or index_url(...) might be the place where custom handlers could be applied to override default processing. The custom function could return true if it handled the url/site or false for continue processing.

For example, where the code is checking for Words docs, PDF etc. It would be the right place to look up a list of match criteria and apply other kinds of overrides as well, for instance replace the whole page with the content of a section with id=#something.



	if ($url_status['content'] != 'text') {                                 





				$file = extract_text($file, $url_status['content']);     //for DOCs, PDFs etc we need special converter                





                if ($file == 'ERROR') {     //      if error, suppress further indexing





                    $OKtoIndex = 0;





                    $file_read_error = 1; 





                }

I think it shouldn't be a big change. The system works well in many different circumstances. Maybe use singleton or "flat" objects for different packagings of the core functions, but if it works, don't fix it is my philosophy.

I'm very interested in Sphider-Plus and RDF/OWL, but not as a consumer of RDF, rather as a *producer* of RDF, via detecting close proximity on a page. There would probably be some sort of manual confirmation required, this is all as a later step after the indexing run.

I think I come up with some good ideas, but I'm very bad at *doing* them. I'm very lazy ... a theoretical amateur programmer I guess. :-)

- Bill B.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Tec — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:23:19 +0300

Hello,

Had a look at your Sphider-plus application. The 'Artificial Intelligence' search looks really professional!

<<< Have you thought about doing plugins >>>
Yes, I did. But currently Sphider-plus does not have any defined API. It is like boiling milk:
Many spume and bubbles. Up to now I only did some debugging and knitting new application relevant features into the original Sphider scripts.
Plugin functionallty would first require a new Sphider-plus kernel. Would be also the chance to integrate OOP and to throw away several of the time consuming PHP preg_match() functions.

Greetings,
Tec

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

billb — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:35:46 +0300

> Software solutions are part of my work since Zilog Z8 and Motorola MC6800 ...

I was one of those people who believed that CMOS was just a passing fad, bit-slice was the only way to go.
[en.wikipedia.org].

I also believed that color monitors didn't belong in the workplace, they were only good for playing games at home. I was wrong of course, they are also very good for playing games at work.

> And yes, also keypunching FORTRAN code

None of those obsolete 80-column punch cards for us, we had state-of-the-art, 132-column punch cards ( mostly RPG ! ). The dust made me sneeze. Teletyping via TSO into the Dartmouth Basic machine was a big step up.

My baby: [oldcomputers.net]
Radio Shack Color Computer, 6809e running at a blazing 890KH, 32K for program, data *and* 11K for the screen buffer ... best of all, it had the DinoWars game. I had the machine until a few years ago, it still worked.

Lordy, it was fun. It still is, or it can be anyway. Some of the modern technology is too big and complex to get close to. Puppy Linux is small distro that is "fun to be around", some of their forum threads make this one look like a Sunday church meeting. Unforgettable egos.

> Meanwhile I'm concentrating to prepare additional features for Sphider-plus ...

The features sound very interesting, particularly the RDF. I've been investigating Semantic Web markup/micro-formats for several years, but there don't seem to be many examples of it. Maybe that is changing. Linking engines via feeds is also very interesting.

Have you thought about doing plugins ? It would help to avoid "feature creep", too many add-ons. The engine runs pretty well now, maybe 500 Wikipedia pages in 15 minutes or so, very reasonable for PHP. It would help to keep the core functionality clean and allow flexibility. In the UI, the "regex" expressions would trigger a plugin to handle a site or content type.

I've been fiddling with the idea of something like "ontology guided search" ( ? ).

I have an example of Sphider-Plus indexing into Wikipedia using my wiki as a guide. I use the results from the search engine to improve the implied ontology in the wiki. It has worked pretty well The subject is business rules, rule engines, artificial intelligence, etc.

This is a Sphider-Plus query embedded into WikkiaWiki with an iframe.
[www.billbreitmayer.com]

This is the search engine itself.
[www.billbreitmayer.com]

Another idea I've been working on is capturing not just the fact that keywords are appearing on the same page, but also capturing how close they are to each other on the page, maybe in the same sentence. Obviously, this could create exponentially large keyword-keyword associations. One way to solve the problem would be to use "super keywords" like business rules, rule engines, artificial intelligence, etc. to limit the number of associations. Basically, the super keywords would be same as the subjects in the wiki.

Another way ( maybe better ) to work around the problem of exponentially large keyword-keyword associations might be to keep track of the offset in a page where a keyword is found. Multiple occurrences would have to be tracked separately, maybe in a separate one-to-many table. The keyword-keyword stuff would be done as a second step, say by taking the difference between "semantic" at offset 2035 and "web" 2088 and applying a flattening "S" function to weight close occurrences more than distant occurrences.

Overall, I don't think Google is doing a very good job these days. Maybe they are just overwhelmed by billions and billions of pages, maybe they are making so much money from "pay for clicks" that Google search is becoming a big advertisement, maybe their weighting policies favoring recent content over old content is pushing good stuff to page 137, I don't know for sure. I seems like I find more good links in high pages than I used to. I probably find as many good links directly from other sites as I do from Google.

In any case, I think there is a big need for specialized search engines now and maybe a bigger need in the future. It's getting more difficult to find things on the web.

Of course, turning open source solutions into revenue to help feed us in our old age is an entirely different question. I wish I knew the answer.

They say the mathematicians peak in their 20s and writers peak in their 60s. Are programmers more like mathematicians or writers ? We are the first generation with a chance to find out. I think we are more like writers. :-)

- Bill B

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Tec — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:47:53 +0300

Hallo again.
Most strange situation. Access info was sent today at midday to your PayPal account (which is another one than the above) and as pm (this forum, sent to GreatLord) about 3 hours ago. The sent pm is marked as 'read' in my pm outbox. Also the e-mail did not come back, so it was deliverable.
Within the last 10 minutes again sent to you. Now to the above e-mail account and as another pm again to GreatLord.

Tec

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

GreatLord — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:12:40 +0300

Hi
I did not see any PM or on the mail can you try resend it on follow email address, olsen_magnus@hotmail.com,
Maybe my domain spam filter did eat it.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Tec — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:03:44 +0300

Hello,
Access info has been sent to your PayPal account (e-mail). If you did not receive it, it might have been catched by your spam filter. A copy I've sent a minute ago as pm.
Greetings
Tec

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

GreatLord — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:39:30 +0300

Tec
I want 2.1 it contain some function i want and i want support the good work u have done
So send me the acount to d/l it

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Tec — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:39:46 +0300

billb:
Thank you for opening this thread to a more global discussion about GPL. I am also looking back on a complete life developing software. Software solutions are part of my work since Zilog Z8 and Motorola MC6800. With horror I'm remembering all the nights, hacking bits and bytes assembler code into TTY's (Teletypewriter) that we used as interface to the most comfortable 64 kB RAM, shared by the program and also the data. Mostly stack overflow destroyed both. And yes, also keypunching FORTRAN code is part of my (now longer required) experience. Today's PHP scripts are really far away from these times.
Never the less there will be always some envious hotheads trying to get all. For my point of view my arguments about GPL are well expressed in my above posts and are on the same fundamental thinking as yours. My personal conclusion: if the community does not accept the GPL facts, for me it would be no problem to stop further development of Sphider-plus and also to close the project page. This should not be understood as a threat, but also my endurance is limited.

GreatLord:
There was no problem for me to index [www.reactos.org] with Sphider-plus version 2.0
If you like to take notice of the corresponding log-file I placed at
[www.sphider-plus.eu]
You will find the text, images and links indexed by Sphider-plus. In order to safe time, I concentrated on the first 3 pages of that site; just demonstrating that it works.
And with special greetings to all the fans of original Sphider who are still hoping that Ando will add utf-8 support, also the Chinese, Cyrillic, Czech, Hebrew, Greece, Korean and other words are indexed by Sphider-plus.
As this log-file was created by version 2.0 of Sphider-plus, version 2.1 will not present additional results for you, GreatLord. Should I re-send the 25 Euro you immolated yesterday?
The rest of your posting is unreadable for me. Sorry, but English is not my native language. So I do not have any idea what FSF, svn, GIT etc. in your posting might express. Sorry for my limited knowledge, but I'm missing time to find out all currently used shortcuts. Meanwhile I'm concentrating to prepare additional features for Sphider-plus. Coming next:

- Improved RSS and Atom feed index procedure. Including now also a validation for the well-formed XML.

- Support added for RDF feeds.
For a complete list of indexed items, please notice the documentation chapter:
RDF, RSS and Atom feeds

- Additional item in Admin settings:
Follow CDATA directives for feed content.

- Detection of encoding (charset) added for XML and XHTML files.

- Log output suppressed, if the indexer is only redirected from
[www.abc.de] to [www.abc.de]

- Improved response for 'canonical' links. Back references to the calling page are ignored now.

- New option for iframe indexing in Admin settings:
Instead of calling page, remember the link to iframe directly.

- Bug fixed that prevented highlighting of keywords in result listing, if full text was shorter than 250 characters
(as to be defined in Admin settings: 'Maximum length of page summary displayed in search results').

- Bug fixed that prevented highlighting of keywords in result listing for Strict search (!query),
if keyword was found in position 0 of full text.

- Bug fixed that caused direct jump to iframe instead of linking to the calling page, when activating the link in result listing.

- Bug fixed that prevented to display long URLs (> 70 characters) in Admin sites view.

Tec

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

GreatLord — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:44:27 +0300

I just d/l sphider-plus (not paying for it) and try it out.

I found some issue with it.
he issue I have with sphider-plus 2.0 is that it can not index www.reactos.org but orginal sphider 1.3.4 code can.

Like the thing that Tec have done, it is thuse featuer I started implement in sphider my self.

Tec I did not mean attact u any way.
When you working on opensource project big one FSF say onething and FAQ say another.
that can be bit mess for a devloper. The search engine mod you have done is almost everything I want.

Tec do you using svn for keep track on changes local or GIT ?

I just pay for sphider-plus 2.1 see if it better or not.
I am working on a new website, it will have a public search engine that everyone can search on. it will index allot of web site.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

billb — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:17:00 +0300

In my experience, lawyers are more often part of the problem than the solution. Actually, programmers do the same thing when they try to make a big project out of a little project, I do it too. I guess it must be human nature.

I'm pretty sure that I have seen code that was ripped from other sources without attribution. In fact, in the course of my career, I've done it, especially back in the 1980s before open licensing. For example, I would buy a book about C++ data structures and use the examples to build an applications.

Even within a company, it was considered a bad thing to re-use someone else's code. Back in the old days, everyone was supposed to write date validation routines as if it was the first time it had ever been done. It was very boring to write the same code over and over again.

Later, programmers started using shared libraries and software engineering technology to be more productive and reduce coding errors.

In a way, the spirit of GPL is more important than the details of licensing. I think Tec has been true to the spirit of GPL, that is take it, improve it, pass it along. On the other hand, it's good to have the legal requirements in cases where someone is trying to steal GLP code.

I hadn't heard about wine3d, but FSF settled a court case with Cisco about GPL requirerments.

[www.fsf.org]

It's a good decision because FSF and Cisco are working together to find some way for Cisco to use GPL applications without violating the license, it's good for everyone. Also, if a company is making money from GPL code, a donation to the developer can help to "grease the wheels" a bit.

Come to think of it ... Tec has been sending emails to Ando Saabas ( the developer of Sphider ), but getting no rely. Maybe if he sent Ando a small check, he'd get a reply to his emails. ;-)

If you are interested, I've written an short article about "Making a Living from Open Source Software".
[billbreitmayer.com]

- Bill B

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

GreatLord — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:58:02 +0300

Sorry I did miss about the pay fee the FAQ say. But it is fun what FSF lawers say and thery FAQ say. The lawers say diffent that the FAQ say, See WIne and there DirectX wine3d was rip from wine and sold by 3 party, FSF was involve in that process and force the company to release ít for free with source code.

That is my experies about GPL and FSF

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

billb — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:57:30 +0300

GreatLord Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tec
> I been working in GPL project and write code,
> What you are doing is not allow acoriding GPL

In fact, download fees are allowed.

See [www.gnu.org].

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

>
> That mean anyone that request the source code for
> a GPL/LGPL program have right to get it for free.

Not true,

[www.gnu.org]

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

In fact, the misconceptions about GPL that you have raised are a major problem for companies using GPL software. What ever the legal basis or lack of legal basis for what someone is saying about GPL, companies aren't going to risk the hassle of someone coming at them and making *public* accusations against them for using GPL licensed software. The potential "stink factor" just not worth the risk.

So, for the most part, GPL software has not been adopted by companies ( except non-profits ) and will probably never be adopted for developing commercial applications so long at the threat of being attacked for using GPL exists. Sad, but that seems to be the fact of the matter.

I'm a developer with 30 years behind me who is looking for the next thing, so I've been watching Tec's efforts with great interest. I've been very discouraged by this thread and other threads demonstrating the same degree of rancor and ignorance about GPL. I wish people would check out the GPL FAQS page before attacking developers for imagined infractions of the licensing rules, but they don't. They just let the nasty talk fly, I guess just they like to do it, gives them a thrill of some sort.

So how do open source developers make a living with open license software ? My conclusion is that they don't, only one in a hundred is able to do it, if that many.

I admire Tec for what he has done and is trying to do. He's a much more patient and nicer person than I am, that's for sure.

- Bill B

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

GreatLord — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:44:35 +0300

Tec
I been working in GPL project and write code,
What you are doing is not allow acoriding GPL

Many company have try samething but they have backed and release the source code after FSF 100% free to public.
Here is two project I known have this issue company take the code and sell it as it own
Wine directx warper with some presue the company that sold it did release the code to public after few month.
mplayer www.mplayerhq.hu there player are in allot diffent dvd player (hardware) the manufactor are force to release
the code to public after FSF and other lawers did talk with them.

That mean anyone that request the source code for a GPL/LGPL program have right to get it for free.

But GPL/LGPL say if you put it on a CD/DVD and sell it, you have right to cover you cost.

Beside I just find sphider it seam really good search enginge as it is. it need few changes before it sute my own project that
I will release to public for free. I do not known when it will be release. I waiting on a answers from the devoper team about a question I mail them.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

dor_neue — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:45:25 +0300

rhino Wrote:
> (I dont need it, but Id be happy to just see it
> uploaded/available to public, for free)

Why?

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

celsojr100 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:43:15 +0300

I need 2.1 version of Sphider Plus too.
Please upload.
Thank you!

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

rhino — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:20:50 +0300

This is excellent answer to "modifier's" (Tec) attitude towards community/GNU/original Sphider & (ab)use of this forum to advertise himself.

dor_neue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everybody who want this version:
> Mirror 1:
> [rapidshare.com]
> _v.2.0.zip
> Mirror 2: [ul.to]

So, does anyone have v2.1? :)
(I dont need it, but Id be happy to just see it uploaded/available to public, for free)

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

relisys — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:48:05 +0300

see the problem is, people who take free open source code then build there own idea onto it, they seem to think they can sell it!

for example if i made an open source for just image search... then a developer came and took my code placed it into a video search and then started charing ppl to use it... i would be mad... because most of my hard work as gone into that image search and if i was going to sell it i would in the first place

so this is why we have a dilemma here

sphider-plus is just some extra code added from sphider! since most of the hard work is done i find it clealy unfair that you should charge for what a normal home developer can do for free with free information of the web...

if you released sphider-plus free then not only would you make more money you could add tiers to the script like phpld ect free verion get soo much to paid version who would get the full works.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

tgknight — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:38:55 +0300

GPL FAQ
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

After reviewing the source code for sphider-plus 2.0, the application is a modification of the original. There is no separation in the files you provide between the original Sphider and the changes you have made to it. Therefore the program's users would be inclusive of all Sphider and Sphider-Plus users.

To me really it's not a huge deal, however I felt that I should stick up for the other users who have voiced the same issue, only to be belittled because English is not their native language.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Tec — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:45:47 +0300

Hello,

Of course I do not know your experience with GPL licensed software, and which lawyer you consulted. But be ensured that I carefully checked the legal situation before commercializing Sphider-plus.

Already stated several times, but again I am citing Richard Stallman:
<<<When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.>>>

You were pointing to the FAQs about the GNU Licenses. This is realy a good source to understand the GNU philosophy. By reading the FAQs, and additionally the article [www.gnu.org], please take into consideration that there is a big difference between the www community and the "user" of a software.

Some GNU FAQs :

If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

Comment: <<< you must make the source code available to the users of the program >>>
The "users of the program" are my customers (those who bought Sphider-plus), not the www community. And all my customers do receive the source code; of original Sphider plus my modifications.

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

Comment: That is exactly what I do. In order to become a user of Sphider-plus, you are kindly requested to fee.

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

Comment: This touches the rights of my users / customers. They are free to sell or distribute Sphider-plus as often as they like. I will not participate in any of their benefits.

Also stated several times in some other postings: no one is obliged to buy Sphider-plus. Original Sphider is satisfying several basic applications. The 25 Euro fee was established because I wanted to separate between serious interested (those who need debugging and are interested in more search engine options) and script kiddies who just want to play around with Sphider-plus. Not because I intend to buy a Ferrari next year.

I know it is an effort to study all the above articles, but I really don't like to repeat this dialog each time a new release of Sphider-plus is published. In order not to disturb the community of this forum any longer, I will resign of publishing further announcements. Also answering to more than 650 questions here in the forum is quite enough.

Tec

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

tgknight — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:22:42 +0300

Hello Tec,

First, let me state that I do not contest the fact that you deserve some form of compensation for your continued development on this project. Having worked on some open source projects of my own, I understand the frustration of not being "monetarily" appreciated.

However my experience with open source projects has given me a decent understand of how the GPL works, including how it affects commercial projects.

Since what you are doing is providing a modified version of the original, you are obligated to release the sources to the public. You are in violation of the GPL by requiring payment to receive the sources of your modified version.

If you were providing scripts that were separate and original from Sphider and were merely including the original Sphider files as a set of resources for your own program, there would be no issue. If this were the case, you would only be obligated to provide a complete, unmodified copy of the original source code, including the unmodified GPL license along with your commercial application. An example would be if the original Sphider were object-oriented, you could create a set of child classes that were commercially available.

Here is a link for your reference: [www.gnu.org]

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

johnnybegood — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:05:43 +0300

Thankyou so much dor_neue for posting up the links. I tried Sphider-Plus for about 15 minutes and then quickly hit the delete button. I respect Tec's right to charge for his mods but it seems to me as though he's created a monster. The beauty of the original Sphider is its simplicity and lack of bullshit. Using Sphider-Plus was like taking a time machine back to a 90's website! I don't care how fantastic the features are in Sphider-Plus; the execution and horrendous graphical interface is enough to make you want to throw up. This is inevitably what happens when a coder dabbles in design! It's a pity because there is tremendous scope for some development company to properly revamp this awesome little program.

If it was done properly then I surely would pay good money for it.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

killerloop805 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:52:07 +0300

I appreciate Tec taking the time to work on the Sphide Plus, so the Sphider Plus meets the standards as a world class search script. Plus, I expect others to support him and understand the effort he is putting toward this.

Thanks

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

Nataliy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:54:36 +0300

Tec bad person. lex thanks, this is true.

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

lex — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:28:21 +0300

i dont hate hate him u know i just said that bcoz i was angry lol he is a good guy but u know if he makes it available publicaly then every 1 will make a doantion and he will get more visitors he can earn lots of money from ads iswell

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

dor_neue — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:46:09 +0300

lex Wrote:
>
> thats what im talking about thanks brother so nice
> of you sharing it and i hate tec lol

I don't hate him. I can't understand his way of support. When a user ask for support, a programmer can't tell him the files to change if he want it. Ok, I can change this - and the next user? He also has to change it by himself? That can't be the right way...

By the way, he (tec) changed his homepage and replaced the part with donation. I think it's a first step in the right direction...

So long, if one of the links doesn't work anymore, send a PN to me and I reupp it...

@tec: I still waiting for our date... I live only a few kilometers away from you :P

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

lex — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:16:51 +0300

dor_neue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tec Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fortunately you never ordered v.2.0. But be
> > ensured that every download (folder access) is
> > logged by ip, cc, time, etc. So I know quite
> well
> > who you are. You don't need to create another
> new
> > username here.
> >
> > <<< the "abolute perfect new" version 2.0 >>>
> > Never promised something gushy.
> >
> > Meanwhile
> >
> [www.sphider.eu]
>
> > sg-6140
>
> lol, I also know who you are - and now?
> Do you want a date with me? Ok, I will wear a blue
> rose and you a red, so we can find each other...
> :P
> It unbeliveable for me, how your reaction is, but
> ok - when you want it in this way...
>
> Everybody who want this version:
> Mirror 1:
> [rapidshare.com]
> _v.2.0.zip
> Mirror 2: [ul.to]
>
> GNU GPL allow also that I can public this
> version...
>
>
> PS: Please, everybody who download this software,
> donate to tec - but only if you really want to do
> this!

thats what im talking about thanks brother so nice of you sharing it and i hate tec lol

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

dor_neue — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:17:49 +0300

Tec Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fortunately you never ordered v.2.0. But be
> ensured that every download (folder access) is
> logged by ip, cc, time, etc. So I know quite well
> who you are. You don't need to create another new
> username here.
>
> <<< the "abolute perfect new" version 2.0 >>>
> Never promised something gushy.
>
> Meanwhile
> [www.sphider.eu]
> sg-6140

lol, I also know who you are - and now?
Do you want a date with me? Ok, I will wear a blue rose and you a red, so we can find each other... :P
It unbeliveable for me, how your reaction is, but ok - when you want it in this way...

Everybody who want this version:
Mirror 1: [rapidshare.com] [updated]
Mirror 2: [ul.to] [updated]

GNU GPL allow also that I can public this version...

PS: Please, everybody who download this software, donate to tec - but only if you really want to do this!

Re: Sphider-plus version 2.0 released

lex — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:50:47 +0300

what ever