When I first started working with Moodle servers, one of the things that bugged me was the fact that it required a complete install of the code for every site hosted on the system. While that’s fine for most circumstances, it really did not work well in our environment where we’re looking at potentially hosting hundreds of Moodle instances. So, in the fine open source tradition of scratching an itch by finding something someone else has done, modifying it, and then sharing it with the world … I give you shared-code Moodle, OSL-style.
First, though, credit where credit is due. Martin Langhoff posted almost all of what we needed to do here. All I needed to do is expand upon it to fit our needs.
Second, what the modified code actually does:
1) config.php looks in Moodle dirroot/multisite_config for an ini file matching the server name. I.E.: fqdn.domain.org.ini
2) If found, the ini file is parsed and used to populate the Moodle $CFG
On to the code!
Continue reading ‘HOWTO: Shared-code hosting for Moodle’
Thanks to krimsly for passing this little tidbit along: http://mfeldstein.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/blackboard_patents_the_lms
Err … wot? Almost every system I’ve built or run for the past decade probably violates that patent. I was running distance ed courses on a FirstClass server for the State of Oregon in 1994. Prior to that, we had been running a text menu-based system on EIES2 for several years before migrating to FirstClass. I think I saw a post somewhere once about a mainframe/terminal distance ed system back in the late 60’s. Their claim, filed in 1999, is (if you’ll pardon the pun) patently ridiculous. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Matthew Small, senior vice president and general counsel for Blackboard stated:
He [Small] said many e-learning companies could operate without infringing on the patent, though he declined to provide any examples. However, he also said that had Blackboard not merged with WebCT, then WebCT would have been infringing the patent.
I am certainly not a lawyer, but couldn’t WebCT itself be considered “prior art”? The WebCT product was developed in 1995-1996 and the WebCT corporation was spun off from the University of British Columbia in 1997. Mr. Small’s own quote identifies a product that existed commercially two years before they filed for the patent.
Apparently the lawsuits started before the ink was even dry on the USPTO documents: http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/blackboard.pdf
Demanding a jury trial in rural east Texas for a software technology patent infringement lawsuit? Come on, now.