The Joomla! Forum ™

1 - I believe the decision the J! Devs and OSM made were the only choice they could have made in regards to what license J! had to operate under and how that license may be interpreted by others. the decision as far as I could see was not made because they had any intentions of killing 3PD development but because they wanted to keep using some GPL software from parties that are not members of the J! team and could not legally change thier license to LGPL without those authors allowing the change (which they would not). The decision of OSM and J! was made based on what J! had to do to remain compliant with the licenes of the programs J! itself was derived from. The fact that J! felt it had to adhere to the stricter interpretation to protect J! from any potential legal action would appear to be paramount and not based on an ideologoical concern as I once feared. Some statements by Jinx and Louis on this cleared this up for me.
The problem I believe some have is in the definition of "Protection" and what that meant. while the GPL strict does protect J! from someone putting a proprietary license on J!, from what I have read the PROTECTION they were most concerned about was from legal action on behalf of a GPL code author whose code J! Devs used to build parts of the framework. And if that is the case then the J! devs and OSM did what they HAD TO DO, to protect the future of J! and to be allowed to continue using these licensed codes and build upon them. The statement that counts here is:



Note the word "Compliance"...
Does not mean you HAVE to use GPL license but it does mean a GPL compaitble license of which there are many. J! has determined that for itself a standard GPL license had to be used but leaves the decision for what to use on your project up to you in respects that it must meet the license requirements of the GPL and any interpretation that an author has of a derivative code that J! uses.
Note there will be no lawsuits as well...That is about as clear a statement to me that J! will not attempt to be the enforcement arm of GPL compliance but it does serve as a warning that some author of some part of the Joomla API that is part of that API because it is a GPLed program could take action against you. This was always true though and nothing new about this fact. This is not so much of a change but more of a "reminder" to all of those who wish to believe that GPL can be interpreted quite loosely. sure it can but it doesn't matter how we individually interpret it as much as it matters how an author of code you use interprets it. J! can't speak for all these individual authors so the warning was put out there...

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!!!

2 - Many are saying that there are a variety of ways to do business using a GPL license. Well I've yet to see any good ones. There are a variety of ways to test the temperature of Lava as well but jumping into the Lava is not one of the best ways to do it. Neither are the many GPL business models that have been suggested. Is it possible? Yes! but it is difficult to maintain some control over your code base using a plain wrapper GPL license. GPL does not require you to modify a file before you distribute it leading to Free Beer releases, user confusion as there can be 20 different products all with different names using the same exact code without any power for the original author to stop someone, and cloned projects which will be hard for a new user to be able to know is a clone. The support model is fine but it relies just as much on the honor system to make money as the GPL license relies on the honor system that verbatim distributions without modification are not going to happen. We all know they will and if given a choice of FREE or PAY most users will pick FREE until they find they need support or a feature the original author has that has not made it into the public domain distributors yet.

I would like to see the FSF create a GPL compatible license that allows limited redistribution with the limit being targeted at "MUST CONTAIN MODIFICATIONS" before a re-distribution can be made. This would allow a TRUE copyright/copyleft protection to an author of code that they will not have to compete with mere copies of the code and that they will only have to compete with new developments BASED on their code. This is fair to the original coder of the base as well as leave the FREE IDEA concept open to all. If you can add to the idea then you would have a right to release that combined work but if you are simply repeating the same idea then it is better to point them to the place where that idea originated until you have added to it. This removes the Free Beer aspect of GPL without impact to the FREE IDEA concept it claims to hold as the central point of it's ideology.

I should not be able to start my own distribution site called aspoomla, download the latest version of J! and then make money if I choose on supporting or distributing that product. GPL actually allows this sort of behavior which IMO is much more evil than creating an original code that CALLS to a Free idea to work in conjunction with that idea and distributing it. Distribution can take many forms but I'll get to that in a second, there are ways for commercial web developers to make money AND distribute J! in their work without having to provide a link to the code. It is this requirement of the GPL that causes so many issues.

3 - Distribution...a change to the GPL would solve a lot of these issues. Right now distribution is almost required as in the case of web developers who do a site for someone using J!. But why can't this distribution be limited to providing a link to the original? Why are these multiple distribution points required? Why if I use a GPLed program for a client must I provide the source or code distribution on my own? Why am I even allowed to? Why am I not required to point to the original source until that source no longer exists? This would be much better for everyone as the client would know the original source of the code, where to get true support for it and could after the point of sale, get support for that codebase on their own? I understand the need to distribute freely for modified code but if you are not modifying simply agregating software licenses for a client I should not be able to hide the source I recieved these licenses from myself. under the current GPL allowances I can hide who actually wrote the code meaning I can pretty much tell the client whatever I want.
This nature of FREE to DISTRIBUTE as I said in point 2 should change. Only modified codebase should require distribution so that original authors are not cloned or forced to support people who got the code from somewhere other than them. And there is no way for an original author to know who is who.  Web Developers would be required to provide source information FROM THE SOURCE they recieved it from. 3rd Party Developers would be protected from cloners, as cloners would only be allowed (and FORCED) to distribute if they have made modifications to the original source. If you wanted a clean version of the the source it was based on you would have to go to the original that it was derived from. Some requirement to show where the base code the modification was made from should also be required here as well. Just leaving a copyright inside code hardly anyone will ever see is not enough IMO.

4 - JED listings...I know there are rules in place to deny cloners from getting listed but it will be a difficult task to weed them all out...Who is going to make the clone checks? the original Author? The JED Admins? Who is going to determine who has added enough to not be a clone and what criteria is going to be used? I fear the JED will become a patent office more than an extentions directory and the admins of that site will be caught in the middle of many arguments between developers. This isn't so much of an opinion as it is an observation. I can see many developers claiming they were first, they deserve listings and they are the original author. It just opens up a can of worms that I don't think the JED team really wants to get involved in. But it has to in order to allow any GPL model to work for a 3PD...

I want to tackle some myths before I end this...

MYTH 1 - FREE GPL Software is not written or supported well and has a ton of security problems...If you really believe this then it's time to change CMS since J! is a Free GPL software....

MYTH 2 - Commercial Software is Evil. Commercial software is not evil. everyone talks about Microsoft when they talk about commercial software. OSX is just as commercial in fact limited even more than Windows since you must also buy hardware from them before you can legally run it! Commercial software is nothing more than an attempt to pay rent for work you have done. No one is forcing you to buy it. The fact that it is available does not limit someone else from making a FREE GPL program that does much of the same things. the fact that it may or may not do it better stems from the fact that someone paying the rent is relying of future sales and continued purchases to help make those rent payments and therefore must continue developing a product to do so. Doesn't mean it is written any better than a free program is but it does tend to make those developers more willing to meet the needs of it's end user because he wants to keep your business. This doesn't make them evil...Desperate maybe but not evil! they are not out to stop you from using free software that is written well. Most CMS' you find are also Free GPL...I dare you to name and count how many sites actually use commercial CMS' or would if they knew just how good the free options were.

MYTH 3 - It is easy to change from a commercial license to a GPL Compatible business model...I know this sounds very re-assuring but it is a false statement. As I discussed at the top, business is only as good as the product and it's price. If the same product is available for free most people will go for the free version first and then if there are any problems pay when they feel they have to. I have seen individuals say there are many ways to do this...Take a look in the How do 3PDs make money thread and note the severe lack of ideas there.

Here are a few suggestions of mine....

IDEA: Subscription based Code Club.
CONCEPT: start a Web site where your code is made available to club members. Membership is based on subscription where all files and support is available only to those who subscribe. Sure a club member could re-release a GPL code but you can also cancel their membership for doing so as the restriction would be on the membership not the code.

IDEA: LGPL Bidges
CONCEPT: Create all your Joomla tasks into an LGPLed bridge that would talk to both J! and your Commercialy licensed Application. since the parts of your project that make calls to GPL code would be LGPL (and therefore GPL Compatible) you could interface with J! without having to actually call to GPL function from your commercial work. I would suggest that a consortium of 3PDs get together to create just such an LGPL library that all could use.

I'm sure there are other ways around this problem but the truth is the best way to do this would be for the GPL and FSF to stop trying to make as much free beer as possible and cater more to the Free Ideas and protection of them. the poison pill of right to verbatim re-distribution is the crux of the issue here. GPL and Open Source is supposed to inspire developers to create new works based on old works not just get as many FREE distributions of work as you can....
This is the key issue I have with the GPL...

Mostly correct and we appreciate your viewpoint.  I do want to clarify that the GPL compliance does not restrict entire extensions to using the GPL, only the parts that interact with the Joomla core or use Joomla-derived code.  Developers are free, if they choose, to separate out code that is not Joomla-derived, license it separately, and maintain their current business model.  I also want to point out Johann's recent revelation that future versions of Joomla (perhaps as early as 2.0) are planned to separate the core from extension API to the point that licensing on extensions for J! 2.0 will be far more flexible. 

So this situation is both workable and temporary.

_________________
http://www.motherroaddesigns.com

Thanks Tydust...

Just for Clarity sake as I believe the clarity is important here...



When you say using the GPL you do actually mean GPL COMPATIBLE don't you? It does not have to use the GPL V2 but any license that is defined as GPL compatible no?

This would include LGPL in the case of bridges where all the Joomla calls are made from an LGPL section that would not also virally affect the rest of the project with any viral GPL restrictions...

See if the Bridge must be GPL (V1, V2) then that bridge would also require the rest of the extention to be GPL compatible as well...And I don't think that is what you guys are really intending here...Am I wrong on that point?

Must any bridge be GPL V1 or 2 or is it fine provided the bridge section is GPL compatible based on FSF guidelines of what is and is not compatible...

It may not be allowed which is why I bring it up. As the J! devs have determined they could not make the change to LGPL because of their use of derivative GPLed code and I'm just curious if that would also hold true for anyone trying to make a bridge to the API as well...It makes some sense that it might not be alowed because you could in essence remove a GPL license by using it and changing the derived work to LGPL which would seem to usurp the original license despite the fact LGPL is compatible with GPL...

This is why I hate lawyers! LOL



I'm Glad to hear about the ideas for 2.0
I think that would make things a lot back to normal or at least where we were before all of this came about.

My understanding is that you are correct, it is GPL compatible that is the key.

Thanks for being creative in thinking about his.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.

Thanks MCS...

I just wish more people would put their imaginations to work into finding solutions as much as they currently are in envisioning Doomsday scenarios for J! over the current situation....

This is not a new situation, it has existed almost from the beginning of GPL time...

As I said in many of the threads, the problem isn't J!, the decision of J! deciding that GPL Strict must be complied with for legal reasons, or the ideology of the J! Team and OSM...

From what I am reading from Johan (Jinx) If they could have made a better seperation of the API from the core CMS the LGPL might have been applied to the API and this issue would not have come up at all.

That tells me that the teams would have loved to have been able to allow 3PD Commercial extentions but at this point in time can not legally say so due to the need to be compliant with licenses of code J! itself is derived from.

I fear this point has been lost on the majority of people involved in this topic, especially the 3PDs.

I know there was talk of Adding a better ACL to V1.6 but maybe the top priority should be the further seperation of API from core.
I would love a better ACL myself but if the seperation was done then it would at least allow some commercial devs to maybe make their first LEGALLY COMMERCIAL project an advanced ACL system.

My suggestion to all the 3PDs is to wait things out or come up with a temporary solution until this seperation is complete. I don't know how long it will be between J! 1.5 and J! 1.6 (how can you when 1.5 is still stuck in beta at this point?). It would be helpful if some of these VERY SMART Developers would give just a bit of their time towards the seperation project so that they could retain their current business model as soon as possible. IT would be much more productive use of time that bitching about the realities of GPL and making threats to go to some other CMS which in most cases will have the same restrictions on Commercial products as J! now has....Why learn that whole new architechture when you can help to fix the one you already know so it is possible to allow commercial licenses on extentions?

This is the best way forward right now if you ask me. United everyone stands and stands proud. Divided many will Fall....
If we work together this could just be a small blip in the normal routines we all were operating under.

It also would be helpful is if people who want this would become active gpl contributors to the Joomla! project itself in addition to (of course) working on their extensions. Code can't happen when there is no one writing it; Johan, Louis, Rob and the other members of the core team and work groups have the same 24 hours in a day as the rest of us.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.

I agree....

they give a little and they get a lot...I mean complete legitimacy of the business model if they would just help the current Devs to make possible what the 3PDs really want!

If all it costs is some pro bono work well it's worth it!
It would sure get the money flowing to them much quicker if they worked to make the project that their current product works with compatible with a commercial license as opposed to trying to rewrite it to work with some other system that for all intents and purposes will likely have the same issue as J! does right now...

They sure can't go to Drupal or Typo where the same situation exists...

And the time it would take to rewrite for either of those would be double what it would take to help the J! team to seperate the API and rewrite the few GPL pieces that need to be replaced...

As is usual with most controversies here I think the molehill is being defined as a mountain. And I think some better communication may help...Some are not reading and there are some things that are being said by the J! team and OSM that are getting lost in the hysteria...

My favorite line from Red Dragon....
You looked but didn't see!

I think if people just looked at what Jinx and the rest of the teams have said they might actually SEE what the problem is and instead of complaining about the problem might roll up their sleeves to solve it as quickly as possible...

Communication could indeed be improved, not easy though if the people that need to create that communication are taking heavy fire at the moment.

In the past two weeks core and working group members have been attacked publicly and privately in very disrespectful ways for  trying to help and inform. These people are doing all this in their spare time, their motivation comes from the fun and respect they get doing what they do. All they are asking for is not to be judged by the legacy they inherited but instead to be judged on the future they are trying to create for all of us.

_________________
Johan Janssens - Joomla Co-Founder, Lead Developer of Joomla 1.5

http://www.nooku.org - multi-lingual content manager and rapid extension development framework for Joomla 1.5
http://www.joomlatools.eu - training, consulting and extension development

Well let me clarify what I meant there Jinx...
When I said there wasn't good communication I sure wasn't referring to the J! teams...
Communication is a partnership and there are two ends to every communication.

The output was there it was the input that wasn't registering the data provided.
It even took me awhile because some of what you guys were saying got lost in the shouting...

There were 5 new pages per day on those threads and sadly I contributed to that problem...

While these new sections to deal with it were unpopular at first for not allowing discussion, they did manage to let what your position is show through and I think that is why we may have turned a corner here on the topic.

As far as criticizing the teams well I have always contended it was in bad taste to criticize someone who gives you a gift, especially when that gift is the the foundation you use to build a business on. Some people just can't see past their own self centered interests sadly. And it's not only the 3PD Developers I'm talking about. It's just that as Authors they should actually know better and know the intricacies and semantics of what it takes to stay legal and true to a past license and some seem to not know that. Which is why some went off in a huff.

There were also a number of FREE BEER Ideologues who foamed at the mouth thinking that this meant that all the extentions in the world would soon be free.... GPL Ideologues who feel everything should be free to them like it is their god given right.
I think these folks miss the point of what GPL was meant to do as IMO it was never meant to forment free software only free developement (IE FREE TO DEVELOP on someone else's Idea)

I think the GPL itself is in part to blame for this. As I pointed out in my first post, the GPL seems to make more free beer than it needs to. Not only is any program released under it immediatly free beer by the verbatim distribution rights to users but the derivative clause does whatever it can to try and drag other codebases from other authors into it's free beer world as well.

Hence the issue we have encountered here.

No one should be blaming you folks for that...You didn't write that license just used it and you used it because you HAD to!
GPL demanded it!

I would love to see FSF change the GPL to remove the verbatim distribution rights and only allow modified versions to be distributed.
If they really want to support open source development they need to encourage that development and allow commercial versions of that development while still allowing other developers to be able to modify and improve the code without charge.

This is not only in the best interests of the developers of code but to open source and users as well.
Users do not need distribution rights. Developers do. If a user needs to distribute I think it would be much better to just send people to the place they go to. Then they get the updated versions and full support provided to them by the author of the code.
That will also help this false notion that GPL isn't supported well. It is but the place you get it from may not be the place that offers that support because of the verbatim duplication system.