The Joomla! Forum™

With reference to this post: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg890555 by aoirthoir:

Just to clarify a bit, please understand that Mambo, as Joomla, makes use of code from copyright holders besides those of the original Mambo developer. (Others can correct me if this statement is not factual.) Any of those copyright holders could seek compliance from Mambo developers, as as well as from Joomla! developers. Again, moving to Mambo does not solve the issue, because if Mambo does in fact contain code from other developers, its main developer has absolutely no right to disavow the license on their contributed code. If Mambo's team is saying that developers do not have to adhere to the license, unless they own *all* of the code in their project, or unless they have gotten permission from *all* of the copyright holders, they are mistaken. The move by some to Mambo because of its allowance of non-GPL compliant licenses only creates a false sense of security.

It is disappointing to see so much FUD being spread on these forums about Mambo. Mambo has not changed its position on how it enforces its copyright license. It is the same position that was implicit prior to 2004 and which was explicitly stated in the Licensing Guidelines that came into effect in 2004.  aoirthoir, they are here if you want to read them: http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/showthread.php?t=5922

If people have questions about Mambo's position in respect to how it enforces its license, then please ask Mambo and don't accept as gospel any uninformed opinions.

It seems to me that a lot of energy is being spent debating the finer points of the GPL and ignoring the simple fact that the GPL is a copyright license. It is not a contract - its a license only. And, as the FSF says, it can only be enforced by the copyright holder. It is up to each copyright holder to determine how they will enforce their copyright. The fact that Mambo chooses to enforce its copyright under different terms to Joomla! is as irrelevant to Joomla! as the Joomla! decision is irrelevant to Mambo. Each project is GPL. Each complies with the GPL. Each enforces its license differently - as they are legally entitled to do.

If you look on the Mambo forums you will not find any discussion about the change to the way Joomla! enforces its license. For Mambo, its just business as usual.

So you speak for each and every single copyright holder contributor to Mambo in how you are stating that Mambo enforces it's license?  You have asked each and every single contributor?

With all due respect Elpie i disagree with you this time.

Factually the post you have quoted is correct. If I had contributed to Mambo's code I would have every right to sue if I felt there was a violation in regards to my code. The fact that the Mambo Foundation has a policy that it will not take legal action provides no respite to proprietary developers from legal action from the individual copyright holders (contributors). Incidentally, to my knowledge Miro/Mambo never had contributors sign over their copyright to Miro/Mambo so all contributors from that time still hold copyright.

As for discussions of Mambo on Joomla! forums, I would ordinarily agree in principle however this is an issue that has roots in Mambo, in fact its our old Mambo policy that as essentially changed so I feel discussion that includes references to Mambo are not out of line.

Cheers
Shayne

Elpie, Thanks kindly for the link. I am going to quote:

10. I have written a Component, Module, Template for Mambo. Do I have to release it under the GPL?

No. The GPL allows you to write your own extensions for Mambo and to release those extensions under whatever license you choose.

Actually the LGPL allows this, not the GPL. While I can see some argument being made in this regards to binaries, when you have an interpreted langauge, the entire program is compiled at once. Thus, the whole program is a derivative of all of its parts. The GPL requires that derivatives (in this case the whole program) be distributed with the same rights. So this statement from the Mambo website says exactly what I have been told it says.

2. Who owns the copyright to Mambo?

The copyright to Mambo is held by the Mambo Foundation, Inc, a non profit corporation organized under the laws of Australia and run by the membership.

Now in this case, if there is no code contributed by any other than the Mambo Foundation, Inc, then the foundation has a legitimate right to distribute the code under any terms it wants. This would include multiple licenses, and even an exclusion for extension developers. However, if any of the code in Mambo is contributed by any one else, the Mambo Foundation Inc does not have a right to do this, unless it also acquires the permission of these copyright holders.

Now I regret that you view this as FUD. However I think my post demonstrates an acknowledgment of ignorance on my part. It is for this reason I stated '(Others can correct me if this statement is not factual.)' and '...if Mambo does in fact contain code ...' and '...If Mambo's team is saying...' and so on. When I say ignorance on my part, I mean as to what Mambo is saying or not saying, and what code is or is not in Mambo. I stated both sides of the case, their rights if they own all the code, and their rights if they own part of the code. So when I say these things I mean no intent at all to impugn Mambo in the least. And I try to use careful wording so that folks understand I am not saying that this *is* what Mambo teams are saying, only that *if* this is what they are saying, then for the statements to be valid, these conditions must be met.

Also please understand that I am not bringing up Mambo in a vacuum.  Rather, my statements are in response to the claims that third party developers who wish to distribute their code outside of the constraints of the GPL have to move to Mambo. My acknowledging their claim in no way means that I believe Mambo agrees that distributers can violate the license.

I hope that helps clarify a bit better my position. If you have other questions about what I mean or if I have been unclear in something I will try to be more specific if you request.

I am not speaking on behalf of the Mambo Foundation. The statement from the Mambo Foundation speaks for itself.
I raised a point of clarification on my own behalf, under the forum title of "your opinion".

I do, however, know that those who contributed to the Mambo code signed a copyright agreement with Miro International Pty Ltd. This was legally assigned to the Mambo Foundation, Inc, who holds the copyright in Mambo from 2000 on. The signed copies are on file.
While you are correct in saying there are other copyright holders to some Mambo code (perhaps not as many as you may think) the fact remains that the Licensing Guidelines were approved by the team members who were part of Mambo in 2004 when it was introduced and each and every person who has contributed since has implicitly accepted the Licensing Guidelines. Strangely, I am unaware of any who have disagreed with the Guidelines. Those who did not want to accept the way in which license in the Mambo code is enforced would, I assume, have just not contributed. Nobody forced them to accept the Licensing Guidelines but, having done so, nobody has the right to change their minds about them further down the track.

Just as Mambo must remain GPL because that is the license under which people contributed, I think it is also fair to say that the terms under which contributions were made stand regardless of whether a contributor changes their mind three years later.

With respect aoirthoir, you are again confusing the wording of the GPL with the rights of any copyright holder to enforce their copyright in the manner they chose. You may feel that Linux, or Mambo, or any other project should accept your interpretation of the GPL but the fact remains that unless the terms of copyright enforcement materially breach the GPL, the copyright holders may chose how they enforce their rights.

The quote you took, out of context, is simply affirming that if a developer does not use Mambo code or otherwise infringe on the Mambo copyright then they are perfectly entitled to license their extension in any way they want. Its their IP after all.

The Mambo Foundation position statement makes it clear exactly how the Guidelines should be read:

It is up to each copyright holder to decide how they will enforce the licence for their code. Mambo has always been licensed under the GPL and the Mambo Licensing Guidelines set out the Foundation's position with respect to enforcement of the licence over its code.

To the extent Mambo includes code owned by other licensors, it is a matter for those licensors as to how they will enforce their licence. Third party developers should therefore always obtain their own legal advice as to whether their licensing model is appropriate given the way that their software interacts with Mambo or other software licensed by third parties.

It is our opinion that use of Mambo interfaces does not make “derived works” per se. Function calls to the Mambo API do not, in themselves, create derived works. This is the Mambo Foundation's position in relation to the use of Mambo code. Please note that other licensors may have a different position.

A court will ultimately have to decide the issue should another licensor seek to enforce its interpretation of the GPL on its licensees.

Your lawyers may disagree with mine, and perhaps even Mambo's, over how the GPL should be interpreted. In respect of Mambo and Joomla! I don't doubt that there would be disagreement. OSM is a US incorporation, meaning OSM and Joomla! must follow US law. Interestingly, this also means that under US law there is a "fair use" right Joomla! has to contend with.  Mambo, however, is an Australian non-profit foundation and its license has to be interpreted alongside Australian copyright law.

There is always a danger in making blanket assumptions based on your own knowledge of the law or what happens in your countries. Brian Teeman will tell you that a number of legal opinions were sought in the making of the Mambo Licensing Guidelines. I can tell you that legal opinions have been sought since.

Mambo has not changed its license and has also not changed its Licensing Guidelines.  If individual contributors to Mambo now wish to renege on the terms under which contributions were made they should perhaps seek legal advice.

Elpie wrote: While you are correct in saying there are other copyright holders to some Mambo code (perhaps not as many as you may think) the fact remains that the Licensing Guidelines were approved by the team members who were part of Mambo in 2004 when it was introduced and each and every person who has contributed since has implicitly accepted the Licensing Guidelines. Strangely, I am unaware of any who have disagreed with the Guidelines. Those who did not want to accept the way in which license in the Mambo code is enforced would, I assume, have just not contributed. Nobody forced them to accept the Licensing Guidelines but, having done so, nobody has the right to change their minds about them further down the track.

Just a small question Elpie, regarding what you write. Do you include any GPL 3pd code in Mambo? like Tiny MCE editor, GeSHi, MemoryCaching, MagpieRSS etc. ? Have you asked them if they accept the licensing guidelines? and also the 3pds to the 3pds?

What I'm trying to say that it's not any unsignificance number of people that have distributed GPL code and have copyright in a part of the code packaged in Mambo, and the same applies to Joomla!

Edit: Removed my last line, It can be considered as FUD, even if I feel it's correct.

Hi Lorenzo,
I'm sorry, but what part of the Mambo Foundation statement do you not understand?

It is up to each copyright holder to decide how they will enforce the licence for their code. Mambo has always been licensed under the GPL and the Mambo Licensing Guidelines set out the Foundation's position with respect to enforcement of the licence over its code.

To the extent Mambo includes code owned by other licensors, it is a matter for those licensors as to how they will enforce their licence. Third party developers should therefore always obtain their own legal advice as to whether their licensing model is appropriate given the way that their software interacts with Mambo or other software licensed by third parties.

It is our opinion that use of Mambo interfaces does not make “derived works” per se. Function calls to the Mambo API do not, in themselves, create derived works. This is the Mambo Foundation's position in relation to the use of Mambo code. Please note that other licensors may have a different position.

A court will ultimately have to decide the issue should another licensor seek to enforce its interpretation of the GPL on its licensees.

Please read each line carefully. If you don't understand it, perhaps your legal counsel can explain.

If you are asking if the code that is copyright to other licensors is covered by the Mambo Foundation's position in relation to the use of Mambo code, of course it is not. The statement is, I thought, very clear about both its intent and meaning.

Elpie, thank you for the information about copyright assignments to the Mambo Foundation.  So long as they own the copyrights, they can allow any exceptions that they want.

However, persons contributing after cannot be assumed to have agreed the stance on exceptions for extensions. They would need to have either signed a document (the preferred method) or provided some other direct form of agreement (for example an email). Business should not base their models on the implication that contributers have agreed to something.

Further there is a reason we cannot use implication in the GPL world. Due to the fact that any GPLed code can be used without the author's knowledge. This is part of the purpose of the GPL. So if the answer to Lorenzo's question is yes, then those contributers neither knew that their code was used, and certainly, by implication or otherwise, did not consent to Mambo Foundation's exception.

I'm sorry you felt my quote was out of context. My only purpose in quoting what I did was to demonstrate a statement that they did not feel extensions had to be GPLed. Nothing more or less really. So I feel the quote was contextual.

Regarding Fair Use laws in the United States, they are applicable only in certain cases. One of the questions that will arise in a Fair Use dispute, is whether the derived work was for commercial purposes. There are many other issues regarding Fair Use which is why the US Copyright Office recommends always getting a copyright holder's permission.

I do not believe Mambo has changed its guidelines, nor do I believe any of the teams here have made such a statement.

Also I appreciate your posting the quote from the Mambo Foundation's position. They are correct in stating that it is up to the individual copyright holders to seek enforcement of their license. However that enforcement compliance can fall right through Mambo's exception for extension developers to the developers themselves.  Further, such a party could also seek compliance from Mambo itself. In both cases, and for many other reasons, I personally would not develop proprietary projects based on GNU GPLed code. My statements here in no way imply that such a complaint exists. When dealing in business, it is best to consider possible outcomes in advance.

I removed two posts that were not relevant to the discussion and were in the "useless one liner" category.  Please be good to each other.


Thank you.

aoirthoir wrote: Elpie, thank you for the information about copyright assignments to the Mambo Foundation.  So long as they own the copyrights, they can allow any exceptions that they want.

However, persons contributing after cannot be assumed to have agreed the stance on exceptions for extensions. They would need to have either signed a document (the preferred method) or provided some other direct form of agreement (for example an email). Business should not base their models on the implication that contributers have agreed to something.

You are correct aoirthoir. And it is for those very reasons that the Mambo Foundation was established and proper procedures put into place. Proper governance involves having processes in place and not making assumptions. Mambo has a number of checks and balances in place to ensure there is no room for doubt. This extends even to the forum rules where there is a section relating to code that is contributed on the forums.

aoirthoir wrote: So if the answer to Lorenzo's question is yes, then those contributers neither knew that their code was used, and certainly, by implication or otherwise, did not consent to Mambo Foundation's exception.

There is no exception aoirthoir. The Mambo Foundation states its position in relation to Mambo code. 3rd party licensors do not have to accept the Mambo Licensing Guidelines as these do not apply to 3rd party licensors.

aoirthoir wrote:
Also I appreciate your posting the quote from the Mambo Foundation's position. They are correct in stating that it is up to the individual copyright holders to seek enforcement of their license. However that enforcement compliance can fall right through Mambo's exception for extension developers to the developers themselves.  Further, such a party could also seek compliance from Mambo itself. In both cases, and for many other reasons, I personally would not develop proprietary projects based on GNU GPLed code. My statements here in no way imply that such a complaint exists. When dealing in business, it is best to consider possible outcomes in advance.

Let's be clear on this - Mambo does not make any exception to the GPL. The GPL is the GPL, without riders, and without exception. Some projects do not see function calls to the API as necessarily creating derivative works. Mambo does not. It is not the only project to take this position.  It is not even a matter of how the GPL is interpreted as it is the copyright holder's decision as to how they enforce their license. In relation to other licensors though, almost all libraries and other "outside" code that is included within Mambo is licensed under LGPL. TinyMCE, as Lorenzo mentioned, is one of these LGPL inclusions. There is also GPL'd code included within Mambo that is not copyright to Mambo. It is, however, clearly identified and it is up to developers to ascertain their rights and obligations in relation to that code.

Certainly, if any proprietary extension used Mambo code in a way that is not permitted under the terms of the Licensing Guidelines, or used the code of other licensors illegally, those extension developers would be facing the risk of action being taken against them. I am not aware of any 3PD extension that breaches either the Mambo Licensing Guidelines or the rights of the licensors of LGPL'd code. That does not mean it could never happen, but the Mambo Foundation statement makes it clear to developers what their responsibilities are.

Elpie wrote:Certainly, if any proprietary extension used Mambo code in a way that is not permitted under the terms of the Licensing Guidelines, or used the code of other licensors illegally, those extension developers would be facing the risk of action being taken against them. I am not aware of any 3PD extension that breaches either the Mambo Licensing Guidelines or the rights of the licensors of LGPL'd code. That does not mean it could never happen, but the Mambo Foundation statement makes it clear to developers what their responsibilities are.

What is Mambo's responsibility to the copyright holders of code that is not copyright to Mambo, that is included with Mambo?

Elpie, thanks again.

There is also GPL'd code included within Mambo that is not copyright to Mambo. It is, however, clearly identified and it is up to developers to ascertain their rights and obligations in relation to that code.

It is also true that it is up to Mambo to determine its rights and obligations in relation to that code. When I speak of the exception clause, i am speaking specifically of the allowance of third parties to release non-GPL extensions. I call this an exception due to the nature of php programs. We use the term API, but the technical aspects of how an API is created and used vary greatly from one programming system, language and such to another. Thus the reason I do not comment on the Linux Kernel, since I am not a kernel developer. So while there are groups that create a php based API that take the position of Mambo, other groups that do not take this position. What is being said by those that do, is that the GPL must be applied to your code *except* if you are creating an extension. Others are saying that the GPL must be applied to your extensions, that they do not provide any 'except'. If code is used in Mambo by a person who does not provide the except, then Mambo's except cannot really be applied to the whole work.

I guess there is always that danger in long posts, that what is written may not be fully read.

To quote from the Mambo Foundation statement that is included in full above, this time with emphasis. Perhaps emphasising the words will make it clearer..

It is our opinion that use of Mambo interfaces does not make “derived works” per se. Function calls to the Mambo API do not, in themselves, create derived works. This is the Mambo Foundation's position in relation to the use of Mambo code. Please note that other licensors may have a different position.

I trust this clarifies things?

Let's forget the argument about whether extensions are derivative works for a moment. One thing we can agree on is that Joomla is and always will be a derivative of Mambo (unless a new CMS is coded from the ground up without any "ideas" taken from Mambo). That means that the original copyright holders will be Mambo. Therefore, we need to follow Mambo's license and, as such, the copyright holders clearly state in the FAQ

"10. I have written a Component, Module, Template for Mambo. Do I have to release it under the GPL?

No. The GPL allows you to write your own extensions for Mambo and to release those extensions under whatever license you choose.

Since Joomla is only a derivative of Mambo, it cannot change this. 3PD do not need to "switch" to Mambo because Joomla has no right to interpret the GPL differently than the original copyright holder. Not only this, but a copyright holder can also release its software under a dual license (just like MySQL). So if 3PD have any questions, they really should be directing them to the Mambo foundation and not Joomla.

Merging with the Clarification thread.

Mambo has not changed its position on how it enforces its copyright license. It is the same position that was implicit prior to 2004 and which was explicitly stated in the Licensing Guidelines that came into effect in 2004.

Mambo's positon only applies to code that they own...

I do, however, know that those who contributed to the Mambo code signed a copyright agreement with Miro International Pty Ltd. This was legally assigned to the Mambo Foundation, Inc, who holds the copyright in Mambo from 2000 on. The signed copies are on file.

Do these signed copies say you can change the license to LGPL? IF the contract that was signed agreed that the contribution would remain GPL then Mambo could be in breach of contract with those contributors for changing the license without a renegotiation of that cointract.

The quote you took, out of context, is simply affirming that if a developer does not use Mambo code or otherwise infringe on the Mambo copyright then they are perfectly entitled to license their extension in any way they want. Its their IP after all.

No one has taken this out of context. in fact J! has taken the same position as no one has said that ANY extention is derivative and that there may be some extentions that are not derivative works. All that statement from Mambo does is ensure Mambo won't prosectute but it does nothing to protect anyone from some other GPL copyright owner who contributed to Mambo. They contributed GPL not LGPL.
The statement you say is being taken out of context really is meaningless since it is almost impossible to integrate an extention without using some code from the core. component extention must use some of the core in regards to configuration. Thats making a combined work since you can't configure the component without using that mambo code.

So while it mambo sound very permissive the truth is it will be rare that anyone could make an extention of Mambo that Mambo couldn't sue them for anytime they wanted. And what mambo didn't think of is that by giving that tacit permission they can be brought to court by one of the developers who they signed that copyright contract with as well as the user who violated it by creating a GPL-incompatible work because both are involved in the violation. the developer for violating the actual tenets of the GPL and Mambo foundation for encouraging that infringment.

If Mambo truly wanted to allow this then they should have released under the LGPL and then there would be no legal action from anyone that could be taken.

To the extent Mambo includes code owned by other licensors, it is a matter for those licensors as to how they will enforce their licence. Third party developers should therefore always obtain their own legal advice as to whether their licensing model is appropriate given the way that their software interacts with Mambo or other software licensed by third parties.

Funny how that seems to be the same exact thing the Joomla folks have said in regards to this issue...
So how does moving over to Mambo solve these issues for Proprietary 3PDs?
Seems to me that Mambo is saying the same thing that has been said here...
Well we use GPL code and we are a GPL product. We will not prosecute but you are at risk of being prosecuted by any developer of GPL code that we have used to make Mambo...

So how does Mambo solve the Proprietary issue at all?

It's the same reality if you ask me...The statement you quoted sounds an awful lot like this one from the J teams.

Here's the plan: first, we clean our own house and bring the Joomla! sites into compliance.  Next, we ask people in the community to voluntarily comply with the license.  At the same time, we try to help people understand what it takes to comply and how they can do it easily.  We believe we're going to get a lot of compliance that way.

So far, that's the entire plan.  No lawsuits, no pogroms, no martyrs. More to the point, no shouting, no demonisation, and no drawing lines between "us" and "them".  It's a big community with many kinds of developers, and we want solutions that will work for everybody.

In both cases your on your own...
Edit by Author: This statement is wrong! Mambo leaves you on your own. Joomla has said they would actually work with developers to help them become compliant!
End Edit:

Neither project plans to sue but both admit you CAN be sued by someone who owns a GPL license on code they use...
So as far as the statements on Moving to Mambo because it allows proprietary extentions that is a false permission because it does not say you can't be sued...The risks to developing proprietary code is the same for both....
Especially since both projects use similar GPL routines for many parts of the project!

the clarification that was made by Elpie simply puts the period to my point that moving to mambo because you think you have permission to create proprietary software for it is false...
Your no safer there than you are here!
But at least Joomla has stated that it might be possible to LGPL the API at some point which would mean that most proprietary extentions will be permitted and permitted in a way that NO ONE could take you to court for license violations!

Shamele wrote: Let's forget the argument about whether extensions are derivative works for a moment. One thing we can agree on is that Joomla is and always will be a derivative of Mambo (unless a new CMS is coded from the ground up without any "ideas" taken from Mambo). That means that the original copyright holders will be Mambo.

Copyright is owned by the people who create the work in question.  Any code that I write is copyright me.  Any code that someone else writes is copyright them.

Your statement about Joomla! always being a derivative of Mambo is not entirely true.  It may be, and it may not be -- but 1.5 is a big step away from it.

It is also worth noting that the code which Joomla! derives from with respect to Mambo was written largely by people who moved to Joomla! ... I don't have to show you that the entire Mambo development team moved when the split happened right?  Andrew Eddie is a big copyright holder in both code bases for example.

Shamele wrote: Therefore, we need to follow Mambo's license and, as such, the copyright holders clearly state in the FAQ

"10. I have written a Component, Module, Template for Mambo. Do I have to release it under the GPL?

No. The GPL allows you to write your own extensions for Mambo and to release those extensions under whatever license you choose.

You are quoting an FAQ, not a license.  The license is GPL and someone's interpretation is just that... an interpretation.  What we have said is that any copyright holder can pursue compliance with his/her license.  Compliance with an FAQ is completely irrelevant

Shamele wrote: Since Joomla is only a derivative of Mambo, it cannot change this.

We didn't change our license ... and Joomla! is not "only" a derivative of Mambo.

Shamele wrote: 3PD do not need to "switch" to Mambo because Joomla has no right to interpret the GPL differently than the original copyright holder.

That is a little silly don't you think?  Anyone can interpret anything they want however they want.  Well, they can in the US anyway -- where do you live?

Are you trying to say that people cannot think differently then the Mambo Foundation because it violates their copyright? ... Maybe I am misinterpreting what you say but that seems really silly or misguided.

Shamele wrote: Not only this, but a copyright holder can also release its software under a dual license (just like MySQL).

The copyright holder of a work can release their work as they choose, that is true.  The issue is not there, the issue is with the potential violation of the GNU GPL which both Joomla! and Mambo are licensed under.

Shamele wrote: So if 3PD have any questions, they really should be directing them to the Mambo foundation and not Joomla.

Absolutely incorrect.  If 3pd have legal questions they should consult their own competent legal counsel -- not a forum or a FAQ.

Louis

I think many great points have been made. I have only one thing to add:

Since Joomla is only a derivative of Mambo, it cannot change this.

Actually Mambo is a derivative of Mambo and all of the code that has been included in it from outside sources, assuming code has been included, which Elpie helped to clarify. Joomla! is a derivative of Mambo and all of that outside code and of all of the new code contributed to it. Derivatives are not from a single work only, but can be from multiple works, This is why, if for instance you have a movie that contains quotes from a book, snippets of several songs, reels from other movies, you have to pay each and every one of those persons, you have to get their permission to use their work.

So too with software.

A is self contained, not a derivative of anything.

B uses parts of A, it is a derivative of A.

C uses B, C is a derivative of A and B.

D is a self contained work, not a derivative of anything.

E uses parts of A and parts of D, E is a derivative of A and D.

In the case of all derivatives, permission must be acquired.

So no, Joomla! is not _only_ a derivative of Mambo.

Since I can't seem to reply to posts that were directed at me, I will just sum up my points quickly. It's almost as annoying as the disparaging comments I got. LOL

1. Mambo is the original copyright holder. As the original copyright holder, they can release it under any license they wish. They can not only dual license the software, but also add exceptions, riders, clauses, etc. Mambo makes it clear on their website their position about 3PD. It doesn't matter whether it is in a FAQ or not. If a 3PD was ever challenged in court, they could show Mambo's position on the matter easily.

2. I do not understand how Joomla thinks it might not be a derivative work of Mambo, but somehow thinks that 3PD extensions are a derivative work of Joomla.

3. I never said that if you have LEGAL questions to ask Mambo. Please do not change my words or make it seem like I said something I didn't. I said, if you have questions, to ask Mambo. Since Mambo is the copyright holder, general copyright questions should be directed at them and not Joomla.

Shamele wrote: Since I can't seem to reply to posts that were directed at me, I will just sum up my points quickly. It's almost as annoying as the disparaging comments I got. LOL

1. Mambo is the original copyright holder. As the original copyright holder, they can release it under any license they wish. They can not only dual license the software, but also add exceptions, riders, clauses, etc. Mambo makes it clear on their website their position about 3PD. It doesn't matter whether it is in a FAQ or not. If a 3PD was ever challenged in court, they could show Mambo's position on the matter easily.

Anyone else who has copyright to any code in the Mambo code base can pursue compliance with the license they issued their code under.  I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.  The Mambo Foundation can relicense code it owns copyright to pursuant to the laws of its governing jurisdiction.

Shamele wrote: 2. I do not understand how Joomla thinks it might not be a derivative work of Mambo, but somehow thinks that 3PD extensions are a derivative work of Joomla.

Read what I said again.  Joomla! is a derivative work of Mambo for now.  I said 1.5 was a step away from that, and that it may not be for ever as you so eloquently put it in your first post on the subject.

Shamele wrote: 3. I never said that if you have LEGAL questions to ask Mambo. Please do not change my words or make it seem like I said something I didn't. I said, if you have questions, to ask Mambo. Since Mambo is the copyright holder, general copyright questions should be directed at them and not Joomla.

These are legal questions.

Louis

So you are saying that Joomla is being completely rewritten (not reverse engineered) from the ground up, without taking ANY concepts or code from the original Mambo? Otherwise, you will always be a derivative of Mambo.

I find it ironic that when someone points out the Joomla will always be a derivative of Mambo and therefore, under the original copyright(s) and exceptions, that the core team gets defensive and upset with it.

Yet, they also can't believe that 3PDs would be upset with the core team for saying that most of their programs that were built for Joomla (or Mambo and in some cases, both) would be derivatives under Joomla's copyright. Very interesting...

Pot meet kettle...
Kettle meet pot...

Shamele wrote: So you are saying that Joomla is being completely rewritten (not reverse engineered) from the ground up, without taking ANY concepts or code from the original Mambo? Otherwise, you will always be a derivative of Mambo.

Bit by bit, yes we are rewriting the code base ... yes and its coming along quite nicely.  You do not copyright a concept btw, you copyright a work.

Shamele wrote: I find it ironic that when someone points out the Joomla will always be a derivative of Mambo and therefore, under the original copyright(s) and exceptions, that the core team gets defensive and upset with it.

I am not upset in the slightest.  We are all very proud of the work done as Mambo ... and are in fact proud of all open source CMSs and how well this space has grown in the last few years.  It has been an amazing thing to watch.  You are confusing being upset with correcting misconceptions or in some cases disagreeing.

Shamele wrote: Yet, they also can't believe that 3PDs would be upset with the core team for saying that most of their programs that were built for Joomla (or Mambo and in some cases, both) would be derivatives under Joomla's copyright. Very interesting...

I believe it.  Them being upset does not, however change what we believe to be true any more than our beliefs change yours.

Shamele wrote: Pot meet kettle...
Kettle meet pot...

Cute but irrelevant

Louis

You cannot simply rewrite code "bit by bit". Do you think that will hold up in court? That sounds a lot like reverse engineering.

Actually where you are wrong is that Mambo cannot release under any license they see fit.  They have the license of GPL/GNU and always have had the license of GPL/GNU.

If they were wanting to relicense they would have to fork (the last svn of the code before the fork would continue to be GPL/GNU) their own code making sure that it did not contain any GPL/GNU code from any other contributors (if they did incorporate any GPL/GNU code they would have to release under a GPL/GNU compatible license), if not then they could release under which ever license they choose.

At this point Mambo is not changing their license as far as the statements that have been made, and that FAQ does not change their license or what the GPL/GNU license states.  When Joomla! forked from Mambo, Mambo was licensed GPL/GNU.  Joomla! is GPL/GNU and has no obligation to carry over any statements or FAQs.  The FAQ is not a license.

Reverse engineering would be trying to recreate Mambo. They don't need to do that since Mambo is gnu gpl.They don't want to do that because Mambo is Mambo, not how the core team sees the future of CMSs.

What the core team and other contributors are doing bit by bit is building a framework and new cms that will provide a solid and secure basis for modern developers and users in a web 2.0 world.

If someone simply wants to have a sightly newer Mambo with a few extra bells and whistles he or she should use Mambo or any of the various forks from Mambo that are continuing along using the basic Mambo infrastructure.

I'm not saying they didn't release it under GPL. Where did I say that?

You can also dual license a program or release it with exceptions, which I have stated several times. That means you can release a program under GPL and then attach an exception that completes reverses most of what the GPL says. You don't have to, but you "can".


1. I do not believe extensions are derivative works under GPL.
2. Mambo never believed this either as apparent in their FAQ.
3. It doesn't matter whether extensions are derivative works or not because the original copyright holder has stated in their FAQ that they allow 3PDs to release their extensions under their own license. Call it what you want. It may be an exception or simply (in my opinion) a clarification to the GPL.

So 1 & 2 aside, I think #3 proves that 3PDs can release their extensions under their own copyright.

Of course they release them under their own copyright. The question is what license do they release them under.

or what combination of licenses they release it under.

mcsmom wrote: Reverse engineering would be trying to recreate Mambo. They don't need to do that since Mambo is gnu gpl.

Are you saying that you can reverse engineer a gpl program and then put your own license to it? I don't think so.

You don't need to reverse engineer it, it is already freely available to you. However, if you take and use it, rebrand it, whatever  you must follow all of the gnu gpl rules in terms of acknowledgments and notifications and issue it under gnu gpl, however, since that is the license it is made available under.


Look, I've noticed that 100% of your posts have been on this issue. Why not try becoming an active member of the broader Joomla! community. Maybe you would find out why we feel so strongly about protecting it. Come on over to the General forum, development,  integration, or templates. It's a great place.