furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Moderator: JED Team
-
- Joomla! Explorer
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:40 am
- Location: Frisco, CA
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Thanks for pointing out Danyel's post Barrie. My thoughts pretty much echo what he said. I see no reason why this has to be a black and white situation. No decision made by Joomla (or any decision making body) is going to be embraced by everyone. However, if the culture was more of inclusiveness and cough... democracy... people tend to be much more accepting of things, even if they disagree.
For me, I'm happy that something would be done about "proprietary" extensions, as I do feel if left alone they have the potential of steering the Joomla "vibe" too commercial/encrypted/phone home. I personally don't buy any extension that will bring down a site because of a problem with a license server! Never... and good riddance to that culture that DOES INDEED have the capacity to become prevalent with Joomla.
But when something with your user base/community overwhelmingly questions, I would think it's time to listen and probably come up with a compromise.
Hackwar, Ircmaxell and other hardworking developers: I very much appreciate what you do, but don't forget that the work you do would be effectively NOTHING without the the work of your 3rd party devs, your documentation writers, graphic designers, interface designers, etc., etc. The community is what makes Joomla. Check it out. There are a zillion free cms's out there...many with better features than Joomla. But Joomla has it's community and if you empower who helped you get where you are, Joomla can thrive and be a more fun place for all.
This is all coming from not a super contributor, sorry. Just someone who's invested a LOT of time with Joomla. Probably a parasite and a leech to those who think a carpenter can somehow do without his ladder But hey, I've tried to help out in a serous way... but was faced with some pretty arrogant attitudes to be honest. I'd still be open to helping out and think that Joomla has lots of potential. I'm not necessarily hoping for personnel change, but am waiting for some positive culture change...
For me, I'm happy that something would be done about "proprietary" extensions, as I do feel if left alone they have the potential of steering the Joomla "vibe" too commercial/encrypted/phone home. I personally don't buy any extension that will bring down a site because of a problem with a license server! Never... and good riddance to that culture that DOES INDEED have the capacity to become prevalent with Joomla.
But when something with your user base/community overwhelmingly questions, I would think it's time to listen and probably come up with a compromise.
Hackwar, Ircmaxell and other hardworking developers: I very much appreciate what you do, but don't forget that the work you do would be effectively NOTHING without the the work of your 3rd party devs, your documentation writers, graphic designers, interface designers, etc., etc. The community is what makes Joomla. Check it out. There are a zillion free cms's out there...many with better features than Joomla. But Joomla has it's community and if you empower who helped you get where you are, Joomla can thrive and be a more fun place for all.
This is all coming from not a super contributor, sorry. Just someone who's invested a LOT of time with Joomla. Probably a parasite and a leech to those who think a carpenter can somehow do without his ladder But hey, I've tried to help out in a serous way... but was faced with some pretty arrogant attitudes to be honest. I'd still be open to helping out and think that Joomla has lots of potential. I'm not necessarily hoping for personnel change, but am waiting for some positive culture change...
- LorenzoG
- Joomla! Hero
- Posts: 2983
- Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:46 am
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
We are off-topic here. Thanks!
Industributik - http://www.industributiken.se
-
- I've been banned!
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:33 pm
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
I have a constructive suggestion.
JED to accept extensions with GPL compliant license, which occur as a result of bridging different applications.
So basically, my proposal is to accept those extensions that have GPL compliant license, which is not the GPL itself, but where this license is used as the only solution for bridging Joomla! with other open source softwares that are not licensed under the GPL.
I think the proposal is reasonable and will not have impact on the values and the mission of Joomla!
I think that if the system itself is open to bridge in reasonable manner with other Open Source systems that are not under GPL is something important. By other Open Source systems I only mean "stand alone".
I am open to support anyone who can draft in a better way (wording) my proposal. While respecting the Joomla! license, I think the developers should respect the license of other Open Source software and if they want to bridge both, this is not something that is against the Joomla! values. And I think if a developer respects both the Joomla! value and the values of another Open Source software and is able to release a product that is compatible with both licenses, this should be respected by Joomla! itself.
JED to accept extensions with GPL compliant license, which occur as a result of bridging different applications.
So basically, my proposal is to accept those extensions that have GPL compliant license, which is not the GPL itself, but where this license is used as the only solution for bridging Joomla! with other open source softwares that are not licensed under the GPL.
I think the proposal is reasonable and will not have impact on the values and the mission of Joomla!
I think that if the system itself is open to bridge in reasonable manner with other Open Source systems that are not under GPL is something important. By other Open Source systems I only mean "stand alone".
I am open to support anyone who can draft in a better way (wording) my proposal. While respecting the Joomla! license, I think the developers should respect the license of other Open Source software and if they want to bridge both, this is not something that is against the Joomla! values. And I think if a developer respects both the Joomla! value and the values of another Open Source software and is able to release a product that is compatible with both licenses, this should be respected by Joomla! itself.
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Moderator note; off topic posts removed
- fatica
- Joomla! Enthusiast
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:32 pm
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
I really like Ivo's suggestion of allowing bridges to other licenses. I think its a fair compromise and one that would really help further the Joomla project. However, I think it's incompatible with the (absurd) FSF stance that bridges, and the software they bridge to are derivative works.
As I understand it, this is why the Simple Machines Forum's bridge is no longer offered. (quoting a quote between SMF & the FSF back in 2007)
Did Joomla get better or worse with the removal of SMF? Did its competitors look better? Answering those from the perspective of the _market_ and you get "worse" and "yes" respectively.
What I believe pertains to the last sentence of that quote,
In summary, I think bridges are a good compromise and embody the spirit of freedom to choose that I usually look for in a CMS.
As I understand it, this is why the Simple Machines Forum's bridge is no longer offered. (quoting a quote between SMF & the FSF back in 2007)
Argh, this is silly, and why Mambo had an exception. If there's a software package that can work as a standalone product, or atop Mambo, or atop Joomla, atop OSCommerce, whatever, I can't see why its a problem to open source the bridge while keeping the software under whatever license it wants (even proprietary).No. The [bridge] script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it. Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.
Best regards,
--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
Did Joomla get better or worse with the removal of SMF? Did its competitors look better? Answering those from the perspective of the _market_ and you get "worse" and "yes" respectively.
What I believe pertains to the last sentence of that quote,
I think each software's integration would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are too many complexities to consider in the various options for "integrating" and how that's done and what it results in.This is not legal advice
In summary, I think bridges are a good compromise and embody the spirit of freedom to choose that I usually look for in a CMS.
Mike Fatica
https://www.metalocator.com
https://www.metalocator.com
-
- I've been banned!
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:33 pm
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Proprietary extensions will not be accepted, therefore I tried to focus on GPL compliant
- Toni Marie
- Joomla! Ace
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:37 am
- Location: Arid-Zona
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
I was not on the JED at the time, but I am fairly certain this was removed voluntarily, by the developers and not at our request.As I understand it, this is why the Simple Machines Forum's bridge is no longer offered
The JED made no moves on the copyright/license issue until this most recent announcement. The only changes were cosmetic, the way we labeled extensions an licenses.
The reason Joomla itself is no longer using SMF for the forum is because 18 months ago at the time of the announcement of the GPL compatibility issue, Joomla said it would "get our own house in order". Meaning, if Joomla was using SMF, it was being hypocritical. Getting a GPL JED, a GPL forum, etc were part of that move.
- vdrover
- Joomla! Guru
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:26 pm
- Location: Canuck via MKE
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
@fatica
I have had the opinion for some time that as long as the standalone app is not distributed with the GPL bridge, then there should be no problem with the bridge itself. With this in mind, we're going to have to re-craft the rules come July 1 to clarify these situations.
If the bridge is released as GPL, it will not be incumbent upon the JED to examine the standalone app it's bridged to (regardless of the license used by this app) provided the following 2 conditions are met:
1. the copyright holder of the standalone app does not have a complaint/issue
2. the standalone app is not distributed with the bridge (unless the standalone app is itself GPL of course)
I have had the opinion for some time that as long as the standalone app is not distributed with the GPL bridge, then there should be no problem with the bridge itself. With this in mind, we're going to have to re-craft the rules come July 1 to clarify these situations.
If the bridge is released as GPL, it will not be incumbent upon the JED to examine the standalone app it's bridged to (regardless of the license used by this app) provided the following 2 conditions are met:
1. the copyright holder of the standalone app does not have a complaint/issue
2. the standalone app is not distributed with the bridge (unless the standalone app is itself GPL of course)
Victor Drover
https://watchful.net - Remote backup, update and security monitoring for Joomla.
https://watchful.net - Remote backup, update and security monitoring for Joomla.
-
- Joomla! Enthusiast
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:46 am
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Won't that lead to many proprietary app developers creating standalone versions and then a bridge, to get the bridge listed in JED, much to the displeasure of those not wanting propietary *anything* listed?
Phil
Phil
- masterchief
- Joomla! Hero
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
The problem with SMF was their license required any modified files to be distributed *only* on their site. It was their decision not to distribute Joomla bridges that included the required modifications to SMF files. We didn't like that decision but you have to respect the license projects choose, but it meant Joomla developers looked elsewhere. phpBB, on the other hand, was fully compatible being GPL so any developer could quite happily work on any bridges with or without that project's blessing.
The point here is not to debate whether bridges are possible (you are really on your own if you want to try, and believe me, I've tried to think how it could be successfully done without cutting off my nose to spite my face), but the fact that project's have the right to enforce their licenses.
Bottom line is a GPL "bridge" for Joomla will more than likely be listed on the JED. However, the onus is on you to then ensure that your bridge is compatible with the license at the other end and that "they" (whoever "they" are) don't take you to task.
Note: please do not discuss "how" to make bridges work here. Start another thread or review previous debate on that topic.
The point here is not to debate whether bridges are possible (you are really on your own if you want to try, and believe me, I've tried to think how it could be successfully done without cutting off my nose to spite my face), but the fact that project's have the right to enforce their licenses.
Bottom line is a GPL "bridge" for Joomla will more than likely be listed on the JED. However, the onus is on you to then ensure that your bridge is compatible with the license at the other end and that "they" (whoever "they" are) don't take you to task.
Note: please do not discuss "how" to make bridges work here. Start another thread or review previous debate on that topic.
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
- masterchief
- Joomla! Hero
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
No.phil_roy wrote:Won't that lead to many proprietary app developers creating standalone versions and then a bridge, to get the bridge listed in JED, much to the displeasure of those not wanting propietary *anything* listed?
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
- Toni Marie
- Joomla! Ace
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:37 am
- Location: Arid-Zona
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
These are things that are going to have to be worked out for July 1, but we're not robots...we're people. If it's just something to circumvent the rules, we're not going to allow it.
As Andrew said, you have more concern about who you're bridging *to* than you do with the JED.
As Andrew said, you have more concern about who you're bridging *to* than you do with the JED.
- fatica
- Joomla! Enthusiast
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:32 pm
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Can you elaborate a bit? Why don't you think that would happen? Are you implying that that would be the policy? The reason I brought up bridges was because I agree with phil_roy's statement above. I think devs will do whatever's allowed. What is the policy? We know the FSF's stance:masterchief wrote:No.phil_roy wrote:Won't that lead to many proprietary app developers creating standalone versions and then a bridge, to get the bridge listed in JED, much to the displeasure of those not wanting propietary *anything* listed?
But I was surprised to see this comment:No. The [bridge] script would ultimately create a single work
Do you mean that a GPL bridge to a non-GPL app would be hosted on the JED?masterchief wrote: Bottom line is a GPL "bridge" for Joomla will more than likely be listed on the JED.
TIA for clarifying, I want to be sure I understand the position here.
Mike Fatica
https://www.metalocator.com
https://www.metalocator.com
- masterchief
- Joomla! Hero
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
@fatica
If you want to start another thread I can elaborate my thoughts. My reasons are purely technical, nothing to do with policy.
Yes, it is my understanding that a "GPL Joomla extension", that is a bridge to "another thing", is fine. But to say it a third time, *you* have to do the homework as to whether you comply with the "other thing".
If you want to start another thread I can elaborate my thoughts. My reasons are purely technical, nothing to do with policy.
Yes, it is my understanding that a "GPL Joomla extension", that is a bridge to "another thing", is fine. But to say it a third time, *you* have to do the homework as to whether you comply with the "other thing".
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
- Toni Marie
- Joomla! Ace
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:37 am
- Location: Arid-Zona
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
We're not lawyers, but remember that the thing we're listing is *not* the single work. If the bridge is distributed *with* the standalone product, it would be excluded by our policy.
I'll say it again: We're not lawyers. If the standalone product person complains that the GPL bridge violates their copyright, we're not going to go into a legal battle or discussion, the listing will simply be removed at the request of the standalone product owners. But, we do that with any listing. If someone violates someone else's copyright we don't consult a team of attorneys over it, we just remove the listings.
I'll say it again: We're not lawyers. If the standalone product person complains that the GPL bridge violates their copyright, we're not going to go into a legal battle or discussion, the listing will simply be removed at the request of the standalone product owners. But, we do that with any listing. If someone violates someone else's copyright we don't consult a team of attorneys over it, we just remove the listings.
- masterchief
- Joomla! Hero
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
Good point and thanks for clearing that up Toni.
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
- fatica
- Joomla! Enthusiast
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:32 pm
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
O.k. thanks for the clarification. So, what I'm hearing is that you will allow GPL bridges to non-GPL (including proprietary) software, so long as the only thing you're hosting in the JED is the bridge, not the bridge and the software.
Assuming my understanding is correct, its interesting to note that this isn't in line with the GPL, which is why I needed the explicit clarification.
Assuming my understanding is correct, its interesting to note that this isn't in line with the GPL, which is why I needed the explicit clarification.
Mike Fatica
https://www.metalocator.com
https://www.metalocator.com
- masterchief
- Joomla! Hero
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
@fatica
The onus is on you to ensure you are complying with the GPL for what's on the other side of the bridge. Being on the JED makes no endorsement of this. For your bridge to be listed on the JED, "the extension" must be GPL but as previously stated, it may include GPL compatible libraries in supporting roles.
That help?
The onus is on you to ensure you are complying with the GPL for what's on the other side of the bridge. Being on the JED makes no endorsement of this. For your bridge to be listed on the JED, "the extension" must be GPL but as previously stated, it may include GPL compatible libraries in supporting roles.
That help?
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.
- Toni Marie
- Joomla! Ace
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:37 am
- Location: Arid-Zona
- Contact:
Re: furious about new JED policy!no commercial extensions no 1.0
When we've discussed all of the policy suggestions and tweaks, we'll be posting those new rules/policies.
For now, we're getting off topic a lot and debating legalities we're really not at liberty to advise on, anyway. When we start talking about legal precedents and finer points of FOSS law, we're really getting away from the point of this thread and into some dangerous territory.
I'm going to close this thread and we have planned to open a call for suggestions in a blog post in the next few days.
For now, we're getting off topic a lot and debating legalities we're really not at liberty to advise on, anyway. When we start talking about legal precedents and finer points of FOSS law, we're really getting away from the point of this thread and into some dangerous territory.
I'm going to close this thread and we have planned to open a call for suggestions in a blog post in the next few days.