Joomla! Discussion Forums

Hi LorenzoG,

First off let me say that I support Joomla's decision with JED. Purely that it now brings JED in line with the views and beliefs of those steering the project.


Can you please link to other CMS's that has the same stance towards non-GPL extensions.
Would the number of CMS's that share the same stance as Joomla be greater than those that don't?


Instead of waiting for the blog, why not share a couple of links so we can see this working?

Who has increased their sales going from proprietary to GPL licensing on their extensions? This statement alone seems very far fetched, proprietary does not mean encoded. So why would GPL influence an end user to make purchases over a proprietary licensing? Can you substantiate this claim?
Is the overall number of commercial GPL developers prospering in greater proportion than the number of commercial proprietary developers?

Just to reiterate, I agree with Joomla's decision based on the philosophies of the project in terms to listings in JED, it is just some of the claims that people such as yourself are throwing out there without anything so far to back those claims that is alarming. Clearly Joomla made a decision it believes is in the best interests of the project and the individual interest of those steering it. I doubt people would go out of their way to make poor decisions. So if it was a decision based in the positive interests of the project that decision and your reasonings above must have come from real-world findings and examples somewhere, generally people don't make critical changes based on warm fuzzy feelings.

I am genuinely interested in seeing some links to substantiate the claims above so I myself can look in to this. Personally I will release some extensions this year, non-supported GPL extensions as I have no interest in further developing them. They're just some small tools that can be highly useful that are offshoots of things we needed to achieve and these extensions we created helped us achieve those goals. So from a personal standpoint i'm not fussed whichever way J! wants me to release my extensions. Just that some large claims are being thrown at people who are looking to change their whole livelihood, and it would be productive if those claims came supported.

Just because you wrote it in a paragraph doesn't make it so.

All the best and I look forward to some information / links where we can really see commercial GPL working!

Regards,

.Joel

LorenzoG, I'm sorry, but I find your post quite patronising to end users and to the community to be honest. I didn't realise we were so incapable of making judgements concerning which extensions to use and/or purchase.

Comments such as....



...seem to be a justification for excluding the listing of these extensions and seems to imply that the end user is unable to make decisions without your intervention. Let them be listed and let us be hesitant!! I wasn't aware we needed your help to make decisions of choice!

Phil

Can somebody please explain why GPL-compatible licenses such as LGPL are also not allowed? In what way does that protect the 'values' of the Joomla project?

@netshine, there is no reason you yourself can't use LGPL extensions. Additionally there's no reason you can use LGPL extensions yourself. It's a gray area and you need to act on your own legal advice. As much as I hate it when J! uses that smokewall to hide behind, in the case of LGPL it stands true as there's no definitive answer. We invoked a solicitor over about 6 weeks when I was working on a corporate level project using J!. The changes to the way J! treats its interactions with the GPL is somewhat black and white, and somewhat gray. After reading these forums and the various blogs over the past year it is seemingly clear that anything which is gray is closed. Joomla is trying to protect itself and essentially minimise liability to the project. It's a safer practice to create a policy that is based on black and white answers than it is on gray words. So the solution is simple, anything gray is given a "No" and is not entertained. This limits liability down the track. If it's a 50/50 than the easiest way to not loose your money is not to bet, it's the same practice here and one that is in the best interests of the project.

Remember that Joomla's views and "the project's" views are merely the views of those steering the project coming through, or their views based on "legal advice." So there is a clear motivation of the group within Joomla itself to push towards a complete GPL project. When it is put forward that it is to "protect the values of the Joomla project" this is double speak for it is to "protect the values of the group steering the Joomla project."

Nobody is purposely trying to make decisions that will hurt the project.

Regards,

.Joel

I fully support the team and OSM on this decision, thank you all! Very good job done By the way it seems to me that still lots of people confusing commercial with proprietary!

Also I am very glad to see that you all believe in the mission and values of GPL

Stasys, I know in my case I am intentionally confusing the two! I'm sorry, but I don't go to JED to review licenses....I go to find extensions that will work with Joomla, and then I evaluate them and the costs involved (time, effort and sometimes funds). I don't care whether something I pay for is proprietary or not....I care if it works for me and if the person selling it provides adequate support. I have no ability to code and am not interested in learning.

I've used proprietary software and been amazed by the support I've received. Ditto for free and commercial GPL. I've used proprietary software and been disappointed by the support I've received or the lack of updates or the end of a product. Ditto for free and commercial GPL.

But let me make that decision and list all my available options in JED for me! What some are describing as an "editorial decision" isn't going to help my Joomla use one bit.

Cheers, Phil

I recommend you to visit http://www.opensourcecms.com and check out the GPL CMS's for yourself and get an idea how it looks. You will then find out that we aren't the only project that won't list propiertary extensions.

Here is how it looks for the two biggest Open Source CMS beside Joomla - Drupal and Wordpress
http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q2
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/ (In the bottom) - I don't know if you have followed the last weeks debate over there?


As I wrote, we are planning to write blogs and amongst other bring forward GPL commercial developers. I think it would be a bad idea for us to start to link and quote who said what. It is better to present it properly and let developers speak.

Alledia wrote an interview serie for 1-1/2 year ago with 5 commercial GPL developers when the project presented its GPL stance
http://www.alledia.com/blog/interviews/ ... next-week/

The situation has changed since then. For 1-1/2 year ago, there weren't many GPL commercial extensions. Now we have 206 extensions in JED listed as Commercial and GPL licensed.

I suggest that you take a look on the extensions, visit the developers websites and form your own opinion.

I have never stated that to change from propiertary to GPL is easy. It is probably (generally) much harder to be a GPL Commercial developer since it is needed more work depending on business model, which type of extensions, skills, number of extensions etc. But on long term, it isn't tenable to run a company there you have extensions in violation.

Joomla! is a project owned by OSM, but is usually presented as the 'Joomla community'. Although a community is not necessarily a democracy, the word does usually indicate that all those involved in the community organically influence its success and future. The message that was sent to developers of extensions in the JED unfortunately shows a different reality, one in which the community is driven by the project leadership without consultation of third party developers and in evident disregard of the interests of end users. So, Joomla! is in fact not a community but a project.

As such, the decision of the Joomla! project to remove non-GPL extensions and J!1.0.x extensions is nonetheless defensible as being in the interests of the project. The immediate short-term interests of the Joomla! project could be served well by forcing developers and users into J!1.5 and by discouraging extensions that do not follow the copyleft interpretation of the FSF which has been adopted by OSM and to which OSM no doubt turns for help and guidance regarding the GNU GPL. (I would summarise this interpretation as requiring that all extensions except templates must be GPL-ed.) As such, the Joomla! project is also free to make the decision it made. The JED is clearly neither owned nor guided by the community but by OSM, and there is no legal obligation whatsoever for OSM to follow the GPL in setting criteria for listings in the JED. This is clearly not a legal but a policy decision which OSM is free to make.

As an end user, however, I do not think that my interests are helped by the decision at all. Quite simply, the decision will limit my choice of extensions unless another good and complete directory of extension comes to light.

As the developer of a few small extensions, I see the decision as being completely contrary to my interests. My primary interest as a developer of an extension is freedom to choose the licence under which I distribute that extension. That freedom is now going to be practically restricted by OSM. There is much more to be said about the developer's perspective, but most of what matters comes down to the question whether or not OSM should limit a developer's freedom to choose the licence under which extensions are distributed.

As a lawyer by profession (please note that nothing I write here should be taken as advice or be relied on) I feel that the decision also runs contrary to the GPLv2 itself. GPLv3 extensions will be listed, but those are actually not compatible with the licence under which Joomla! is distributed. Extensions under GPLv2 compatible licences will not be listed although they adopt the same spirit as the licence under which Joomla! is distributed. Furthermore my reading of the GPL is that Joomla! extensions are not normally derivative works and therefore I think that according to the GPL many Joomla! extensions developers are legally free to choose their licence, a freedom which is now practically restricted by a decision claimed to be made in the spirit of the GPL.

Finally, as an observer, I think OSM has made a very bad decision in terms of the broader interests and future of the Joomla! project. The strength of the project is determined by the strength of the community involved with it, and the strength of the community depends on the quantity and quality of third party developers. If developers are no longer practically free to choose a licence they have less incentive to develop for Joomla!, and if developers are practically pushed into using the GPL their commercial prospects are limited. Any extension sold under the GPL can be distributed for free by the purchaser, and the alternative business models that are possible under the GPL pretty much presume that extensions are so buggy and difficult that they prompt the need for help and support. So the fact remains that the most simple, obvious and certain business model for developers is practically made unavailable for policy reasons which I see as inconsistent and counter-productive.

My criticism is harsh, but I will add a few constructive notes.

Firstly, I think the blow delivered to those who will continue using J!1.0.x would be substantially softened if the JED would send anyone who asks for it a database file containing pertinent details of all the 1.0 extensions that are to disappear. This will enable third parties to continue making J!1.0.x extensions available, thereby also indirectly helping the Joomla! project.

Secondly, the decision could be changed to include GPL-compatible extensions in future listings, which would be consistent with the GPL and would remove most grounds for criticism. (@LorenzoG: the change as announced is not from proprietary to GPL but from non-GPLv2/3 to GPLv2/3.)

Thirdly, it would be entirely within the spirit of the GPL if OSM would ask some money here and there from developers and end-users. For those who still do not know: the GPL is about "free" as in 'free speech' and not 'free beer'. I would think that OSM could ask developers a little money for non-GPL extensions to be listed, and OSM could ask end-users a small constibution for being able to see those listings. Like that, all the freedoms are safeguarded, Joomla! gains by getting more funds and maintaining the full strength of its developer and end-user base, developers can continue to focus their efforts on Joomla! without the issues that the GPL brings, and end-users obviously can continue to enjoy a very broad choice of extensions.

@LorenzoG, thanks for the links!

I'll take a look through later tonight, appreciate the time you put in to provide the information.

Regards,

.Joel

I'm sure you are not asking JED to list:
- Extensions with copyright infringement
- Extensions that are not a real fork
- Extensions with very similar names created to misleading users
- Extensions that do not belong to the submitters
- Extensions with encryption protections removed
- Commercial extensions copies distributed as free
- Extensions with virus in the pack
- Extensions not installable at Joomla installers
- Extensions with exploits

I'm I right?
I'm sure you can find any of the extensions listed above in several repositories on web.
Not at JED! But we could!

I'm not telling this is the same thing but its the same kind of decision:
Those are editorial decisions, made to comply with Joomla project, vision and mission.

Some things you like, some you don't.

horus_68...

Seriously? You're now implying that the justification for removal of valid, well coded, propretary is software, is that you align them in the same class as product developed by those who break copyright or perform what are blatantly inappropriate actions?!

I think that speaks volumes as to what you think of non-GPL developers.

Phil

Phil, I see that we have different views in this matter and I respect your view.
What I tried to do is to explain our thinking behind the decision.

Let me try to elucidate. We have from the time the first developer started to encode/encrypt their extensions got numerous of reviews and reports from users in JED complaining that specific extensions are encrypted. We have removed those reports and reviews.

I also believe that most end-users don't realize that there can be harmful code or behaviour that can impact on their website presence. One thing I'm thinking on is when an extension have a license call home functionality that regularly calls home for to check if the license still is valid without the users knowledge and the user get locked out when the extension doesn't reach the license server. What happens if a such developer suddenly of different reasons just disappear? We unpublish regularly abandoned extensions in JED and extensions that of different reasons aren't available anylonger (including commercial ones). If something should happen with an encrypted extension with license call home functionality, we will then be standing there with many affected users that maybe have invested a lot of money on their websites. The users wouldn't be able to fix the problem since the extension is encrypted and a such occurrence would definitely hit back on the project.

Simple question - why on earth remove those reviews and comments?!

Leave them and that further helps us to make an informed decision as an end user. Not listing them will simply mean we are less informed on a very important site like JED....which I'm already looking for alternatives to now. (And please note - I draw a distinction between complaints over encryption and the very inappropriate behaviour that horus_68 used in his examples. They are two quite different things.).

Phil

Please don't try to twist my arguments!
Don't put words on my mouth!
Its not a fair attitude!

I know that you can understand me and for sure you know that I'm only making a parallel on those decision.
Those are editorial decisions not personal or legal decisions!

From our rules:
http://extensions.joomla.org/rules

- A review is a serious examination of a person's experience with an extension which is presented on the Joomla! Extensions Directory. Praise, difficulties, or comparisons with other extensions are all valid parts of a review, including the reasons why.

Bashing and complaints about for example encryption or license are not valid reviews, and specially when the user aren't using the extension.

Which leads nicely to my next question.....

If I (in the future) I review a GPL extension and decide (since you list that I am allowed to make comparisons) that it doesn't match in any way, shape or form, a proprietary extension that I use....and in my review I state....

"This was a disappointing extension. Users should check out **INSERT PROPRIETARY EXTENSION HERE** as a far superier and well-maintained extension".

....I'd be curious to see if my review would be allowed? I've made a valid comparison with an extension for Joonla...it just doesn't happen to be on JED.

I'm asking to gauge just how much editorial decisions are going to affect aknowledgement of non-listed extensions?

Cheers, Phil

If the review appears to be a blatant advertisement for ANY other extension, regardless of where it is located, its licenses, etc., it would not be approved.

This is OSM false interpretation. I hope that somebody will sue you (OSM) for that.

Otherwise Ewel's post is describing exactly what is currently wrong with OSM and Joomla development in general. GPL fundamentalism is just a symptom of that - dictators masking themselves as community leaders.

P.S.
I currently develop a small non-commercial LGPL licensed plugin. Due to your smart decisions it will be removed from JED. Nice move - really in the best interest of community.

kauselot, I didn't write that.
I think you have mixed up the quoting system.

Regards,

.Joel

Changed - it was a mistake - sorry.

Just now I tried to search for extensions that have an 'Other' licence, are commercial, are components and are 1.5 native. Sadly the search results also produced GPL extensions, non-commercial extensions, modules, etc., so I have no way to assess for myself what the impact of the decision will be.

Discussions about extensions which have malvolent code in them, like in the posts since my post last night, are in my view besides the point. I would appreciate a JED team response to the alternatives I suggested.

Incidentally, I am not furious about the decision at all, but saddened that the project I intend to give my continued support has made such bad decision.

@carsten888 goodbye. If you just want to have a bitching session, Go!

I don't know you, but it sounds like you've already turned on Joomla a while ago. Sounds like you've already made up your mind. Joomla doesn't need your commercial extensions. In my opinion you're already violating the Joomla GPL by using non-GPL extensions.

As they say, "SH*T or get off the Pot" in America. Basically, do your business or leave. You, Engel, C., your website joomlapi.com make ME furious.

Grow up & show the respect to the Joomla community by either being quiet or leaving. If you do in fact respect the Joomla community. I appreciate your feedback, but it's unwarranted at this point.

Can someone please post a list of his extensions so I know which ones NOT to buy?

@insupport, .Joel and some more supporting the OSM decision...

Don't be so easily fooled.

If it was a community matter, everyone would have been asked. Noone was asked, so it's not a community decision, but a decision of the company -yes company- called OSM, Inc. which drives joomla.org. Plain and simple.

So before getting "upset" that commercial developers are the root of all YOUR problems (not Joomla's), put some facts down and try to figure out what made Joomla the no.1 CMS today and what will happen if all the good commercial extensions get withdrawn from JED and perhaps the J! community itself. It's not rocket science...

Seems like this decision by OSM really is a cat amongst the pigeons...

I reckon this argument could eventually lead to a Joomla fork (Mambo all over again). Well it is possible under GPL isn't it? If commercial developers banded together, what would stop it from happening?

Sounds like a nice balanced business sense for commercial (or is that proprietary - I'm confused ) developers if you ask me. Commercial developers can work on maintaining an opensource Joomla platform alternative while also allowing them to sell their commercial extensions - trouble is, who would be big enough and clever enough in the Joomla community to do this?

My 2 (trouble-making) cents (or sense) .

@fotisevangelou

i'm not upset. and i didn't say "commercial developers are the root of all [MY] problems." in fact i largely agree that commercial deveoplers bring the most amount of inovation to joomla.

however, i do believe gpl projects often has a way of collapsing on themselves. and i think this is a perfect example, how commercial has a primary agenda, to make money. Secondary, to support gpl.

In short...

you can not have a FREE software with a substantial amount of Pay for Add Ons. As in the case with some of the larger add ons, they start running the show. They drive too much of the core innovation. Joomla can only move as fast as the core development can allow. Just look at what happened to osCommerce. This is another example of Joomla re-adjusting itself to be sustainable for the long term.

My frustration came from carsten888 aka Engel C.'s frustration that Joomla is not doing enough to take care of it's community. I largely believe that's the opposite.

You can call this growing pains. One guy loosing his business plan is nothing compared to building a sustainable future for joomla.

And OSM is a incorporated as a non-profit. Inc doesn't scare me. It's legal way to protect Joomla from being sued by someone who forgot to secure their site by changing ADMIN as their default username.

@dvanwijk go for it buddy. problem with that, you'd have to start with Joomla 1.0. Joomla 1.5 was released under the new GPL. No going back buddy. what's done is done.

@All the complainers

...And, wait... how much are we paying for Joomla. Oh ya, that's right, It's free.

To use some horse analogies. Get off your high horse, and start contributing. And don't look the gift horse in the mouth. (sorry international readers you may not get these american proverbs)

@ewel your statement is only 50% correct:



I used to think this way to. I even repeated those words, but you have a lot of failing open source projects that get big. osCommerce is my perfect example, because of the extreme involvement from the outside community it took on a life of it's own. there was no strong center, harold created an awesome software, but he couldn't keep up with the rapid changes of the community.

Ultimately it forked to ZenCart, but that never got as big as osCommerce. I mean failing by updates that keep with or ahead of market standards.

You can only have a good project that starts with a project and ultimately have people contributing to it's success. To use another horse example, you can't just have the legs to walk the horse. You need a head too!

To be fair, OSM had nothing to do with this decision. In fact, I wonder where people heard that from (or was it just a rumour)...


Nothing, technically. However, forking would not change anything (from a legal perspective). The reason is, we (all the developers, and everybody who's ever committed code to the project) are the copyright holders. Forking will not change that. So technically, if a fork allowed non-GPL extensions, it's still a violation of license, and of my (and our) copyright. The rational behind this is not philosophical, it's legal.

What I don't get, is that people (since 2 years ago) have chosen to work with Joomla, knowing full well our stance on the GPL, and knowingly license their products in an incompatible manner. To me, this shows a total lack of respect for everybody who has ever contributed any code to Joomla. Why not respect EVERYONE's contributions?

Hi Fotis,

I am not easily "fooled." However, I believe your understanding may be a little incorrect. OSM is a not-for-profit incorporation. Their role is simple, to meet the needs and demands of the project outlined by the core. The core stipulates to OSM what it wants or needs, OSM does not stipulate to the core what it wants or needs.

The decisions we see here being made are the views, wishes and opinions of those steering the Joomla project, the actions and outcomes we see here being made are simply the wishes of the Core being put in place.


Once again I think you are finding it difficult to understand, and nowhere have I seen anyone calling commercial developers evil, nor has anyone said they are the root of a problem.

It's very simple Fotis, this is a project that is being run and steered by a core group of people, they are aligning the project and how it is run with their views. You are an outside developer, this means you develop according to how they run their house. If you don't like it then get on board, work your way in to the core and get a vote that counts.

One thing that you forget as a commercial developer is that you are developing for Joomla, not the other way around. Whilst you create extensions for Joomla which increases the value of JED and Joomla and makes it more feature rich, you also rely on Joomla to feed you your customer base. Your extensions can not function without Joomla, however Joomla can continue to function without you.

To put this in terms that you may understand Logitech do not get to tell Apple how to manufacture their iMacs or Macbooks to suit their peripherals. Instead Apple develop their own core products to suit their business and it is up to Logitech to adapt its business model to suit. Not the other way around.

Nobody is saying you can't develop for Joomla, they are simply saying that if you wish to be listed in JED these are the criteria you must meet. That criteria is set forward and stipulated by the views and wishes of those within the project itself.

I don't agree with all of the decisions that come down the ranks of Joomla. In fact I believe there are some people that have great intentions for the projects, however their actions reflect those of a muppet. However there comes a time where it doesn't matter if the person is a Magician or a Muppet, as long as they are in control you respect their wishes.

For example I am not the largest fan of Amy Stephen, perhaps it's her similarities to Sarah Palin that gets me offside Much of what she used to type I found to be smoke screens, double speak or utter dribble. However you can not take away the efforts and work she has put in to the project. The difference between her and I is very simple, her interests are towards the benefit of the Joomla project. My interests are what can benefit my own use of Joomla and how I use Joomla as a tool. Whilst she invests her time to making the projects future strong, I invest my time in making my own uses of Joomla strong. When it comes to making changes to Joomla she will get her hands dirty and get in amongst it and make changes, I will sit behind my flash LCD and desk and type a few lines of hot air to contradict the posts above me. Now tell me who has more right to have an influential vote over the project, her or I ? She who serves the project, or I who serves myself?

Let me change the question....

Who has more right to have an influential vote over the project? The core who serves the project, or you who serves yourself?

Commercial developers are not evil, they are an integral part of Joomla and the forthcoming development. However, your projects will only be as successful as Joomla is, whilst your extensions increase the success of Joomla, the success of Joomla must be reached before it becomes a possibility for your extensions. Not the other way around.

People value your work Fotis, they enjoy your extensions. However you need to respect how the body you are developing for wishes you to treat their project.

Regards,

.Joel

@insupport

I agree that you need a head as well as legs to walk a horse. I am not against OSM driving the project that it owns. I think I would do the same because every ship needs one captain, and I will continue to support Joomla! even though I disagree with the direction taken by the leadership.
Still, if OSM wishes to present Joomla! as a community then I feel it should in this case have been more careful inviting and considering the views of the community.

I suppose you are also right in saying that it would be detrimental for a project to be unable to keep up with developments in the community around that project - though I think Joomla! is actually very much at pace even with commercial extension developers.
The thing is, I think there are alternative courses of action for OSM which are better even in this regard. I already wrote that it would help Joomla! if non-GPL compatible extensions were listed subject to listing and viewing fees paid by the more commercial side of the community. I believe this would also help keeping the core project ahead of its community and the core leadership in the driving seat: more funds usually translates into more ability.
By the way, let's say for the sake of argument that Joomla! could be at risk when there are too many developers who are too quick and too commercial and who show too little copyleft spirit. Then I would follow the expression: 'keep your friends close, but your enemies closer'. Not that I see that anyone is an enemy here, this is simply a divergence of views.