The Joomla! Forum ™

As a moderator I expected better behavior than snarky remarks and quotes from "they". To be correct it should have read comments by James Vasile of The Software Freedom Law Center posted on Wordpress about the GPL as it relates to themes.

There is no intimation that Joomla! is Wordpress but if the GPL applies to both then this determination would seem to apply to Joomla! templates as well.

Please refrain from jumping onto topics without some valid input

_________________
Good luck and happy Joomla!ing,
Terry Arthur
http://www.eclecticeasel.com

My input was a clarification point.

Edit to add, see the highlighted part.

_________________
HU2HY- Poor questions = Poor answer
Un requested Help PM's will be added to the foe list and possibly just deleted
{Community.Connect Administrator }{ Showcase & Security Moderator}

OK, but I don't see where a clarification was needed. There was no suggestion that Joomla! is Wordpress.

Are you saying that you don't believe that Mr. Vasile's determination applies to Joomla! If so, why do you think the law that applies to Wordpress themes wouldn't apply to Joomla! templates? I believe it would and does. Mr. Vasile rendered an opinion regarding the GPL as it applies to code not just Wordpress.

_________________
Good luck and happy Joomla!ing,
Terry Arthur
http://www.eclecticeasel.com

James Vasille is an attorney with the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC). The SFLC, and James, in particular, advise many free software projects, including Wordpress, Drupal, and Joomla. Each are GPL v 2, or later software projects.

James also serves on the board of Open Source Matters, and has for many years.

His statements at WordPress concur with the opinion expressed by the Joomla project in the Open Source Does Matter piece. The reason for the similarities are due to the fact that he advised on our policy, as well, and he has clear understanding of the GPL.

Frequently, that particular WordPress article is shared by this project as support for our position. Just one example from Elin in Google Development Thread:



Just yesterday, an OSM board member pointed to WordPress Theme policy as a basis for our Template repository policy. Given the fact we use the same license it only follows that we would have similar approaches.

Drupal also shares this same stance on the GPL and licensing modules and templates. This recognition has opened the door for commercial opportunities in their community.

We have always learned from other free software projects, and they from us. We may not be the same project but we do have similar goals and challenges.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

the real question should be : is joomla willing to become a serious marketplace or not ?

too many unrealistic limitations in the JED.
let the market decide what's good or bad for the users.

Ok, I found the following in http://docs.joomla.org/Extensions_GPL_notices :
So I guess that answers my question (kind of).

@Matt,
Since there haven't been any objections to updating the TOS, could it please be done so that we know exactly what's what? If you'd like, I'll volunteer to update the necessary parts of the TOS so that it's more clear and up-to-date (I don't need any access I'll just give you the updated text to review, approve/disapprove, and slightly revise if necessary). It's not just about the GPL issue but there are many parts that need some polishing. For example, the TOS say:I've hardly seen the latter part enforced for any extension. Even now you can find a lot of extensions on the JED that are unpublished for violations but the rest of the developer's extensions are still on there. Perhaps the last sentence would better read:

You mentioned earlier that there's already an initiative underway to help remedy the TOS being outdated so I definitely don't want to get in the way of that but I'd love to help if I can. You yourself said volunteer time is an issue, so here I am volunteering. I wouldn't start working on this unless I got a "go ahead", so that I'm not wasting any time if it would never be used. Let me know either way.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Not really. On http://docs.joomla.org/JED_Entries_License_Checklist, under List C2.3 "Listed if...?" it has this:

1 Include non GPL files? Only for non code files which can stand alone - Javascript, Flash, images, CSS, audio, etc.

2 Include non GPL Libraries? Only if the libraries are available under a GPL compatible license listed by the Free Software Foundation, as in LGPL
...
10 Bridges to a non gpl product
Only if:
The non GPL product works independently from Joomla
Extension is GPL and created for Joomla
Clear statement that the extension requires a non GPL product to work

No wonder there is confusion when 2 separate pages on the Joomla doc's website contradict each other. One says that (paraphrasing) 'libraries that stand-alone, including js scripts' (which sounds like a contradiction in itself) must be under a GPL compatible license. The other makes the more sensible distinction between libraries, which don't stand-alone, and stand-alone products, that aren't libraries, saying the first must be GPL compatible, the second doesn't. And yet, even point 1 above contradicts itself, mentioning 'non code files', then lists Javascript as an example?! Does it mean non-PHP?

This is really a bit of a mess. One wonders if the people who wrote these documents even have English as their first language, so poorly are they written at times. Or perhaps this comes once again back to time limitations. That people don't have the time to think through and review what they are writing. I have to say, that one of the things that has disappointed me about Joomla generally is it's documentation, which, across the board, leaves a bit to be desired.

At any rate, it seems that the TOS is not the only documentation that could do with some updating.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

You're right Chris, it is confusing at the least and contradictory at the most.

As to Docs, if you ever notice something that's wrong, you can log in and correct it It's community documentation and so if there's a lack of it, it's everyone's fault In this case you might not be able to since you wouldn't know which one is correct for sure.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Indeed. This is documentation that can only be written by the JED team, or others in the know. Not any of the rest of us.

Though I did broaden my comments to the state of Joomla's documentation generally, for which it's a fairer point. Not having contributed any myself (at this point), perhaps it was a bit unfair of me to criticise.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

Yeah, just try to help out where/when you can. If everyone did a small part, we'd centuple the documentation

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

We're getting a bit off-topic again, but I guess one issue I have with the documentation is that it isn't brilliantly organised, which can happen when it's community driven. It does make it difficult to find the information you're looking for. And centupling (is that a word?) it is only going to make that worse, not better. Community participation is great, but it does need to be coordinated somehow, otherwise it gets messy.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

Yes, off topic

Check out:
http://docs.joomla.org/Documentation_Working_Group

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

To get back on topic. I would also like some clarification from the JED team on the non-GPL for media files issue (javascript particularly), and how it relates to JED submission, as I'm a new developer working through that at the moment, and I'd like to get it right first time without any unforeseen issues cropping up with potential JED submissions.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

Hi Matt,

I've come to find out that you *may* have been inaccurate in stating that "the original issue that started me on this (HikaShop) was not even related to this rule".

As I understand it, HikaShop Starter was removed the first time from the JED for 30 days because Hikashop had parts of the description which were talking about features of the Essential and Business edition. That's the first time they were notified by the JED that there was a problem with HikaShop Starter. After correcting the description and the 30 days were past, HikaShop Starter was republished on the JED. That was in May.

This time, HikaShop Starter was unpublished and their user account suspended 3 months and 1 week ago (end of June) FOR THE RULE THAT'S NOT IN THE TOS. Looking at their extension listing, the same problem is displayed as before. However, their extension description only contains features from the starter edition as stated earlier by Hikashop in the other forum post. Also, Hikashop in the other forum postd that concerning the account suspension they were notified by the JED that the reason was that they propose other extensions not licensed under the GPL.

I started on this on July 12.

So could you explain about AcyMailing (still waiting on that explanation) and Hikashop? Your explanations and the seen actions don't seem to add up correctly. Perhaps I'm thick and I'm not seeing things correctly though.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

I do not see any mess ...

There are:

• [1]
  Derivative works, already deriving from GPL licensed work(s) and "infected" by GPL
  Here is nothing to discuss, just to understand that extension is derivative (dependent on) GPL (previous) work and, thereby, it is under GPL
  
• [2]
  Separate works that can be under any license the authors would have wished
  
  But, if an author wishes its extension to be published in JED, he should waive his ownership aspirations by "freeing" (or releasing) its work under GPL
  
  If the author insists to "lock" its code (extension) proprietary, then he copyrights (attributes non-free license to) its code but cannot publish it in JED

So, there is a conclusion which is [1], without any choice and
there is a decision [2]- to go with GPL (and with JED), or not

Both [1] and [2] imply probability and freedom of decision for the author:
to base its work on other GPL works (case [1]), and if not (first decision/chocie), then decision [2] - to releaseу its separate (independent) work under GPL (giving possibility to be published in JED), or, not

I feel that I should be misunderstood since I myself (after re-reading) understand incorrectly what I wrote above.

What I meant to say under "I do not see any mess ..." is that it is possible to explain the reasoning of docs [A] and [B] but they both are being based on wrong (conradicting the GPL [D]) Joomla License FAQ[C].

The problem is not that

• "2 separate pages on the Joomla doc's website contradict each other"

(the phrase from the post to which I replied in my previous post in this thread)

The Joomla License FAQ [C] cites out of context (and, by this, pushes into misinterpreting and eventually subverting) the GPL v2 [D] in all of the Joomla documents based on it, IMO.

See my another post

• Ambiguous Joomla License clause (on a separate work)

on criticizing the Joomla FAQ [C]

2)
it is not the Joomla ToS [A] that should be corrected (like stated in the title), it is TheJED Entries License Checklist [B] has arbitrary conclusions (like " Project site lists non-GPL Joomla! extensions? ") which should be wiped out as contradicting and subverting the sense and aims of GPL.

GPL aims to enforce developers freedoms by attributing (and enforcing) copyright to enforce freedoms but not taking any of them away.

Putting the code under GPL does not deprive an author (copyright holder) the rights to concurrently re-license or dual-license its code under non-GPL (even proprietary) license
GPL applies copyright to "copying, distribution and modification" but not depriving a copyright holder of his rights.

See, for example:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7235 ... 569#723569

That is, JED TOS[A] is least incorrect, should be corrected the last if at all

I hope I wrote it more comprehensible without being too lengthy now?

Cited:

• [A]
  Joomla! Extensions Directory - Terms of Service
  http://extensions.joomla.org/tos
• [B]
  The JED Entries License Checklist
  http://docs.joomla.org/JED_Entries_License_Checklist
• [C ]
  Joomla! License FAQ
  http://opensourcematters.org/index.php? ... icle&id=55
• [D]
  GNU General Public License, version 2
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

we would like to talk more about business and less about freedom, and we've heard the gpl==freedom mumbo jumbo a million times, thanks.

fact is, the GPL factor is seriously limiting commercial devs to entering the joomla marketplace.

joomla will forever remain an assembly of beta and alpha version GPL scripts kept together with strings and duct tape.

where is my freedom to retain full control and ownership on MY code ? there's none, as once it's GPL anyone can steal it, rewrite a few lines and even claim he wrote it from scratch and resell it !

the software industry is worth trillions of $$$ and you guys rant about working for free, wake up !

Speak for your own code, mate. I have copious supplies of Super Glue and I aint afraid to use them!

_________________
http://www.jomres.net THE online hotel booking and reservation system for Joomla

me thinks you are looking to sell software to the wrong community. If you don't like the gpl then move along somewhere else.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that the licence of joomla will change from the gpl. it wont matter how many times you comment it is never going to change (not that it could legally)

No one is forcing you to stay here.

_________________
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/