Mod note : thread moderated, don't put words in people their mounth that they have not said in public.
What a fascinating thread....
Let me try and make some observations...
Regarding Encryption:
This isn't a discussion about encryption, its about the license of 3rd party extensions. They are either GPL, or not.
The key section from the GPL is pointed out by Mixed:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
It will all hinge on the word "derived" which has significant legal connotation. I would suspect that people will be of different opinions on this and we could argue all day long. Ultimately a Judge would have to decide. You can get legal opinions till the cows come home, but they are just opinions until resolved.
The consequences of such a legal decision would be astonishingly massive. If a court were to make a ruling that would broaden the definition of "derived" to include all 3rd party development, it would effect every single GPL project in existence. This aspect of the discussion is about more than Joomla.
Regarding clubs and monetizing through support:
This is a red herring. If your stuff is GPL, it can be downloaded and redistributed. Why be a member of a "club" when you could get the identical products at no charge elsewhere?
Regarding Transparency:
This is a very healthy topic and I am glad it has moved into the open. The existing rider was
removed from the license 12 days ago. What I find strange is that this action was unique in that it was not noted in the changelog, the place where 99% of people go to see what has... changed.
What is this really about anyway, because I suspect its not about open source or GPL.
To drop that into the conversation seems quite deliberate to me, there is no such thing as "off topic" in a highly sensitive topic like this. I have heard numerous times from numerous "high level" people in the Joomla project of unhappiness at companies who "make money" off the project and "don't give back". I have even heard language like "parasites" used. Is this a question of trying to gain leverage over 3rd party developers and use a carrot and stick approach to have this happen?
If this is the case, let's be transparent about it. OSM should publish a code of practice that it considers "ethical" for a 3rd party developer, and then publish a list of developers who strive to follow it. If OSM felt uncomfortable with this, feeling it was too close to "certification", a separate foundation could be started, with a focus on the business use of Joomla.
I think the people who added the rider on the the Joomla license were wise. Doing so help grow Joomla with robust commercial 3rd party development. I found
this article especially interesting, a good read for those interested in long term success for Joomla. The nine indicators given for a successful project?
A thriving community
Transparency
Employed developers
Disruptive goals (Does something notably better than commercial code)
Civility
A clear license
A benevolent dictator
Documentation
Commercial support