Can Joomla! extensions be released under non-GPL compatible licenses?

[mixed]

Jinx, I have just reread a bunch of your posts on this topic and I think they are very well put.  In relation to the following:

I seem to remember that since Joomla! is a derivative of Mambo, and Mambo is under GPL, until all code is removed that came from Mambo the license can not change from GPL. I don't think all the code will be removed for a LONG time coming. Or am I wrong here?

In fact there is not much orginial Mambo code left. The framework is a complete new work and all BC code has been moved in the legacy plugin which can easily be removed. Their might be some code left in some of the components or modules this is very hard to say, one would need to examine the code and compare it. I'm unsure against which version of Mambo this comparision needs to be made, I think it will need to be done against the very first version of the Mambo code base that was put under the GPL license.

Does OSM get written assignments of the IP in code contributed to Joomla! by other developers?  If not, it might be implied that the contributed code was only licensed to OSM by its author on the basis that it would be released under the GPL, and therefore OSM may have issues with trying to change the licence even if 1.5 doesn't contain any Mambo code.

It is a good idea for FOSS foundations to secure the written assignment of IP in contributed code to them in order for the foundation to have control over these sorts of things and be able to enforce their licence.

The above is a general discussion only and should not be relied on as legal advice.

[spacemonkey]

Thanks Jinx for the clarification on why the rider was pulled, and what is going on. Glad to hear the discussion is taking place - and to Amy, I'm not trying to shush anyone, just trying to explain what the rider was created for since I was a part of it in the first place. The rider was created specifically to solve the issues being raised in this thread - but if James thinks we need to reconsider, I have complete trust in his opinion.

I also do not create commercial extensions, not sure if I ever will - but I consider others having the "freedom" to create their own extensions and license/release them how they see fit as truly "free".  The GPL revokes that freedom by placing restrictions on how you can release your software if you rely on GPL code - and that was the point behind the original rider.

IMHO for Joomla to truly be free, we need to allow developers the freedom to create and license their extensions as they see fit - and not dictate how they can or cannot release their code. That's a major part of what makes this such a vibrant community, the mixing of open source and commercial interests. Yeah there are some rough spots, but for the most part it is a great combination.

In one of my first conversations with Eben, he did remark on how unusual it was to have a community of such a large scale, with such a wide array of interests - both open source and commercial, public and private, etc. We really are a wide mix of extremes, and I think it is cool.

[brian]

plus 1

[Jinx]

Interesting that James requested "the removal" of the rider as he wrote it.

Please don't put words in my mounth I didn't say. All I said was that after a discussion with James it was decided to remove the rider for further review and release beta 2 without it.

[manuman]

@Mitch... couldn't agree more on that last statement.

[AmyStephen]

and to Amy, I'm not trying to shush anyone, just trying to explain what the rider was created for since I was a part of it in the first place.

I understand! I didn't invoke the SpaceMonkey name, either, several repeated that same phrase. But, since you were using your very best Imperial Trooper voice, it did carry a sense of fearful authority. I didn't want people to walk away thinking it was all decided. It is very much open for discussion and people should still be encouraged to comment.

So, my idea about dual licensing has been shot down by the Joomla! project lead. 


It sounds like Joomla! is staying with the GPL and we are simply discussing whether or not we think encrypted/non-redistributable code should be allowed through a rider on the GPL (similar or even exactly like what Mitch and James Vasile did before.)


Do I understand the scope correctly?

[brian]

Interesting that James requested "the removal" of the rider as he wrote it.

Please don't put words in my mounth I didn't say. All I said was that after a discussion with James it was decided to remove the rider for further review and release beta 2 without it.

You said

It was James who suggested to remove the rider for review.

[Jinx]

Indeed that what I said, note the 'for further review part'.

[brian]

There is enough semantics here without starting a nrew debate.Its bad enough I'm getting pinged by developers who have contributed enourmousley to joomla asking why is Johan trying to single handedly destroy my business

[smalcolm]

Just as a parting shot... could someone explain why you can release a template as non-gpl but not an extension?

Templates different from modules, components and plugins in that regard that they consist of 90% non-code data graphics, css and javascript, and only one php file (the index.php file in Joomla! 1.0). They can be seen as a seperate work.

Templates can also not be protected that easily by simply encrypting them since the css, graphics and javascript can be fetched from the site through any webbrowser.

Also see : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWMS

Eh? with all due respect, I think there is some confused thinking going on here. This doesnt have anything to do with what percentage of the code is php, javascript or anything else. It has todo with the terms and conditions.

Ive just gone back and read the GPL. The scope of GPL is clearly stated as "terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification". 3-rd party extensions, templates, bridges, etc. that do not bundle a copy of Joomla! or modify it are clearly outside the scope of the Joomla! GPL and it is up to the owner of that intellectual property (i.e. the component or template) to decide on the terms its license.

Where there is a question is whether you want to have a seperate terms and conditions on the use of the API's. You could add a rider to force/ensure that anyone using the api's must distribute using GPL, however, spacemonkey seemed to suggest that the rider was going the other way and letting 3-rd party developers make up thier own mind (although I now understand that the rider has been pulled?)

Joomla! is safe under GPL. period. trying to govern how 3-rd party developers and designer distribute their work is a minefield that I suggest you dont get into. no-one can copy, modify or distribute Joomla! except within the terms of the GPL.

or am I wrong about this?

[AmyStephen]

Brian -

You have taken this excellent discussion off-topic. It was wrong of you to snidly question why the rider was removed for consideration. Johan indicated why - so that the community could comment.

If people are contacting you and asking them such paranoid questions, then I hope your response is this - "Get over to the Joomla! forums and let your voice be heard. Johan and the OSM have invited community input - and that means YOU!"

This has been a constructive discussion, inclusive of the community - without blaming people. Let's keep it at that level.

Com' on, Brian! You, in particular, have much to contribute to this discussion. Keep it focused, please.

Amy

[Jinx]

There is enough semantics here without starting a nrew debate.Its bad enough I'm getting pinged by developers who have contributed enourmousley to joomla asking why is Johan trying to single handedly destroy my business

I think that nowhere in this thread I have expressed that I want to destroy anyone business. All I have done so far it tried to raise awareness around the license Joomla! is released under and how this relates to third party extensions licensing. I'm doing this in my role as OSM board member and legal team lead. The information I have given is not based on my personal interpretation of the GPL but on the information given by the FSF on the FSF FAQ website and from advice received from the SFLC.

I happily invite any third party developer to contribute to this thread and share his/her opinion on the matter as this is the whole reason we are having this discussion.

[compass]

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.

Off-topic : Here is a nice example of a Dutch Hosting provider who decided to give something back to the project : http://www.byte.nl/cms/donating-to-joomla.html

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

[spacemonkey]

Eh? with all due respect, I think there is some confused thinking going on here. This doesnt have anything to do with what percentage of the code is php, javascript or anything else. It has todo with the terms and conditions.

Ive just gone back and read the GPL. The scope of GPL is clearly stated as "terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification". 3-rd party extensions, templates, bridges, etc. that do not bundle a copy of Joomla! or modify it are clearly outside the scope of the Joomla! GPL and it is up to the owner of that intellectual property (i.e. the component or template) to decide on the terms its license.

Where there is a question is whether you want to have a seperate terms and conditions on the use of the API's. You could add a rider to force/ensure that anyone using the api's must distribute using GPL, however, spacemonkey seemed to suggest that the rider was going the other way and letting 3-rd party developers make up thier own mind (although I now understand that the rider has been pulled?)

Joomla! is safe under GPL. period. trying to govern how 3-rd party developers and designer distribute their work is a minefield that I suggest you dont get into. no-one can copy, modify or distribute Joomla! except within the terms of the GPL.

or am I wrong about this?

Yup 

An extension requires Joomla in order to function properly. The SFLC brought this to my attention, with the explanation that you could easily construe a Joomla Extension as a derivative work. With that said, it would then be under the restrictions of the GPL license.

So again IANAL but I had some very famous and highly regarded ones point this out as an issue that needed to be defined and dealt with. I'm not saying what the rider should say, but pointing out why it was put there in the first place, and what I think the intent should be if another one is put in its place.

[AmyStephen]

Barrie -

I don't know what happened 12 days ago - why a comment wasn't made in the log when the rider was removed. But, I honestly don't see what the difference is. This issue *is* being discussed and community input is requested right now! What's the damage from waiting a few days before starting the discussion? Truthfully, it's an OSM call - they didn't need to involve us. (That'd be a bad idea, but, technically, they can do so.)

Johan dropped into the thread in response to my now-dead proposal to look at two tier licensing and charge for a commercial license. He said the OSM doesn't want to fund Joomla! that way, he'd rather businesses voluntarily give as Byte.nl does, for example. Big deal!

I don't think we are going to solve all of Joomla!'s problems in one thread, so, we should probably just focus on whether or not we each believe a rider is required to the GPL so that third-party extensions can be encrypted and restricted from redistribution.

I believe your response is a rider is a good idea.

Amy

[55thinking]

A derivative post about revenue generation

http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,164199.0.html

Let's see if ideas pop-ups.

[Jinx]

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.

Just a small rectification, the removal of the rider was noted in the changelogs on the 14th of April.

14-Apr-2007 Johan Janssens
- Removed rider from license for futher review

[PhilTaylor-Prazgod]

@Johan - Please do not try to mislead here.  There was no change in the changelog until our personal conversation on Monday 23rd April (Which you specifically state I cannot quote) and you made the commit to the SVN following that conversation at 16:47 23rd April 2007 -

The SVN Logs do not lie. There was no transparency about the removal of the rider until this date.

Funny though - now I go to get the facts and the SVN Log view page loads blank -
http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla ... NGELOG.php

Thank God for Local SVN Logging.

[brian]

I have a copy of the changelog.php from 19thApril at 22:43 GMT It is not in there.

I take a weekly copy of the changelog.php file to reproduce in Joomla Weekly News.

[ianmac]

Well, for clarification, the change was made in 7179:

http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla ... iew=markup

@Phil - the blank page is a preexisting, noted issue.  Don't make too much of that.

Ian

[brian]

Funny though - now I go to get the facts and the SVN Log view page loads blank -
http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla ... NGELOG.php

Thats a bug thats been there for ages. You have to click on the number not the filename

[muddauber]

The issue of the use of encrypted Joomla extensions sounds a little
like the issue of Linux Distro Ubuntu's developers using  proprietary drivers. 
The Ubuntu developers decided that  the next version of Ubuntu, Feisty Fawn,
will  include some proprietary drivers. Some argue this is a violation of
the GPL.
The New Ubuntu package will auto-installs codecs, Flash, Java, MS Fonts
and offer the binaries of various 3D graphics drivers.

The GPL states:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program  or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or
translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included
without limitation in the term "modification".)

Simple Question - Is a Joomla extension a "derivative work" of Joomla?

[WillieManillie]

Well, I have no problem with third-party commercial development on any version.  I do agree that no part of any code be encrypted.  The use of commercial code, unencrypted and open to modification is the only thing I would see as reserved for the consumer.

I have used a few commercial extensions to make up for the lack of features found in Joomla.  I don't intend to stop shopping if need be to make the development of content easy.

Not being a lawyer or consumed in Joomla full-time, I look for the easiest and most beneficially solution for my customers.

[ianmac]

The issue of the use of encrypted Joomla extensions sounds a little
like the issue of Linux Distro Ubuntu's developers using  proprietary drivers. 
The Ubuntu developers decided that  the next version of Ubuntu, Feisty Fawn,
will  include some proprietary drivers. Some argue this is a violation of
the GPL.
The New Ubuntu package will auto-installs codecs, Flash, Java, MS Fonts
and offer the binaries of various 3D graphics drivers.

The GPL states:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program  or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or
translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included
without limitation in the term "modification".)

Simple Question - Is a Joomla extension a "derivative work" of Joomla?

hehehe...  'Simple Question' - turns out is isn't so simple.

Please see: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg786102

Ian

[chrisc]

I am fairly new to Joomla, but it seems to me that if joomla is not careful they will end up with sites and no extentions.

Joomla is the best thing since sliced bread, and the community post extentions which help on many issues. however the community and joomla cannot produce extentions for all eventualities, and many post help wanting extentions to do certain things, many times no one has an answer.  This is where someone will then work away and produce and extention that does do the job people want.

Now if they have spent many hours working on this, then why penalise them for encripting their code. If you spent tens or hundred of hours to make an extention to do a particular thing, would you want to always give it away or someone nick your code, I don't think so.  Producing extentions and selling them only breeds a healthy interest in bring extentions to the community to do things people dream of or want.

Microsoft licence their main core software, but they do not say additional programs that might work with that software is a breach of their licence. If they did then not many would be using microsoft today.

From a laymens point of view I think that Joomla would be made to penalise encoded extentions, in fact they should encourage builders of extentions to work with them, not kick them in the teeth.  There are thousands of add ons or plug ins for commercial products like microsoft which benefits everyone, and Joomla should be the same.  There are really good extentions free on Joomla given by members of the community, and I for one thank them very much as many have helped me.  

But again there are commercial extentions I have desperately needed for some of my sites, which i have been quite willing to pay for without which quite frankly I would have not gone for a joomla site.

I think the best thing Joomla can do is add to their licence encrypted extentions, and then work towards a partnership with those who develop such extentions.  The debate could go on and one, and I would in the end say to Joomla create a poll and let the community as a whole decide what should be done.  If we are a democracy then let the users vote.

[WillieManillie]

Hey, maybe Joomla ought to fork like it did with Mambo.  Just create a new CMS with commercial encrypted extensions and one with unencrypted and full GPL open to modification code.

The site with open and public code could be called Joomlaold and the new one just retain the name Joomla.

[Jinx]

Come on guys can we keep this thread on topic, I did indeed forget to add a note to the SVN changelog about the change to the license, Phil was so kind to point this out to me and I added it on his request.

If you skim through the changelog of the license you will notice that changes to the rider where never added to the changelog. The rider was committed to the SVN on 11/05/06 and updated on the 8/6/06, none of both actions where added to the changelog. As I have said before we removed the rider for review and want/need community feedback before we can move forward. Under normal circomstances we would have raised this question in the near future but with this thread the cat is out of the bag already.

I find it very important that such a major change as changing the license is done in a very transparent way and that people understand what it all means and why it has been done.

As a last note I want to point out that, in case the we decide not to add a rider to our license nothing will change for our community and Joomla! 1.5 extensions will need to be released under the same terms as Joomla! 1.0 extensions.

Let's try to keep this discussion contructive discussion and on topic. If we re-add the rider and under what terms will depend largely on the feedback we receive here. The more reason to keep things to the point and on topic, let's show that we as a one community of people can work together and make good things happen.

[ianmac]

Hey, maybe Joomla ought to fork like it did with Mambo.  Just create a new CMS with commercial encrypted extensions and one with unencrypted and full GPL open to modification code.

The site with open and public code could be called Joomlaold and the new one just retain the name Joomla.

But it is unclear whether the current license allows commercially encrypted extensions.  What you are suggesting is similar to the dual licensing suggestion that was discussed above.

A fork would not solve the issue, because there is still possibly code that was contributed by people who wouldn't agree to release that code under a non-GPL license.

Ian

[chrisc]

So lets put it to the community to vote

add encrypted extentions to the licence Yes or No

I could be white haired and in a home before someone decideds to make a decision on this, I have more sites to build and at this time I am wondering if anyone will want to bother building an extention if there is not clarity on the subject and soon.

[AmyStephen]

Johan -

I received an email in the last half-hour that went out to a number of community members - it was a newsletter list. I think we have a misunderstanding. The note indicated "Essentially, the license has been changed for Joomla 1.5."

My understanding is that the OSM is considering changing the license, and we are asking to provide input to that decision.  But, the license has NOT changed - at least not yet.
Would you please comment on that to help clarify? I think it speaks to the recent panic we are seeing.  :P

Thanks,
Amy