spiderglobe,spiderglobe wrote: I still don't understand why templates are not seen as commercial extensions. The fact that CSS, images and HTML code is seen as data I find rather strange. Also note and take a good look at a lot of templates which are actual using Joomla code inside of the template, for example to look up the menu items and display this in a different manner
Please note that I can publish extensions also with a CSS, images and HTML code and say "he this extension is for display purpose". If I do so what is the difference?
I think that Joomla should reconsider the statement that templates are not under the GPL license.
Note: now that I'm typing this post I see above a BIG advertisement of "Pro Joomla TEmplates" from Rockettheme. I will almost think that there is a conflict of interest in the statement of the fact that Templates are different then extensions. Are their some relations between the core team and some of the commercial templates?
I don't think it would be a good idea to ask Joomla to reconsider this for two reasons:
1. It's the one thing they haven't tried to take away from the Joomla community
2. It could be used to your advantage. Images, css and animations and anything that does not call Joomla code or functions and can exist on its own can be licensed however you want to and anything calling Joomla functions must be GPL. There is no reason that I see that you couldn't do the same with your extensions. Claim all html, javascript, css, images etc. under a non-gpl license and anything and only the things that call Joomla functions under gpl. Only things calling code from Joomla can be considered a derivative. Everything else is yours and you can do whatever you want with them.
All this to say you might be able to use it your advantage; you just have to be clever with it.