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

[bobbio2007]

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?

spiderglobe,

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.

[Jick]

Just had a thought about something else, what about flash, flex, silverlight or whatever in that line.

Would those be considered "images" and thus part of the template that has nothing todo with the GPL?

Things like that would be able to pull and push data and use the Joomla API directly if I'm correct.

Could someone tell me where the thin line is for templates and stuff used in templates?

Also, what is the core vision for the 1.5 overrides? (I've heard Andrew about that but no core answer yet I believe, if so, sorry I must have missed it)

Thanks,
Arno

[nant]

Two questions for the foundation and/or core team.
One may already have been answered (if so just point me to the link).

Q1: Who are the copyright/license owners of Joomla 1.0.X and 1.5 ?

Q2: Who are the copyright/license owners of 3P extensions that work with Joomla?

[spiderglobe]

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.

Why not? Also extensions are using images, css and other "data" stuff. As read in the previous post that some core membesr are earning money with Templates a lot comes clear to me about this discussion. In my opinion Templates in Joomla cann't exists without the Joomla core functions and should be therefor under the GPL license. If not the same should be applied to commercial extensions. For example a CSS makes uses of the classes defined in Joomla (not?). So a CSS should be part of the GPL as well since it's connected to the elements from Joomla.

I know there must be drawn a line somewhere. But I got the feeling that the line is drawn from some other perspective then that is from the real GPL license.

Taking the above into account that templates are not fully under the GPL license I'm curious what the "court" will judge about extensions as they have the same "functional" parts as templates.

My vote is that all should be either under the GPL license or all not. This is NOT the way to go for Joomla

[omidkosari]

NO!
All commercial components should be GPL licensed and free, and they must use a GPL-compatible business model.

[spiderglobe]

All commercial components should be GPL licensed and free, and they must use a GPL-compatible business model.

I think you don't understand the discussion. First we are talking about extensions and secondly you can ask money for these extensions (GPL allows this). It's all about the license issue. Read the license first.

[user deleted]

Moderator note; this topic has been locked from now on.

Two new topics have been opened. They will both be for answering questions surrounding our GPL/Licensing announcement.  The moderators will have normal control over what happens in these threads and the regular rules apply.  No nonsense, just intelligent questions and answers.

No bashing, no name calling, none of that.

GPL Questions Continued, User related >> http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181172.0.html

GPL Questions Continued, Developer related >> http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.0.html