Joomla! Discussion Forums

So what is this discussion about now.

Is it about "Encryption of Joomla! extensions is a violation of the GPL" or is it about "All Joomla! extensions must be released under the GPL or compatible license"

IMO, it is the latter.  The encryption deal is a side issue and in my mind, really irrelevant to what we are talking about.  The answer to the second question will determine the answer to the first one.

Ian

If the code to version 1.5 does go in a direction via a modified GPL, you are assured a fork will occur.  Someone will figure out how to.  The GPL best be dealt with very carefully.

There are many other CMS' out there.  It's not like Joomla is a gift from the heavens.

Let me just add my thoughts to this as well.

I'm a commercial developer of a joomla extension in the sense that I currently live off it. There is a lot of confusion going around here that business would only be possible if you encrypt your code. On the premise that code is property (hence the term 'proprietary'), this might be so. But it certainly does not make it a universal fact.

The GPL in fact does not cut away your ability to have a healthy business, it make you think harder about how to create it a _really_ good and even more: lasting business.

I'm also unsure about the taken-for-granted point here that encrypted extensions would themselves break the GPL. If I understand this correctly, they are different entities of code which interface with the joomla framework. Of course joomla is more than just a library, but I from what I understand, the GPL only touches code that has been programmed under the GPL, if stuff is put beside it and the code communicates, I still see them as two different entities. Let alone those FUD comments on here about the GPLs "viral nature", which I hoped to never see on this forum.

Bottom line is - I develop for the joomla CMS specifically because it is licensed under the GPL and I would not want to take part if it was licensed under something that is less concerned about the freedom (and thus the spirit) of its community. The GPL is still the defacto standard of the Free Software and Open Source Movement and that has a long-winded reason which cannot be disputed with simple minded postulations about it being viral or bad for business.

People tend to forget the premise things base on when some time has passed or money is waved at them. Trade Freedom for Money and you lose both.

(Though it reminds me of the fact that byostech is [or was?] encrypting joomla core files with their JACLplus PRO - which clearly is a violation)

That is indeed completely correct Amy. The license for Joomla! 1.5 is the same as that for Joomla! 1.0. While this thread kinda started this discussion by accident, it's a good starting point as any to get community feedback, espcially from third party developers.

I would ask the person who did that news letter to please consider putting out a rectification. Making such bold false statements in a press release only creates unneeded fuzz.

Mod note : please keep this thread on topic

How does this work with other CMSs like Drupal, Wordpress...?

What are you seeking feedback on? It is very unclear?

All I know is that one core member states that Joomla will not be released under the GPL but rather the LGPL
And another core member has been contacting commercial developers and berating them for not contributing to Joomla either financialy or via the forum

So what exactly are you seeking fedback on

Seems its the latter, if they are not GPL, a devleoper can do whatever they want with them.



Actually Johan, I would respectfully disagree.

If it wasn't for an innocuous comment made by you that generated a new thread, this topic would not even exist. As it is, its buried in a forum that I would bet money that 99.9% of 3rd party developers have no idea it exists.

If one had wanted 3rd party dev input, the best way would have been to sent out a personal email to a group of companies asking for input before a unilateral change was made to the license.

This is all very interesting but has a faint air of 'can't see the wood for the trees' about it.

The problem, so far as I can see, is that the GPL is viral even where an extension interacts with the Joomla core at the level of its API and/or internal data structures.

The obvious solution to investigate would therefore seem to be that of treating the API and associated codebase/data structures as a code library and place it under the Lesser GPL.

It does mean that Joomla would have two licences - LGPL for the API library and data structures and GPL for the rest, but it would - I think - solve the problem of encrypted commercial extensions, provided these used only the library issued under the LGPL.

What the....!!!

I haven't read through all the posts but I DEFINITELY SUPPORT all commercial developers and commercial extension for JOOMLA!

Many great components are so complex and not used by a vast majority so that they would not exist without being able to generate revenue...

And by the way ... almost ANY function can be achieved by GPL licensed components or at least nearly. But commercial extensions often provide better look&feel, advanced functions and support which could often not be provided as good for free.

And some of the Joomla core devs are probably partly core devs because they can also generate revenue through some commercial components they offer or at least get some extra motivation by being able to sell components and services for Joomla!

If I could make a suggestion, please don't mod posts. PM the person to revise what they have said. Also, could mods please indicate who they are they are when they mod like this. I don't want to have to taking screenshots to get an accurate historical review of this thread.

Barry you dont need to take screenshots. If you have subscribe on then you can see the original post in all its glory in your inbox.

To clarify the situation again:

The change to the license that is being considered is a change that would ALLOW 3PDs to produce extensions that are licensed with a non-GPL compatible license.

It is NOT the other way around.

Ian

So where is the proposal that you want feedback on?

It's indeed true that this happened a bit by accident, through the first comment that was made and things just rolled from there. Howerer it was my intention to bring this topic to the wider community in the near future (read before 1.5 stable is released).

It will be diffucult to attach any conclusions on this thread, but at least people are getting the oppurtunity to raise their thoughts and ideas in an open way and awareness is created.

I think the title of the thread is: Encryption of Joomla! extensions is a violation of the GPL

I would suspect then feedback is being sought around encryption of Joomla! extensions.  Also along the course of this thread... in between off-topic posts and FUD questions have been asked about what the community sees as a forward direction for us.  It is also true that this thread was born of a simple posting of links to the GNU FAQ and we have now snowballed from there.



If that is all you know then I guess your work is done here right?   Lots of core members can have their own personal opinions about any number of things.  That doesn't make them the absolute on anything any more than your opinion makes you the absolute on anything.  I have said publically that it is a SHAME that people exploit Joomla! in the sense that they are all take and no give.  Are you going to attack me for having that opinion?  I hope not, because I am not personally attacking you for defending them   I am just disagreeing.

Louis

Whoa.  This is getting pretty good.  The sparks are flying now.

Actually, I do know of one instance where a core developer makes moola off of Joomla on a commercial variant that Joomla lacks quality in.

Either way, fork, no fork, GPL, or LGPL.....it is irrelevant.  There are other CMS out there.  Joomla is one amongst many.

Completely correct. As explained by Mitch here, this is the intention behind adding a rider.

Actually Barrie, no change was made to the Joomla! license.  Do a diff on the license for the version of Joomla! that runs your site and the version out of the latest trunk.  Can you please post here the results of that diff?  I would love to see the differences and then we can start a whole new thread on the merits of those differences.

The comments Johan posted at the beginning of this discussion were actually almost entirely links to the GNU FAQ.  Sending out an email to the masses pointing to this thread is not a bad idea... in fact its a great one.  I will assume because of your response here that it was you who sent it.  The idea was great, if you stated in any way that we were attacking commercial developers because we "changed" the license, then that is misleading at best my friend.  If it was worded anything like what was posted here then while you may not care... I am incredibly disappointed in you as that is deliberately spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt over a topic that deserves more level headed discussion and respect than that.

Louis

Well if the subjuct that you want feedback on is just about encryption 95% of what is being discussed here is irrelevant.

But if as some OSM Board members have stated is a look at re-evaluating the Joomla Licence and its interpretation and implementation then it is a different matter and requires an OSM Statement

We have all entrusted OSM to be the guardians of Joomla and if OSM want to make a change I applaud them for seeking community feedback but imho any discussion has to have a structure to have any value.

The starting point of the "structure" surely must be a statement from OSM stating their views on the state of the Joomla Licence and its implemetatin and interpretation and only on the basis of that statement can there be any meaningful feedback provided.

Finaly OSM Board members have to appreciate that unless they state they are making a purely personal opinion all comments they make must be assumed to be being made with their OSM Board hat on.

Sorry to butt in here again...  and I think I should have said something earlier, but that issue is a red-herring from the real issue.

Should we change the topic of the thread to:
Can Joomla! extensions be released under non-GPL compatible licenses?

Ian

Make sense, I made the change.

To answer what Brian was trying to get at, Louis chose his words carefully:


But can we move past this?  Let's move this thread in the direction of discussing how third party extensions fall into Joomla! mix.

Ian

Hurrah! This quote said what I had been thinking about posting all day.  Personally, I am not a commercial developer at all - the only (very limited) dev I have done has been for my own benefit so far.  But it seems that we do need to address this issue of whether open source is "good enough".  Quite rightly, everybody is concerned that developers (3pd and core) should be able to be rewarded for their work.  If open source (incl. GPL) doesn't allow this, then J! will never be more than a passing hobby.  But if it does, then that should be good enough for 3pd as well.  And if we believe that open source really matters, then we shouldn't support proprietary works as part of the J! project.

And open source means not demanding money from people.  Sure, you can request payment for software.  But you can't object if someone uses your freely provided source code without paying.  Personally, if (and I don't know whether this is true or not) people are being hassled for not donating, that seems to me to be against the spirit of open source

I am by no means qualified to comment (much less understand) the licensing issues surrounding 3rd party extensions. However, I feel there's a perspective to the mounting frenzy that is being overlooked. In my opinion, there "appears" to be little accountability within the current distribution model for Joomla 3rd party extensions (commercial and opensource.)

Before this rave over licensing mushrooms out of proportion, shouldn't a "reasonable" amount of attention be given to a REVISED model for extension submission & distribution. As others in this community might agree, the criteria for "qualification" of an "extesnion" (and its distribution) under the J! banner is very loose. Yes, there are some great addons, but there's also a fair amount of "fluff" and even some "crap."

Whether it's commercial developers (lobbying for encryption) or hacks who are trying to drive traffic to their site, I would propose a more stringent criteria for ALL 3rd party Joomla extensions that want "protection" under whatever licensing schemata is ultimately embraced.

So to go back to the now change subject title of this thread.

To avoid any ambiguity Joomla extensions CAN be released under NON GPL compatible licences if OSM say that they can. Back in the MAMbo days we had a licence usage guideline document that stated that it was OK. In the Joomla world the rider was written to show that OSM approved of commercial extensions.

To quote an old saying "If it aint broke dont fix it"

a little more on my personal stuff: (skip for it might be a little OT)
Well, I am not a Lawyer either, but I spent a lot of time thinking about licenses and was investigating a lot of options.

I came to the conclusion that I would rather live because people want to pay me and not because I put them into the position that they would need to. A lot of developers go down this route even if they dont see it for what it is.

And as WillieManillie has said: Joomla is a CMS - and its not the only one. This cuts to something that I have been thinking about lately - if you don't do it, others will do it. Just as I would ponder to support another CMS if joomla changed to a less-Free license (and no, BSD is only more free on the surface, but does not emphasize on lasting freedom), others will do the same job if not better WITH the freedom.

But to get back on topic here:

My position is that whether Joomla actively supports or not supports 3rd party devs in whatever strange idea of licensing has sprung to their mind is irrelevant. Joomla offers tools for people to contribute to it in a way of offering their own additions. If they don't like that premise, they are welcome to go somewhere else. In the worst case, this slows down development, but I don't see it as negative nor counter-productive as many try to paint it here. Add to that, that I still don't think that the GPL really does restrict 3rd party devs at all.

Hello,
I'm the lead developer over at Open Source Candy (oscandy.com) and I would like to add a few things.

I've been doing a lot of research recently into Drupal CMS and Joomla CMS. Joomla is my main CMS but I'm learning more about Druapl every day. Not because it's better but because it's different.

There is one particular destinction that I find is very important.

Drupal extensions is all in modules.

Joomla extensions are Modules, Components and Mambots.

The difference is that when a 3rd part developer creates a Component(especially a good one) it's usually a complete application that can be used on it's own, as part of joomla.

It has all of the parts that Drupal modules have but they are all in one package. As a result, it's a more complete application right out of the box.

This attracts my main clients, who are consultants from around the world who want to create applications for clients, but do not have the development expertise.

This is what makes joomla grow. This is what made extensions.joomla.org go from 400 extensions 1.5 years ago to 1,500 extensions today.

Now, the question is Can Joomla! extensions be released under non-GPL compatible licenses?

I don't know if they "can", but I don't think they should be.

I believe that there is enough money to be made in providing services for joomla users. That it is not necessary to close off the code to make money. You just have to be creative. If you think that your product is the extension that you created, you are wrong.

The product is the service, it has to be accessible, and liberating, that's what open source is about.

If you do not understand that then you should not be promoting your extensions until you do.

There are several very useful applications that are available that cost money. I haven't used them yet, because I do not agree with the premise.

Most of them limit the license to one IP, I do not agree with that. I have not been doing blogging on joomla because there has not been a good open source commenting system available. I've been using Wordpress. Now we're going to be moving to Joomla because Joomla 1.5 looks really good.

Now my point is this, I believe that everyone in the community has a role to play.

As far as I see,
Joomla's core developer's role is to create a great foundation/framework.
3rd party developers role is to provide open/available extensions and get paid for support and other services that make life easier for the user.
User's (consultants) role is to fulfill his client's needs.
Client's need is to server his customer.

Now within this structure, there is a lot of freedom, you just have to be creative.