Joomla! Discussion Forums

What a long and thought provoking thread... let me add my $0.02 worth

I am a (professional aka commercial!!) web developer, have been using mambo then joomla for years on client sites and have used commercial and gpl extensions and templates along the way. I have used a number of CMS but keep coming back to Joomla - I like it and most of all, I find that clients can easily use it and  learn to take control of thier own sites, which I think is Joomla's biggest strength.

I have just started to develop a niche application that I was considering releasing as a joomla extension for 1.5. I am a big fan of joomla and had thought of releasing a 'standard' version for free and a paid-for 'pro' version.

Maybe I need to re-think this? I have been doing a lot of thinking around business models, and while not fixed on one yet, I thought it might add something to this thread to expose my thinking:

To release a component (that will take say 1+ years to develop and test), options are:

a) release the software as gpl and ask for donations. All support free.

PRO: get the max number of users in the early days. Good for beta testing.
CON: probably very low ratio of downloads to donations with big ongoing personal committment to support.

b) release the software free and charge for access to manuals, forums and support, etc.

PRO: maximum number of users/downloaders. easy to 'try and see'.
CONS: personally I find using components like this a pain in the ass! When evaluating components the forum is a good way of evaluating how serious the developer is and what kind of problems people have. Also where do you draw the line? no support for installing the component will alienate a lot of (especially) newbies.

c) release a free version and a paid-for version. All support free.

PRO: attempts to give everyone something they want. versions available for free, more powerful (or maybe just unbranded) version available for a one-off fee
CON: added overhead of maintaining two versions of product. Power-users can easily remove branding themselves therefor not seen as adding value?

c) dont release the software, but provide it as (paid-for) hosted service

PRO: provides on-going, recurring revenues instead of once-off software purchases. No installation or software support required.
CON: additional cost of online sales and time required on end-user support. Doesnt contribute anything to the joomlashpere

d) dont release the software, but provide it as (paid-for) turnkey service

PRO: low risk, software doesnt need as much 'packaging' as 3-rd party components
CON: limited by the amount of time I have to configure and install. Doesnt contribute anything to the joomlashpere


I'd be interested to see other 3rd party component and template developers point of view on the business models. What have I missed here?

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

Does this mean that I could release an extention as gpl but release the frontend user interface as a paid-for template. This seems pretty horrific to me but might be what we end up with??

Thanks - Apologies for the long post. This seems to be a thread of long posts. Probably shows how fundamental the issue!

Just a quick question to throw in here....

As there has been a lot of talk in this thread about the open source business model, and the fact that
when a company or business buys a component, they also pay for support, future upgrades, continued development, etc. Which is fine and expected.

So my question is...how are these company's or your own clients going to react when
they find out, that installing a commercial component with Joomla, violates, and cancels the Joomla GPL license?

Install a cheap commercial component, and loose the right to use Joomla.

If I have understood this thread properly then there is no violation on the part of the person or organisation that has joomla + non-gpl extension installed and running a live site; the violition is on the part of the supplier of the non-gpl extension.

unless the non-gpl extension is called a template, in which case its all ok 

However, I take your broader point. Most of them will run a mile I guess - they have better things to do than get bogged down in a legal swamp. All they want is an easy way to manage their website.

Of coarse, I would not want them to 'run away' so would migrate them onto another cms...

From what I know no one is violating right now because of the extension that was added specifically for Joomla to the license it uses.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Arno

Hi Jick,

Jinxs posting (quoted above) and subsequent discussion on this thread led me to believe that there was a violition to the gpl by distributing extensions that are non-gpl.

However, looking at the license from the joomla and gnu sites, I think that might only apply "If you want to distribute, copy or modify Joomla!" (quoted from Joomla! License Guidelines). Most extensions do none of these things so the gpl rules quoted by Jinx dont apply. and therefor there is no violation.

Is that how the logic works?

Stuart.

I think I speak for quite a few people here when I say that I don't know what all the options are. I'm familiar with the licensing for half-a-dozen CMS systems, but very little outside of that.

People have mentioned Debian, Drupal, Moodle, Alfresco and others.

Could we delegate some people from the community to look at and talk with other Open Source projects, before reporting back on how they handle this issue?

There might be much to be learned from the successes and mistakes of these other projects.

@Jinx: Please talk with the SFLC to get this cleared up. I think this has been a misinterpretation of the rider that James and I added to the GPL that Joomla 1.5 was to be distributed under.

There were three paragraphs added, with the specific intent of granting an exception to the restrictions of a viral nature due to the GPL. The simplified translation was "if you build an extension, and you do not modify the core itself, then you are free to distribute your work under whatever license you choose."

This means that - heaven forbid - I ever get around to creating a product, and said product does not contain modifications to the core, I can encrypt it, sell it, release it under whatever license I want. The reasoning behind that is yes the GPL forbids encrypted software, but those final three paragraphs (the "rider") granted the 3PD an exception.

This is commonly referred to as a License of Guile:

http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/ ... cense.html

The difference is that Guile is commonly used as a library and is included in other programs, and Joomla extensions are the exact opposite - they are used within Joomla.

However I do think that the SFLC is the definitive source on the matter as they do seem to have a couple people there aware of the GPL (giggle)

*spacemonkey impersonates Imperial Trooper

"There's nothing here to see. Move along."

Well done spacemonkey! There being nothing to see here, I'll be on my way...

Removed as it was a comment to a now removed post

Hi All,

I have diligently read each posting in this thread. We will be podcasting on joomlajabber on this as it is an interesting topic.

I have a few points that seem to be running THROUGH this post and danced around.

Point 1:
What does "Joomla!" want to be?

A Hobbyist (as mentioned in the thread) tool or a tool that both hobbyist (again as mentioned in this thread) AND commercial (I.E. business) could come to and find well written and supported Extentions. Many of the free one's are pretty bad and have zero support - thus...no one would put them into a commercial use. Example: Does anyone remember the debacle  in 1.0.10 with the components missing the "code" to stop bad people?

This question has not been answered or even noted.

Point 2:

Why does the community frown on people making money? - With respect the tone is "if you make money you are bad.." I think that the glasses are a bit Rosy on the "donation for support front". Remember you respect what you earn and pay for. With that said, I think encryption solves problems such as this:

Removed the sites to stop the whiny posts:


These sites seem to be devoted to 'taking' non-encrypted, yet pay-for software and distributing it. In effect 'stealing'. Which in a stupid way, I get the feeling everyone thinks this is ok because its "open"  but charging is the "devil" -( Humor is intended so please no flames) - Does the community condone this type of behavior?

With that said:

Joomla! - The community could consider the following points:

1) keep open-source - true to its name. What I mean is if you want to donate  go for it! I am a big fan of open source to a point such as this. I think its the gas that fuels the car.

2) INVITE the commercial developers to play in the playground, let them encrypt to stop people as mentioned above. This will stimulate more community action, thus more  "Free" as in the English version (with respect Brian) meaning no-charge. The alternative is someone creates a cool CMS (like Joomla!) and allow commercial developers to tag on (see point 1 again). Drawing away from Joomla! Using the car anology, money (hence protection of IP ) is the OIL that keeps the engine running.

3) One means to get to this end is as follows:

Create an OSM code escrow that would be able to be released once a version is 2 revs back  (for instance you are charging for 3.0, but 1.0 is in the escrow) - let it out! Who cares - Again - give the community a choice.  And the OSM could review this code if there were allegations of wrong doing, wrong coding or if the developer exploded into flames and went away. Again allow a safe and easy release.

With SourceForge this could be easily managed. I would encourage you to consider the benefits of attracting money to the community through this means.

The benefit to the community - eventually the hard working code developers work would be released.
The benefit to the developer - they can make money to pay the mortgage, clothe, feed themselves and generally have the time/effort rewarded and not stolen.

The benefit to everyone in the Open source world - a new direction that forges a path for all, but protects "free" as in "Libre".

Linux (for instance RedHat) may not have taken off if it weren't open source, BUT it would have died on the vine if IBM, Dell, HP and a few other VC types hadn't invested in companies such as Redhat - which distributes [linux] for free, but has modified, etc.. and now makes money in a pure support mode. Something that a single developer couldn't do.

again maybe revise/extend a license that makes developers conform to something such as the afore mentioned 'Joomla! code escrow".

I hope this is resolved issues is resolved as I like Joomla! but would have little to know value if the very good 'commercial' or for pay applications/ext. were to be banned (read censorship).


Thank you and apologies for the long post.
[/quote]

These are well known sites and prove my point. I don't believe that if you read this you can anyway state I'm trying to steal.

Ouch - What a read.

I'm by no means able to comment on this from a legal stand point, however, from what I read, its more up to the copyright holders to enforce the GPL requirements - this means that OSM has the ability to make their own rules via by-laws. Here are some random points:

1. Extensions that are FOSS are usually preferred in the community unless a commercial version has additional functionality required.

2. Commercial extensions doesn't hurt Joomla! as far as I can see, on the contrary, if there is a very good commercial extension, people will use joomla to use the extension.

3. From an encryption stand point, I don't see an issue as long as the developer will ensure satisfaction - in the case where the user had incorrectly mis-typed his domain, this should have been fixed by the end developer.

4. Would it be possible for OSM to license a "Joomla! Supported" branding for commercial extensions: By this I mean, developers of commercial extensions would apply (and/or pay for) the extra branding. End users would then know part or some money was sent to Joomla! in support of their commercial license. This wouldn't be required, but would allow end users to have a choice in supporting a commercial extension that in turn supports Joomla!. This could work on a yearly basis where the extension developer would apply for the branding.

1,2,3 agreed

4. It would be possible but can you see the potential headache of the implied quality associated with that branding, and no one within joomla able to audit code due to time,expertise etc

brian, the main problem is that gpl does not allow for encrypted source code, it calls for open source code (paid or not). I agree though that third party developers need to be protected, so OSM needs to decide if it is ok for extensions to be released under other licences.

Herm - that would need to be built into the branding. I'm thinking a link and/or joomla.org generated image on the end site that once the user clicks would provide details - it would also give no implications to quality etc etc etc..  But good point. The logistics would need to be worked out and well documented.

@ Head-e -- Again, just because GPL says something doesn't mean OSM needs to actually enforce it.

Head-e,

You may want to read the post from Mitch above to see what Joomla! did with the sflc to stimulate 3pd development.

Why should this rider or the license now change while it gives people freedom of choice and protects the Joomla! core?

Arno

sorry, i missed spacemonkey's post about the addition clause on 3pd extensions, that clears everything up as far as choice of license goes, but it does not condone gpl extensions (free or commercial) to engage in encrytion. If they want to encrypt there source (and thats there right) they shouldnt use gpl.

Which for some reason has now been removed by Jinx, (the rider not the post)

@head-e - is there a gpl extension that is encrypted

The rider, from what Arno says, has been "removed for consideration" - and - the OSM invited us to participate in that discussion. So, there is no reason for anyone to move along, nothing to see here, you are invited to comment. Joomla! v 1.5 has not been released and to the OSM's credit, they are collecting our input before finalizing the license. That's good, impressive, even.

@VScribe not one single person posted against people making money on Joomla!. In fact, there has been considerable discussion on how to make that possible in a BIG way. Many of these posts are about business plans and what license(s) would be best to create a stable environment for commerce. I recommend everyone listen to your last podcast where Kathy talks about her very recent decision to encrypt. I am a big fan of Kathy's work and she articulates the reasons why she made that choice very well after YEARS of commercial GPL work. Talk about timely! 

Personally, I am leaning towards dual licensing like a JasperSoft and Alfresco. Essentially, that implements Jay's #4 point. The first license would be a pure GPLed environment, that could be strictly enforced. The second would be a licensed environment that can be utilized by ANYONE to build larger scale applications for vertical markets and enterprise level distribution where people can encrypt and restrict distribution if they choose. I think there should be a charge for that license, too. Frankly, if you are concerned about commerce, dual licensing leverages Joomla!'s code base and builds added credibility, separating it from more of a "hobbyist" user base.

But, whatever licensing the OSM chooses, I hope it fits what we are doing and that the OSM would enforce those rules within the license they select. If we really are not going to strictly abide by the GPL - then, pick a license (or licenses) that work. The rider Mitch is talking about accomplishes it too, but, personally, I think a dual license will do more for a commercial market than a rider.

Of course if Joomla! 1.5 i released under the LGPL then there are no problems at all for anyone

@Amy - You are of course our biggest fan! thank you for the support.

On the skype with Kathy right now, I will clarify on our next show what I mean on the money front!

Thanks for reading my long winded post.

Amy what is the difference between the license with the rider like it is right now where people have free choice and a dual license where people still have free choice?
Wouldn't a dual license just make it more complicated?

Arno

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?

I doubt there is any ~ambo code left in 1.5

Hello everybody

Lot's of thing all mixed up, but an interesting thread.

I would suggest the creation of a special WG (it has to be transversal, because all aspects of the project are impacted), that would need to analyse the current Joomla! situation & check for other Open source project's response to similar issues

Possible steps:

0. Initial community consultation - WE ARE HERE
1. Strategy formulation --> values
2. Business Models
3. Legal aspects

Reloop 1,2 & 3 until finding an acceptable proposal

4. Community referendum or Contributor referendum?
5. Adjustments
6. Final Constitution

Sorry to say, but I don't think that 1. --> 3. Should be done publicly. Do internal homework’s first, otherwise it will be very tough to separate value/noise and maintain a good cruise velocity

Joomla is not the only open source project. Some data based on other open source projects (taken from a study of Lakhani – Wolf 2005 & Floss 2002)

1. Share of employees versus volunteers contributing to open source: 55%  - 45%
2. Time spent: 17,7 hours/week versus 11,7 hours/week volunteers
3.  Profiles : Software engineers 33% - Coders 11% - Consultants 10% - Students 16%

Just data, nothing good or bad in any approach

I basically agree that there are revenues issues among the community that need to be studied.

• Starting from the legal aspect would according to me be an error
• Keep in mind that the community is perfectly able to auto-regulate itself, and has done this job perfectly well until now.
• Last we are regularly losing the best elements of the core team every 12 to 18 months, since the Mambo days, because they got burn and cannot balance family/money/hobbies. Is Joomla aiming at developing the biggest community of workaholics in the world or could we start discussion about consolidating a very promising project?

Further readings:
Ref 1: http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf
Ref 2: http://floss.infonomics.nl/publications/pub_search.php
Ref 3: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/speci ... index.html

my 2 cents

Arno -

I think dual licensing elevates commercial work. It says this application is built on the popular, award winning, kabillion website Joomla! environment but it goes beyond even that by extending the environment in (insert way here.) Plus, a dual license gives OSM the opportunity to generate revenue from the commercial ventures. (  )

IMO, the rider is almost disguising or hiding or ashamed of what we are doing. No reason for that.

Those are just my opinions. I've got LOTS of opinions (in case you couldn't tell yet!)

Agree with 55thinking - Alledia really suggested the same, too. Definitely, get Mixed in that group.

Amy

Amy - I don't think duel licensing is a good idea  - I do think from a Corporate standpoint would complicate things. However, if OSM chooses to ignore part of the GPL and makes it official in the by-laws Corps would have something to stand on if OSM (heaven forbid) changed their views on this subject - This would lesson the number of lawyers required for a company to start using Joomla! -- and the less lawyers the better 

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



We are in constant contact with the SFLC, since the changes in the board James Vasile is acting as an advisor to OSM and has a board seat. It was James who suggested to remove the rider for review. This discussion is an excellent start to understand how we as a community want to see ourselves move forward.

It might be noted that most of the information I presented in this thread applies to the current situation of Joomla! 1.0 in regards to the license. The release of 1.5 does indeed offer us to oppurtunity to make changes to the license in the form of a rider. Question is what we want to rider to say and why. Hence this discussion.



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.



I don't think we need to drive this discussion into a dual licensing discussion. The question raised was how we want to deal with encrypted extensions not if we want to re-license Joomla!. I think we can be quite firm on the Joomla! license part, Joomla! is GPL and since open source matters very much to all of us, it should stay that way. Speaking for myself as a board member of OSM I'm not interested in gaining revenue from commercial ventures around the core coee. We have alot of people who setup businesses around Joomla! using different models if all of them donate on a regular basis (which sadly is not the case) we would have more the enough funds to steer the project into the future.

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

Fair enough - but realistically, since (I'm assuming here) we (as in OSM and the community) doesn't want to change the license (which I agree with) then this is moot anyway.



Agreed - and this would tie in nicely with my point 4 above.

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

There was a discussion about the rider at the time, almost 12 months ago

http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,69015.0.html