mcsmom: Need confirmation and/ or clarification

[Trijnie]

Hi all,

I do appreciate all input, but mcsmom gives very clear awnsers, and thats what I need. I will keep the question short and simple. Also, please note that this is the Dutch Law I'm referring to, but very much complies worldwide.

New enforcements became effective Friday, 15 June 2007

Since third party CMT's were openly and publicly endorsed up to this date, this does not affect any Joomla! version release prior to this
date, because there was a change of policy no third party developer could have been aware of.

This rules out the possibility for any third party developer to be acting illegal (without knowing it).

Need confirmation.

Again, thanks for the fast response mcsmom, very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Trijnie
(edit: thread solved)

[mcsmom]

The problem with the way you are stating this is that the June 15 announcement of the Core Team/OSM view of the way the license works has nothing to do with "enforcement." Enforcement is done by the copyright holders. A copyright holder who agreed with this interpretation could have acted to enforce the GPL at any time from when Joomla! was first released to the present moment.  What the June 15 announcement--and the earlier removal of the rider from the 1.5 beta-- did was to make Joomla! itself compliant with the GPL. It also served to let developers know the potential risks they are taking by releasing non compliant extensions.

It might be the case that if a copyright holder sought damages from a developer that the developer could make an argument that he or she was acting in good faith based on widespread understandings prior to June 15. If a complaint actually got so far as to a court room a judge might consider this in determining the amount of damages, though that is pure speculation on my part. In reality, usually if a copyright owner seeks compliance the result is not the awarding of damages but getting the developer to be compliant.

[Trijnie]

mcsmom: Need confirmation and/ or clarification

Hi mcsmom,

Thank you for your previous awnser.  It's important for me to let you know that these are questions for confirmation specifically from me, as a business owner who uses and sells products and is also responsible for sending client's to other sellers. I hereby state that I'm personally responsible for these statements.

Also I will ask questions first and review them later. No comments on awnsers will be possible until Tuesday.

---------------------------------

If a product is created to work with a certain CMS and it happens to still work with a derivation of that CMS, the rules of
the original CMS comply. The enforcement of the original copyright holder stands. In order to place a product under legal
restrictions of the derived version, the product should have at least one distinct mark in it to prove it was created with
the derived version in mind.

Thanks in advance,

Trijnie

[Trijnie]

I know, it's not Tuesday yet. I was encouraged though to show my concerns.

Are proprietary components/ modules/ templates/ bridges and their vendors in violation with the terms when moved to a version after  Friday, 15 June 2007?

[Trijnie]

According to OSM I mean.

[louis.landry]

What are you trying to get at Trijnie?

A violation is a violation -- regardless of date.  If the license existed, and the license was violated then there is a violation.

If you are asking whether or not OSM believes that a court would rule one way or another considering the atmosphere before or after the date in June, then don't you think that is a bit of an unreasonable request?  A court in the Netherlands for example is not necessarily going to use the same methodologies or codes of law that a court in France would.  A court in one part of the US is not necessarily going to follow the same thought process on this as another court in another part of the US either.  Hell, one judge in one court is likely to view things differently than another judge in the very same court.

OSM doesn't get to make case law .... nor does it get to dictate what is and is not legal .... The Joomla! Core Team (as well as OSM), as a whole, has stated its beliefs and intentions.  This doesn't make case law ... it is what it is.

You seem to be fishing for some sort of OSM sanctioned reprieve from law that OSM cannot give you.  OSM does not even own the copyrights to the code you are questioning...

Louis

[Trijnie]

Hi Louis,

A violation is never a violation if the party involved was not aware (could not possibly be aware). Since before the news nobody could be aware, nobody was in violation.

Thank you for your confirmation,

Trijnie

[louis.landry]

Thats like saying you are never guilty until you are caught .... /me shakes head

Louis

[Trijnie]

I'm sorry, I probably missed something.  Am I'm guilty of crimes Louis?

[louis.landry]

How would I know?  I know nearly nothing about you much less your activities? .... but saying that a violation is never a violation if the party involved was not aware is tantamount to saying that you are not guilty of anything unless you are caught. 

If a person drives through a red light and doesn't get caught ... did he break the law?  What if he didn't see the red light ... did he break it now?  Seems a dangerous way to look at things to me ... Maybe they do things differently where you live than where I live   Here its still breaking the law and I was brought up not to do something illegal just because I could get away with it.


Louis

[Trijnie]

Actually this was confirmed by my lawyer. If a change of license and/or copyright takes place, there is the need to inform
the parties involved.

[Trijnie]

I should not be talking to you at all because my lawyer is talking to your lawyer. So, I will mark this thread solved,because I'm sure court will settle this.

As stated in the first post, I'm responsible for my clients and these questions need clear answers. So, this was meant to be funny.

(edit: I added a smiley and a comment)

[louis.landry]

There wasn't a change in copyright or license so the point is moot ... the only change is that we notified people of the implications as we understand them

On a side note, it is good that you have a lawyer to bounce ideas and questions off of

Still doesn't change the fact that a violation of the license is a violation of the license ... especially since the license is and was the same: GNU GPL


Louis

LOL, so your lawyer is talking to my lawyer so you shouldn't talk to me ... but yet you wanted to talk to mcsmom who's lawyer is the same person 

wow we went around in some circles there ....

[Trijnie]

There wasn't a change in copyright or license so the point is moot ... the only change is that we notified people
of the implications as we understand them

Actually, your statement is not correct. There was a change in enforcements. Although the GPL will remain GPL just the
way I like it, the way this particular GPL is enforced has changed.

Still doesn't change the fact that a violation of the license is a violation of the license ... especially since the
license is and was the same: GNU GPL

Louis

Thank you for sharing. I will notify my vendors.

LOL, so your lawyer is talking to my lawyer so you shouldn't talk to me ... but yet you wanted to talk to mcsmom who's
lawyer is the same person 

There is only one lawyer within OSM, I thought you knew. Perhaps you should ask your superiors how to proceed.

[louis.landry]

There wasn't a change in copyright or license so the point is moot ... the only change is that we notified people
of the implications as we understand them

Actually, your statement is not correct. There was a change in enforcements. Although the GPL will remain GPL just the
way I like it, the way this particular GPL is enforced has changed.

Common misconception.  Has anyone enforced anything yet?  Did you read the announcement?  I know I did.  You seem to have read different text than me ... can you copy/paste the text or cite instances where enforcement has taken place?  Also, the statement you made above (just for completeness) mentioned change in copyright or license ... not enforcement   Even still ... you stated that if those things change -- there is a need to inform.

Even if we were in the land of make believe ... and the license had changed ... do you think that a front page announcement to that effect would be considered "informing"?

Still doesn't change the fact that a violation of the license is a violation of the license ... especially since the
license is and was the same: GNU GPL

Louis

Thank you for sharing. I will notify my vendors.

Anytime

LOL, so your lawyer is talking to my lawyer so you shouldn't talk to me ... but yet you wanted to talk to mcsmom who's
lawyer is the same person 

There is only one lawyer within OSM, I thought you knew. Perhaps you should ask your superiors how to proceed.

Which superiors do you mean Trijnie?  I am one of three project managers of the Joomla! project.  To my knowledge -- and I would assume I have a fairly clear understanding -- I don't have superiors on the team.  Actually ... come to think of it ... we are a pretty flat organization.  I would invite you to read my blog post where I talked about the project structure: http://www.joomla.org/component/option, ... 105/p,385/

It is true that only one person in OSM has a Juris Doctorate ... James Vasile.  It is also true that Joomla! is a client of the Software Freedom Law Center.  In the Joomla! context "my" attorneys are the SFLC and more specifically James.  He is a fantastic fellow and we as a team are very thankful and lucky to have him. 

If you are implying that OSM is somehow my superior than your information is wrong and your angle is misguided

Proceeding is simple ... we will continue to make the best CMS we can.

Louis

PS: Thanks for taking the time to comment again even though you really couldn't due to the fact that your lawyer is talking to my lawyer... it shows a real courage of conviction

[Trijnie]

lol

[Trijnie]

Oh darn, wanted to end it with my last comment, but forgot I could not.

Sorry Louis,

Just to end this little discussion:

I started this thread because I wanted straight awnsers, thinking I could actually prevent a suit from happening. I of course wanted it to be true: joomla core working with 3pd's, but hey, it was time to wake up. Thank you personally for making me realize.

Kind regards,

Trijnie

[louis.landry]

The thread will speak for itself.

You got answers ... they just weren't the ones you wanted.  The lawsuit threat is a nice touch though ... adds a real "working with" vibe to any conversation.

Don't be sorry, there is nothing for you to be sorry about ... is there?

Good luck to you,

Louis

[Trijnie]

The thread will speak for itself

Glad , we agree on something.

[mcsmom]

I want it to be clear that when I post on the forum I am posting as myself as an individual, not on behalf of OSM.

Also, as Louis pointed out, OSM is part of the Foundation Work Group and nothing more. It is incorporated because it is necessary to have a corporation to handle certain legal and administrative issues on behalf of the core team.

Trijnie,

Since you said you were away and there were a few other things going on  I didn't respond yet.

I think the question you asked is too hypothetical to give a specific answer. My general interpretation is that most extensions (however labeled) are derivatives. Beyond that, in individual cases the code has to be carefully examined.

[Trijnie]

Hello mcsmom,

Thanks for the short and clear answers. It does not matter that you did not respond yet, I didn't expect answers till Tuesday.
My comments on closing this thread was because of the hostile answers given by a Project Manager.

In another thread in these GPL Forums, it was stated that a vendor (3pd) is in violation if one uses his products. Being labeled as a business that is in violation with the GPL, is bad for business. Although Joomla/ OSM would not sue, this will leave a mark. You stated in your post to be posting as an individual, and not on behalf of OSM, however, your answers are seen as an official Joomla! response.


Kind regards,

[mcsmom]

People should not think that. I cannot and do not consult with a lawyer when I post. I have said this over and over.  Not sure how to make it more clear.

[Jenny]

Hello mcsmom,

Thanks for the short and clear answers. It does not matter that you did not respond yet, I didn't expect answers till Tuesday.
My comments on closing this thread was because of the hostile answers given by a Project Manager.

In another thread in these GPL Forums, it was stated that a vendor (3pd) is in violation if one uses his products. Being labeled as a business that is in violation with the GPL, is bad for business. Although Joomla/ OSM would not sue, this will leave a mark. You stated in your post to be posting as an individual, and not on behalf of OSM, however, your answers are seen as an official Joomla! response.


Kind regards,

A vendor or software creator (3PD) is indeed violating the GPL if their software isn't licensed as GPL or GPL compatible and their software can be determined to be a derivative of Joomla!.

No one is labeling anyone anything.  It seems that you are intent on applying labels or implying that labels exist or perhaps you think that labels should exist? I am not sure exactly what you are meaning with the whole "labels" comments.

The solution is for the vendor or software creator (3PD) to either relicense their software in a compliant manner, or to work on a solution that allows them to license under which ever license they choose while not being a derivative of Joomla!

[aoirthoir]

MCSmom,

Is there a link that contains 'Official' statements in regards to these matters? So that the difference between a forum post and an official position can be noted? (I assumed the front page joomla.com would be it...but I figured its better to ask).

[Trijnie]

Hello mcsmom ,

People should not think that. I cannot and do not consult with a lawyer when I post. I have said this over and over.  Not sure how to make it more clear.

First of all, I do understand your position. I'm not trying to make things hard for you, just want you to be aware of the impact your posts make.

The Foundation is the entity that controls and protects Joomla! and is not just a workgroup. The foundation is
the "bridge" (pun intended to lighten things up a bit ) between FSF and Joomla!.

You are a Foundation member and therefor your answers reflect the position Joomla! and OSM Inc. With your position of
Foundation member and the responsibility, the statements you make are written and seen as the official point of view .

[brad]

The Foundation is the entity that controls and protects Joomla! and is not just a workgroup.

No, the Foundation DOES NOT control Joomla, it is just a Workgroup. OSM does not control Joomla either.

[mcsmom]

OSM is NOT a Foundation. It is a non-profit organization seeking 501(c)3 charity status. This is an important distinction in U.S. law.

The "Foundation" is basically the name for the work group that handles legal, financial, media, events, advocacy and similar non-code and non-website related issues. OSM is the team that just handles the financial and legal issues, which is why we are incorporated. Because we are incorporated we need to have officers and to meet other requirements of New York State and U.S. corporation law.

While a number of open source projects are organized in the way you describe, Joomla! is not.

All you have to do is read the readily available materials on the OSM website and elsewhere to understand this.

[Trijnie]

Hi Brad  ,

My apologies, my thoughts went back to how it used to work and I remember why the Inc was formed.

Is it safe to assume then, that the core  (the core members) control Joomla! and are responsible for the statements?

It's only natural that questions that are made concerning GPL are answered reflecting the state of point of Joomla! as a whole. Actually, posting in these forums would be pointless if answers were not the official opinion of members of Joomla!.

[aoirthoir]

Actually, posting in these forums would be pointless if answers were not the official opinion of members of Joomla!.

The opinions of all folks that post on here are just that, our opinions. This includes your opinion, my opinion and so on. When we talk about the opinion of Joomla! groups, or OSM or any other similar such thing, what we really want to get at is, the opinion of the copyright holders. Because it is they who would be entitled to take action for violations of their license.

Now, since Joomla! uses code from those other than the Core Team, at best all the core team can state is, their personal opinion. I will give you an example.

Louis has stated that he believes that stand alone programs, which merely connect into Joomla! are not derivatives. I assume he is talking via php includes/requires, not eval(). For his code, I assume this is his position. I assume it is also his "belief" of this in regards to other code. However, he cannot maintain such a position for someone else's contributed code. The possibility exists (however slight) that another person that has contributed code, would not agree with him. So he has wisely chosen the correct path of stating that this is his opinion. He has also stated that others opinions might be different. (I actually am among those other opinions. My belief is, if you make use of my code, your program is a derivative both of my program and of your program. However, I have no code within Joomla! so my opinions do not matter in this respect, as far as I am concerned.)

Because of the nature of GNU GPL software, with the possibility for many contributers, no one person can speak for the entire project. This is true even of the project's originator, unless she maintains copyrights on all of the code in the project. So MCSMom, Brad, Jinx and others can only state their opinion. They can come together as a core team and state the opinion of the core team. In which case we look specifically for official statements of that nature, such as this statement. In the case of forum posts, it has been stated all should understand that these are not official positions. Rather all of us are working these issues out. We are learning, evaluating, and attempting to solve what has become for some (users, developers and even core team members) a problem.

[Rogue4ngel]

Trijnie,

You will have to forgive me for feeling the need to make a comment here,  but I've noticed that you seem to be picking and choosing the statements that each person has made in some attempt to goad out of them an 'official Joomla response' as to why things have changed, even though they have made it abundantly clear that they are giving their opinion on the matter, not to mention that you don't seem to understand the situation fully.

You seem like a very intelligent woman, and well written from what you have posted, but the simple fact of the matter is this: it is a violation of the GPL if you have a program derived from Joomla under another type of license.  Period.  This was true from the very beginning.  Even before the announcement.  And ignorance to the law is not an excuse.  Not for anyone; whether it is the Joomla team, or a 3PD.  You see, the Joomla team didn't make the laws, but they are subject to them, just as you and I are.  There was enough question for them to really study it, and they realized some of what they used wasn't compliant!  To minimize the risk of this eventually affecting a 3PD, who could have been blindsided by a suit, the Joomla team chose to take the time to understand the law, and then make a statement so everyone understood exactly where they stood.  You do realize there were 3PD's that had questioned this in the past, because even they saw the potential problem that was brewing, even before the Joomla team!

Now that they have made a statement, it is for YOU to decide how you will procede based on their interpretation of the GPL, which I understand is happening.

So it seems rather odd to me when the lawyers are talking for you to try and extract a statement that will be in your favor, unless what you are hearing from your lawyer your not satisfied with either.

My suggestion is to stop attempting to pull some tidbit of information that is going to win you a court case, and perhaps use that energy to help out the group working on a solution that will allow an acceptable bridge to the API that can be adapted to your program if you would like to release your project under another license.