Joomla! Discussion Forums

Good grief... The GPL is the legal interpretation of the FSF's own philosophy on software licensing, its their license. Why on earth wouldn't you accept their interpretation? If you don't accept it why would you use GPL in the first place, or build software on top of GPL code... seems like a no brainier to me.

Hm. 

Morgan - an Action plan: is a detailed plan describing actions and steps used to implement a strategic vision. Honestly, your response is yet another opinionated, factless rant.

Let's take your first paragraph, put it into a list so it looks like an action plan, and consider if it is clear to both of us whether or not the action has been completed:

• Interpret the GPL in a sane way. Done!
• Take a page from Rosen and a page from Linus Torvalds who believe that simply linking or including code is NOT a violation of GPL.  Done!
• Stop letting the FSF steer you down a road that is going to strike Joomla off everyone's "CMSs worth considering" list. Done!

Yes, Joomla! has done all of those things. What should we do next?

Look - I get it - you are frustrated! Who's not?

If you really want to help draw out a solution for this community, you must articulate clearly what you want to happen. We do not need people to point out what they believe has been done poorly. That approach only discourages the community and it increases frustration and anger without providing any guidance towards resolution.

I'll ask you, again, specifically, what exact steps do you think Joomla! should take to overcome this challenge? It's okay if you don't know. Admitting that puts you into the same group the rest of us are in! We are a community in transition, we are learning and searching and trying to find our way. There is no enemy - there is no bad guy - there is a challenge and a group of people working together for a common purpose.

With respect, Morgan,
Amy

@Mmmedia.

I know, it is also listed as GPL in the JED. I had never looked at it closely until it was pointed out in another thread. Actually, it has quite a few restrictions and from what I can tell, what parts are gpl (or non gpl) are not indicated--the gpl text is not included nor is a link. There doesn't seem to be any explanation of what the "community builder free license" means, in the files or on the joomlapolis site.

This is what I meant in another thread when I said that people have been very sloppy about licensing.


(edited to indicate the post I was responding to)

whoa!

The GPL is invoked at the time of distribution.

• The act of bridging GPL and non-GPL when your the end user is not an offence. Nor is it an offence to bridge anything else under any other license when your the end as no distribution has occured.
• The act of creating and distributing a GPL compatible bridge(just the bridge) is not an offence as what you have distributed is licensed with a compatible license.

If an end user happens to grab Joomla!, then the bridge, then the non-compliant application (ie. SMF) and puts them together to create a bridge between the two for their own use then there is no problem.

[quote="aoirthoir"]Now the tone of my first paragraph was there exactly because the implication in statements about the GPL's claimed lack of application to interpreted languages is because it is so old that interpreted languages didnt exist.[/quote]
Interpreted and Compiled languages existed. But do we really know that languages that blur the line between the two were part of the decision-making process for the GPL? When I look at how PHP includes files and breaks on errors during the EXECUTION of the included script, that tells me that it CANNOT be a totally compiled language.

[quote="manuman"]The GPL is invoked at the time of distribution.

    * The act of bridging GPL and non-GPL when your the end user is not an offence. Nor is it an offence to bridge anything else under any other license when your the end as no distribution has occured.
    * The act of creating and distributing a GPL compatible bridge(just the bridge) is not an offence as what you have distributed is licensed with a compatible license.


If an end user happens to grab Joomla!, then the bridge, then the non-compliant application (ie. SMF) and puts them together to create a bridge between the two for their own use then there is no problem.[/quote]
Not according to the FSF. The FSF told SMF that they cannot distribute the bridge. Why would there be topics at both Joomla.org and SMF support forums saying the extremely popular SMF bridge is no longer being distributed if they didn't think there was a good reason to do so. Please read the forum posts. Folks are taking this GPL to the point of religion and it's not helping anyone.


[quote="aoirthoir"]See, here is where we differ. I do not see one reaction to that. I see several. I see some folks being upset and remaining with Joomla! and I see some being upset and staying. I see some of those that stay, remaining with SMF and not upgrading Joomla!. I see some remaining, upgrading and having problems. I see some that remain with Joomla moving to another forum software that is GPL based. I see some folks appreciating the application of the GPL, and I see some disliking it.[/quote]
It's early. The news has not spread far and wide yet. People are going to read "Joomla" and "incompatible" and make judgements and not give a damn about the niceties.

[quote="aoirthoir"]The idea that Joomla! will die without this interaction, is no more true than if the same thing were stated about MediaWiki dying without being able to interact with SMF, or Wordpress or MovableType or any other GPL program.[/quote]
Have MediaWiki made this announcement?
And the functionality of MediaWiki overlaps both a forum and a blog, so it is much less likely that them slamming the door on SMF, Wordpress, and MoveableType will hurt them as much.

[quote="manuman"]Good grief... The GPL is the legal interpretation of the FSF's own philosophy on software licensing, its their license. [/quote]
I use Joomla because it is a good product, not because of its license.

I bought vBulletin despite offerings from SMF and phpBB because it is, for my needs, the best product. I wonder if phpBB is aware that they have now become the de-facto forum for Joomla and none others need apply?

I knew very little about GPL until this quagmire.

The GPL is a document. It has to stand on its merits and it has certainly left certain things open to interpretation. Just because the GPL has its origins in the FSF does not mean that FSF's changing opinions or whims automatically change the GPL.

If Joomla really feels this way about the GPL way or the Highway, they should immediately remove Mosets Tree and SMF from Joomla.org. Otherwise it's a huge double standard and it makes it difficult to take people seriously.


If I buy a Ford automobile, I am not subject to the whims and changing philosophies of the Ford Motor Company. If I were to buy a new Ford, then I would have to deal with the current incarnation of the company. But the current incarnation of their policies and opinions does not affect the original car I bought.

FSF doesn't get to keep reinterpreting and tightening the noose on GPL. Eventually there has to be pushback and say "you are hurting your own cause". Plenty of causes have sabotaged themselves by being too obtuse, too restrictive, and downright hostile towards corporate interests.

Things change. Some organizations become inclusive. Some organizations become exclusive. If you don't think the GPL leaves things open to interpretation, look at the mother of all "holy war" documents -- The Bible.

[quote="AmyStephen"]Let's take your first paragraph, put it into a list so it looks like an action plan, and consider if it is clear to both of us whether or not the action has been completed:

    * Interpret the GPL in a sane way. Done!
    * Take a page from Rosen and a page from Linus Torvalds who believe that simply linking or including code is NOT a violation of GPL.  Done!
    * Stop letting the FSF steer you down a road that is going to strike Joomla off everyone's "CMSs worth considering" list. Done!


Yes, Joomla! has done all of those things. What should we do next?[/quote]
I don't think Joomla has done that. Otherwise all of these discussions would have ceased.

[quote="AmyStephen"]We do not need people to point out what they believe has been done poorly. That approach only discourages the community and it increases frustration and anger without providing any guidance towards resolution.[/quote]
I'm pointing out what is CONTINUING to happen in an ONGOING situation. Joomla team members and their friends are continuing to post that anything that links to or interfaces with Joomla must be GPL. That is not a sane interpretation of GPL.

Obviously you didn't read this http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/ please do and then come back and rethink the above statement.




Actually yes it does.  Take a look at the fine print on your warranty.  And they at any time can discontinue to have service parts for your car, plus a myriad of any other number of things that they as a company can decide to change with which can affect you the purchaser of their products, no matter when you bought the product -  if it was last decade, last year or last month.

SMF isn't bridged here so what's your problem with that?
Mosets is moving to GPL compliance (read the post at Mosets).

We have stated we will be encouraging volunteered compliance, we have not to date told anyone they need take the highway option.

I do not think Mosets will be able to come up with a viable solution.

Mosets seems to disagree with you.

Feldon, Let me point out a few things here that I don't think you are understanding here...

1 - It doesn't matter which Interpretation Joomla Adopts the issue remains.
2 - doesn't matter what the FSF interpretation is they can not bring a suit, only help some GPL copyright holder in their suit.

Let me stop for a second and talk to those two points....

What you want...


Joomla could make or adopt any interpretation it wants or could take the interpretation you want them to tak and nothing will have really changed from what exists now. For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter what interpretation FSF and Joomla have, If it is the same or different, or if it allows or disallows proprietary extentions. FSF can't sue you or take action on behalf of some copyright holder without the copyright holder taking action first and asking FSF for help in their case. And Joomla has said it hjas no plans to start legal action against any developer which pretty m,uch puts the FSF right out of the equation as far as Joomla/OSM goes.

HOWEVER....

The interpretation that really matters here is the interpretation of the 3rd Party GPL copyright holders of code Joomla uses...They can bring a suit and they can bring FSF into the picture if they choose and likely would as it would be free legal help. Nothing Joomla could do could protect you from such action. So in essence Joomla can't really solve this with an interpretation or statement ever. Only way is to pull out all GPL code they don't own and replace it.  This is true also for Mambo and Drupal and just about any widely used CMS you can think of. So to think that Joomla is doomed because people will all go to mambo is just flat out dumb. Mambo;s interpretation is no more valid than Joomlas is and no more protective than Joomla's is.
Just as I have contended that FSF has no right to dictate to a developer what license to use on his own copyright Mambo has no right to do that either! It uses GPL code it doesn't own as well. Their statement is tantamount to a bank depositor saying you can steal all the money in my bank. you can't go and rob that bank because not all the money in HIS bank is actually his!

So these developers who move to Mambo will not be one iota safer there than they are here.

Ok lets move onto:
3 - You can so combine any PROGRAM with Joomla. Extentions aren't really programs they are merely functions that enhance another program. a Program needs no other program to work. Programs may interface with other programs on a data sharing level but they have to be able to perform their functions without the help from any other program. If they do they are nothing more than extentions and in truth MUST BE COMBINED with something inder to operate.

So you say this:

(Minor point, community Builder is GPL so there is no issue with that)
VBulletin and SMf are both standalone programs. They do not need to be combined with Joomla to operate. Want proof? There is no bridge being used on this forum for SMF. So the notion that you needs bridges is clearly wrong. And it is also quite possible to bridge these two forums legally. The caveat is you must modify SMF or VBull ito use the Joomla Database data as opposed to modifying Joomla to use the SMF or VBull Database. These bridges are clever pieces of programming but hardly required to use those products with Joomla. All most of them do is save the user a step in registration and login which are actions that happen just once in a lifetime. So you register for Joomla and then register for the SMF forum. as opposed to register for Forum or Joomla and it registers you for both. All that work for very little gain plus a license violation?

Here is where people (and P3PDs) should be thinking on this issue...
Why make an extention limited to Joomla users when you can make a standalone product that can be used not only by Joomla but Drupal,Typo, Post nuke and simple HTML static sites as well? If the developers did that they would expand their markets 1000 fold! Then Joomla can never break the functionality with an upgrade, you have every right to tweak your code for use with Joomla data tructure that you can GPL as an enhancement to your proprietary stand alone product but because it doesn't use any Joomla code or is combined with Joomla can never be accused of license violation? you make your money on the standalone and then GPL the enhancements that DO combine that work with Joomla. they are useless without the proprietary product so you can't lose money off their distribution.



Actually the head in the sand response is that Joomla can't live without proprietary software. Joomla doesn't rely on marketshare and number of users to be created and developed. Proprietary however is totally dependent on the maketshare of their target to succeed. Joomla (when it was mambo) had no proprietary extentions to make it grow when it first started. It became popular without those proprietary offerings and it was that popularity that said to some enterprising developers that "Hey there is a big market I can capitalize on to sell software to...Joomla needs functions and I can sell functions to those users by making functions the GPL developers are not concentrating on just yet."

Since those extentions require the use of Joomla code and Joomla does not rely on their code it is rediculous to suggest that without proprietary extentions Joomla will die. Joomla will only die when it doesn't work. Proprietary Joomla extentions are dead the second Joomla dies or doesn't work.

the Proprietary developers would love to think they are the reason why Joomla is successful but the truth is quite the opposite. Their products are popular because so many people use Joomla and they benefit from that userbase because they targeted it. In essence they are biting the hand that feeds them so to speak. If they leave Joomla their extentions must be written to work with whatever CMS they hope to support. Since J1.5 is so different than Mambo, all their previous work on 1.5 extentions (which is what we are really talking about here) is rendered useless. And is it really worth it to them to go through all that work for no gain? Remember they are still open to lawsuit from any GPL copyright holder of code Mambo uses...So they don't gain a thing...they lose marketshare time and for what? a Faq to hide behind when they get dragged into court?

The really good proprietary coders are not going to do that. They will take the issue, get some counsel, tweak the way their product operates and really solve their problems. Doiesn't matter what the FSF thinks because they are not the organization who can start an action. Joomla/OSM has stated it won't be them that starts any action either.
That is about all Joomla/OSM can do here. they have no right to speak to what other GPL copyright holder will or can do and they have said they will try to find some way to solve this if they are given the time to do so. Some help from the ones who stand to benefit most might help speed this along.

In order for Joomla to do what you want they must rip all of the borrowed GPL code from the system...Joomla stops working, Joomla extentions stop working...everything dies!
Is that what the P3PDs really want?
without Joomla their extentions don't work, without Joomla users to sell to they have to find some CMS that has AS MANY users to sell to or they lose money. And many of those other CMS' are even more strict in their interpretations of GPL...

So they can leave if they want.
To me it's tantamount to leaving a stadium that holds 10,000 people because you only make $4 per person for a club that holds 1000 but gives you $5 per person in payment...
Sure you get more per person but you lost roughly $35,000 because you decided to play to the smaller market!
IT's their choice...

If I was consulting them I would tell them instead of targeting a market that they should expand the code to make it's own market. A Market that not only includes Joomla but drupal, Typo and Mambo as well. If they did that then not only can they be safe from prosecution from Joomla but all of those GPL CMS' I mentioned. Their market increases geometrically and they are safe from any prosecution from any GPL product even those that firmly believe in the FSF ideology regarding GPL.
And with all the money they will likely make they will have no problems defending themselves in court!

Which is precisely why I have stated that the GPL's applicability is even more obvious with interpreted languages, not less, as some keep claiming. The idea that differences in programming technologies can invalidate a software license are simply absurd. If we were to take this forward we could simply and easily invalidate any license, including proprietary licenses. This is a matter of understanding copyright law.

1. Copyrights apply to works in a fixed medium.
2. Copyright holders automatically retain all rights to their work. This includes rights to use, display, view, run, modify and so forth.
3. Copyright holders can grant others privileges on their work. So for instance when you buy a program I grant you the privilege to run it.
4. Copyright holders can grant some privileges and deny others.
5. Copyright holders can attach conditions to the privileges they grant. Typically these include renumeration. In other cases they might include release dates, where the work can be used, for how long and so forth.
6. Copyright holders can terminate privileges if their conditions are not followed, or after a certain period, if the condition grants the privilege for a specified period of time.

Now why can the GPL apply to even knew concepts in programming? Because the program is placed in a fixed medium. Thus copyright law applies. Any of the privileges the GPL grants, the copyright holder is free to grant for any of their fixed medium works. The fact that the program is written in PHP, C, COBOL, PERL, or Punctilious Penelope's Super Simple Scripting Solution, does absolutely nothing to invalidate either the copyright holders copyrights, or privileges she grants to others via any license.



I will state again, some people will in fact not like it, as you are stating. Others are quite fine with it.



The statement stands. Please read the highlighted portion. The type of software I mentioned is not the point I am making. Rather that a GPL project that is thriving, will not die because  of the application of the GPL license.



I dont know the context that you are speaking. If Joomla! was $3000 US, you might be able to afford it, you might not. The cost might be justified for you, it might not. If it were thus and proprietary, you might have no need or desire to change it, you might. I am glad that you find it a good product. But, while you may not be using it because it is Free and Open Source, many others make that part of the requirements that they have for software.



Restrictive? You mean for instance like refusing to allow people to change their code? Not allowing people to distribute changes to others? Only allowing people to run GPL software on one domain name?  Each time this issue is brought up, in regards to 'strict' GPL interpretation, what is really being said, is you are being too restrictive in not allowing people to place additional restrictions when they interface to your software. You are restricting your downstreams ability to restrict their downstream.

There is of course another option. As I have said a number of times, if I were seeking to create proprietary software, I would not touch GPL software at all.

Asphyx, good points all the way around. Thanks for clarifying things.

vBulletin is $160.


You are welcome and encouraged to modify the vBulletin code however you see fit, provided you do not try to circumvent the "one license per domain" rule.


"Vector" postings which describe the changes are permitted. And vBulletin has a full plug-in system which allows people to hook into the vBulletin code in over 600 places. vBulletin users are allowed to override and extend classes, make API calls, or modify the code how they see fit. And they can release their code and changes under any license they desire. More info at vBulletin.org.

vBulletin is compatible with any script you want to link to it. You can tightly integrate vBulletin with tools from Microsoft or anyone else you want.
Joomla is not compatible with anything except GPL.

Why can't you guys see the distinction there? For all this talk about "free software", Joomla now offers less freedom to its users than other solutions. Joomla is now MORE restrictive and hobbled than vBulletin in its support for add-ons. I am a solutions provider. This situation requires me to become or retain a programmer to write any add-ons or changes I might need.


I have made all the points I intend to make. I have now come full circle and believe that Joomla is "making a decision" to not tolerate proprietary add-ons for ideological rather than legal reasons.

I just reread the whole thread, and I want to point out in response to the first post that jaclplus is a gnu gpl application that has a subscription type model in which "charter members" receive support and earlier releases.

JACLPlus Pro is an encrypted PHP application requiring Zend.

GPL can be encrypted so long as you make the source available on request to people you have distributed to.

^^ To clarify, I mean a derivative gpl must provide a process for the user to get the source code. If it is totally independent and you are the author, it is up to you to decide what you want to do. You can modify the license as you see fit etc.

In the case of jaclplus, that extension is a core hack, so it is not even close to the borderliine of having an argument for a non-gpl release.

phewww!  thank goodness for that at least



Feldon, I wish that you could've been PR spokesperson for Joomla when the news broke because the examples of how you phrased the hypothetical press releases earlier would've resulted in a more understanding tone from the 3PD community as opposed to a lot of the clashes I've seen.

I do agree that bridges should be n/a to all of this.  It is really getting crazy nowadays with Joomla and I've supported them since Mambo.  I just hope a better interpretation can be worked out for the sake of the community 

I just don't understand why Joomla is the bad guy and must allow ANYONE to use it's code in any way they see fit yet SMF who doesn't want to give that right is not being asked to give anything in return.

Why is it more important for SMF to be able to have any license it wants and yet important for Joomla to not have that right?

Tantamount to saying "You need to give up all your rights so I can have mine!"

That is really what is being asked for here...

If SMF didn't spend all their time trying make a duplicate of SMF in Joomla that replaced it's core code and used other parts of the core and instead made a few components that would simply read the SMF database and provide some linkage to the core forum by URL they could easily comply with the GPL requirements because none of their core files would be used on the Joomla side and therefore exposed to a license they don't like!
The only parts from their core they actually need is the database read and write routines.

Nobody could read this or any other thread on this forum and come to the conclusion you feign above. Joomla is being asked to interpret the GPL in the reasonable way that Linus Torvalds, Rosenlaw, and others have interpreted it -- that Joomla can LINK or allow PLUGINS without those LINKS or PLUGINS being GPL. What good is an API if it comes with a loaded gun?

SMF makes bridges available for all of those different GPL programs with no complaints from anyone. Joomla is the first to try to tell SMF they need to switch to GPL, which is an absurd request.

All these people talking about GPL promotes free software and a free market. Well you guys are NOT letting the market decide. If a commercial developer comes out with a crappy product with crappy support that doesn't meet the needs of the community, then another person will promptly step in and release a GPL or LGPL or other equivalent. It happens all the time. Even with the flood of forum software right now (SMF, phpBB, IPB, vBulletin, etc.) there is still more forum software coming out all the time.


Again, you are magnifying and amplifying this way beyond what is actually being called for. Joomla is showing arrogance thinking that A) Joomla can exist without non-GPL extensions, bridges, etc. and B) that every other script out there should switch to GPL. Joomla was not founded on this basis and few of the users ever thought this is the direction that the product would go.

Why does it take away any of Joomla's rights to allow other programs to link to it?

Is it an affront to Adobe Photoshop if someone writes a plugin that Adobe is displeased with?



Poking the database is a very primitive, dangerous way of linking software. And you lose all the benefits of possible integration between the two products. Creating and manipulating users should always be done with API. Prior to Joomla 1.5, as far as I know, Joomla API did not provide a simple, extendible way of creating and manipulating users. So to do bridging, 3rd parties must rewrite or extend the existing code. To my knowledge, Joomla 1.5 has a robust API which allows external scripts to create users including additional columns to the database. If not, then no wonder SMF needs to poke and prod to make it work.

Firstly, Joomla!'s opinion or interpretation does not a law make.  The FSF's opinion doesn't make law, Linus Torvalds opinion doesn't make law, Larry Rosen's opinion doesn't make law, my opinion doesn't make law and neither does yours.  My interpretation of the license would be looked at by a judge and put in the same basket as everyone else's ... then the judge would look at the license, look at the facts and evidence, then evaluate the case based on its merits.  We are talking about the license something is distributed under and copyright law across lines of jurisdiction, not some dreamed up scenario where the evil overlords oppress the masses.

Secondly, my opinion on things is based on my own research and knowledge -- not anyone in particular's wishes.  Also, much is said about some apparent dubious link between Joomla! and the FSF.  Up until three days ago I had never spoken with anyone from the FSF and I can bet you that the same is true of nearly everyone on the Joomla! core team.

While I am at it, your view that the Joomla! API comes with a loaded gun is ludicrous.  A derivative work is not made or unmade in its entirety by the use of an API or not and that comment is inflammatory as well as unfounded.



Stop and think about it.  Joomla! did not tell SMF they needed to switch to the GNU GPL ... the idea of that is absurd as you put it.  We greatly respect SMF's ability to license their software as they deem necessary.  Did Joomla! complain about the SMF bridge?  Please point me to that complaint because I will happily contradict it. 

Also, you clearly don't have an understanding of what a GNU GPL violation entails because of the comment where you seem to think we can tell SMF to license their software in a different way.  If a violation occurrs then the outcome is that the enumerated rights afforded to the violator are revoked.  In no way does that give anyone the right to change the license of someone else's work NOR the right to demand a change in license.  It means that the violators rights afforded them by Joomla! in this instance are revoked.

Read this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 4210634851



The GNU GPL promotes free software as in "freedom".  The freedom to copy, modify, and distribute the software.  These freedoms are given to anyone to whom the software is distributed.  You are I think mixing the concept of a free market economy with the concept of a free software ecosystem.  This is not about crappy proprietary software or crappy free software ... they both exist

You are correct that there is a lot of forum software out there.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... tware_(PHP)  And that is just a subset ... of PHP based ones.  Again, we are not talking about what is good and what is bad; there are plenty of examples of both good and bad in both the proprietary and free software categories.  A major difference, however, is that if the software is free and bad someone can come along and make it good and release it without the encumbrance or potential retribution from the upstream copyright holder.  It can be released to the public and help people everywhere equally.



A)  It is not arrogant to say that Joomla! can exist without non-GPL extensions, bridges, etc.  It can ... and does on lots of web sites   That being said it is also unlikely that Joomla! will not have non-GPL extensions written for it.

B) Joomla! has never said that every other script out there should switch to the GNU GPL.  As I have said before and many people have stated since we cannot and are not dictating licenses for other copyright holders.  We are saying that we would like people to comply with our license.  I am quite happy for SMF to license their software under whatever license they feel works best for them.  Similarly, I believe that they feel the same way about us.  Further, I believe that SMF can be bridged to Joomla! without violating either license.



It doesn't.  If you can link to Joomla! without violating the license that Joomla! is released under than there is no issue.



I cannot speak for Adobe, but I would imagine it doesn't bother them any great deal.

You are clearly unhappy and that is entirely your right obviously, but jumping to conclusions doesn't get anyone anywhere but angry and disillusioned.

Louis