Joomla! Discussion Forums

Forking a GPL project does not violate copyright law as I'm sure you know really.  However, the point is moot as it appears that OpenSEF has been revived by kenmcd: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,182170.0.html

As such I see no further need for NuSEF.  My interest in OpenSEF was purely to ensure the continued availability of this popular component as users were having difficulty locating it after Marko withdrew his support.

This was an exceptional case.  Most GPL projects that are abandoned continue to be available for download for some time after the abandonment so that others can take them up if they wish.  If no-one does then they gradually fade away.  In the case of OpenSEF (and Marko's other projects), not only was the website itself deleted, but files on JoomlaCode were either deleted or made unavailable (not sure which).  All this without any notice to users or the community at large.  To me that is an unscrupulous act and harms Marko's reputation which until then had been spotless.

I wish the OpenSEF project every success for the future.

Regards,
Chris.

You can still make commercial software for Joomla. Always could! You didn't need a rider for that...the only thing that has changed is the license requirements that software must be released under. Now Commercial software must be released under a GPL compatible license.

If we are to ever get any clarity of the situation we must be sure to be precise in what is aaid so that people don't get the wrong impression. Some people read these inaccurate statements and from that snowball an avalanche of histeria ensues.


This is a very good point I think may have been lost on many people...It did not even ocurr to me till right now what this means. And maybe this will change some peoples outlook. (at least on the user level)
The SOFTWARE developers are definitly hurt by this as they lose some control of the distribution of their software...but this should be a boon to web developers who purchase these applications for use in client sites as it will allow them to customize and then distribute it to their clients. The growth of Joomla growth is as much reliant on Web developers using it for clients as it is on Commercial software being available. But it still would be nice to find some way to allow limited distribution (say per user license) that would give the original developer some benefit for writing a good program everyone wants to use.


Actually there is no warranty on GPL software. You only need to take that on if you choose to and if you have made changes to the base code. Under the old system you were denied the ability to even give a client the NON-GPLed extention in the first place unless you bought a seperate license for them to use. So really the new system works more in your favor as a 3PD reseller of product. If the developer of the product you are reselling changes their business model to comply with the new reality here he would be switching his model to the support model where you get the program for free but pay for all the support. (I'll post this model in the new business model thread later today). you would then buy a support subscription for each client and be able to legally use the extention for clients where before you were denied this.

No, but if you take an existing project, and rename it without adding any value to it, some (not me) are arguing that it could be a breach of copyright law. That's why I added the qualifying 'if' in my previous post. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that control of the project is going back to the original developers (although, your use of the term 'revived' is almost as inflammatory as 'rescued', given that it was never abandoned in the first place). Maybe would've been best to check with them before forking, but never mind.

It's not back to the original developers there was only one in the past, that's me, no my dear Colleague Ken toke it over, i wish him luck by further developing, as i may see now by preparing hidden a place months ago by SF that is was allready his plan, to "rob" it in the spirit of Open Source or what was the intention?

Like the rider being removed with making any public note in the change log?

Edit.. can't speel

For the record.  A Note was placed in the Joomla 1.5 changelog by Johan AFTER the event (I forget the time scale - I guess a week after maybe more or less - SVN log will give exact date)

This entry was only added after I personally told Johan in a skype chat that for "openness and transparency" it would be good for him to add it. Within hours the change log entry was made.

Before my personal conversation with Johan no change had been made to the changelog - the rider had been removed

Oh dear. I mis-understood the previous comments then.

This morning I asked Marko (predator), and he told me (within a few minutes!) that he hadn't abandoned OpenSEF. Surely a little communication was all it would have taken to prevent this rather ugly little episode? I sure hope this is not the start of a witch-hunt.

Moderator note:



Please remain on topic!

I will talk in private with him, what he has not done for month.

Otherwise if this was planned it shows the fear of the 3pd, when they should release their components under GPL, that somebody is comeing and just take the code and present it as their own project, without writing a single line of code in the name of Open Source.

Good example.

Thank you! I'm not saying that I agree with your opinion (or disagreeing), just that these comments (and questions) are what we are looking for. It is objective, it states your opinion in a civil manner, it does not "attack" others, and most importantly, it is 100% on topic.

I hope to see more posts like this in the future.

Thanks!

Hidden? You have got to be kidding. Hidden on SF?
The SF project was set-up for the exact reasons I said - to promote OpenSEF via the very widely distributed SF feeds, and provide an alternate to the old unreliable forge.
There are old posts in this forum where I describe the benefits of using SF to promote.
If I remember correctly I told you about strategy this months ago.

I uploaded the files there now for all Joomla users because someone deleted the files from JoomlaCode, and removed my admin access.


Regarding communication - I have been in the OpenSEF forum almost every day for months.
Someone elses last post(s) - 3-4 months ago ? ?
I got one PM about a month ago, responded, expected a response, heard nothing again.
I have a communication problem?

Then without a word - the forum disappears, downloads disappear, and I am locked out of JoomlaCode (again).
You join the commercial alliance site and tell why you quit the Core Team.
I assumed you had cut all ties to Joomla, and OpenSEF, and OpenWiki, and Open-WP.

Glad to hear you have told someone you intend to continue the project.

With respect, this is a thread reserved for End User questions about the GPL. There are now about 1 1/2 pages of OpenSEF and rider and SVN comment issues that have grown out of a legitimate question. I recommend this thread be split and the OpenSEF, rider and SVN comment issues be put into a new thread.

That way, the end users don't have to wade through some of this off-topic, but important, discussion.

Just a suggestion.
Amy

...and delete this one, of course!

Not sure with whom you where talking about it, for me it is new, and after month where you have disapear you come back with this plan? I have communication probs, sorry my last mail from you is from last year and an answered PM also. "Glad you hear?" a mail would have you enlighted.

But we are Offtopic, so would be better to move it to private otherwise wwe are in trouble with the mods

Folks,

Could you please be so kind and settle your private disputes in private conversations and not here on the forum.

Thank you

Alex

As you may have noted we allready know it ourself (i for sure).

Hate to continue this off topic, but once again Phil, thanks for handling that issue in a positive and appropriate way. 
It was a mistake not to have it in the changelog, you pointed that out, the mistake was corrected. Good work by both you and Johan.

Now, let's get back to end user questions and answers  and not working on writing the history of this or specific extensions.

The rider was comissioned to be provided by a lawyer. This must surely have been for a reason?!
Do you really expect people to believe this would've been done without core agreement? If not all of the copyright holders agreed, or did know about it, this just shows bad management and lack of communication.
But Joomla! added this rider, this is a fact, no matter whom it was (this person has so far not said a word about this btw...).
So you did make 3PDs believe they were fine.
And then you decide it's a mistake. Who decided this, all of core? Don't think so..
And you remove it without notice.
And then start this whole discussion for the last two months and going, which is so useless and such a waste of time I just can't believe it!
If you know you want to keep using GPL code in Joomla, you also know Joomla! must be GPL, so what is there to discuss, why do you need anyone's advice and opinion? And wait for ages, untill many devs are really getting upset, before saying so?
I just don't understand this behaviour...

btw, if this post is off topic, feel free to MOVE it (suggestion: New thread titled "rider clarification" perhaps?), if it gets deleted again (I keep screenshots and notifications), it will have been my last post here. I'm just tired of all this endless discussion. In 3 months, it will be 2 YEARS since the split, and there's still no real stable Joomla! release in sight.

Why should they? This is an example that shows the notion of GPL/derivative work is completely broken. Surely, SMF cannot be a derivative of Joomla; it should be not asked to comply with GPL because it was made to work with Joomla.

If we follow this logic, anything runs on top of linux will have to be GPL'ed?

They're talking about the bridge. SMF (the forum system itself) is standalone and bridged...meaning it can have any license they like completely separate of Joomla... They are only saying the bridge needs to be GPL because it (and not SMF) connects to Joomla.

Phil

Yes, but why?

I still dont understand it. If an extension works WITH joomla, but the developer has not COPIED joomla code, then why does it have to be released under GPL? Where is copyright breach?

Like mateo94402 said above, if this was the case, then all programs running on linux should be GPL, but I dont see oracle going that way.

Even the use of an api, does not mean that the work that derives must be of a specific license. Take for example linux:
If you use the command "make" in linux to compile a program you made, you dont have to give that program as GPL just because you used the api of linux (which is GPL).

Could someone please explain it to me?

Thank you,
Koyan

Koyan,

Programs can communicate with each other and not be in violation of the license. Much of the time, that is all that is happening. This is why I can pass data via TCP/IP from one program to another. However, a PHP program that uses the include/require statements of PHP are not simply communicating. These php statements are needed in order to  access another's php code. It is very similar to a copy paste, in fact is almost a direct replacement for copy/paste.

Thus the difference.

Edited to add:

If the require or include statements did not exist in PHP, there would be only 2 options to use another's php functions. First would be copy and paste. The other would be for the function creator to make his functions stand alone mini PHP programs. Then the third party could use the PHP EXEC statement. This is the same as running the php program from the command line, passing it data as you do, and then collecting the output data into your program. Passing data around is not a violation, but copying and pasting, and including or requiring, actually make use of the other person's code directly, combining it with your own code thus forming one program at run time. This is different than just calling it as a separate program.

http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg870122

Thanks for the answer.
That is now clear.

Now, I read above also people suggesting a "middle LGPL layer" (a component I guess?).

Would that solution be legal?
Would that solution solve the problem of 3rd party commercial developers?
Would that mean that their software has to be bridged like sml, or it could be installed?

(I know, you answer a question and a million others pop up :-( )

The vast majority of components do not require or include any Joomla files at all. They call Joomla API functions, but they generally do not use include or require, or perform any equivalent of copy/paste. Joomla includes the component's files.

Even then the logic is still the same. Whether the developer copies and pastes Joomla! code into his files, or he copies and pastes his code into Joomla! files the effect would be the same. A combined work is created.

Actually we have been talking quite often about GPL compliance as if others have to comply with the GPL license. This is true. However the reverse is also true, GPL software must comply with other's licenses. This is why proprietary software and GPL software cannot form combined works if any part of those combined works are distributed.

I have been watching the comments and debate about this concept. I know that a lot of times people consider those of us that prefer the GNU GPL to have already made up our minds. In cases that I have examined (such as the use of require/include in one direction or the other) I have made up my mind because their use is so obvious. I am examining the concept of a bridge and if it could work. If so under what circumstances. But I have not yet come to a conclusion. This is why I have not chimed in yet on this aspect of the discussion. For the time being I will listen to the arguments from all sides and after I have considered the issues I will comment with the pros and cons. Sorry, I know that's probably not the answer that you seek.

A non-GPL extension without any kind of bridge is not illegal - it is just that in Joomla's official opinion, it violates the GPL. In many other lawyers' opinions it doesn't. As far as I'm aware, no official Joomla opinion exists on the idea of an LGPL middle layer, so it is impossible to say whether they think that would also be a violation. I would venture to suggest that it is unlikely to be viewed as a violation though.


It would not exactly 'solve the problem' of 3PDs - in fact, it would create more problems and is not a very satisfactory solution (given that the Joomla API was specifically designed for the task, but now we're being asked not to use it unless we release our own code as GPL-compatible). But it would make it less likely that the 3PD would be viewed as in breach of the GPL (even if he wasn't in the first place).


Depends on how it is implemented, but it could probably be installed along with the component seamlessly to the end user.

Well that subject has been done to death so I won't comment on it any more except to say that not everyone shares your (or Joomla's) opinion on it. I was just correcting a technical inaccuracy in your previous statement about components using require or include.

Not a problem. Thanks for the clarification.

Dont excuse yourself!
It may not be the answer I seeked (even though I was covered by netshine's answer), but still it was an honest answer.

Thanks
the "Still puzzled" Koyan

There is a distinction you are missing here...

The issue isn't USING a program it is INCORPORATING it's code into your own work...
The Make command is LGPL if I'm not mistaken so even if you were incorporating it into your own work your example would be wrong but lets get to the real reason why this is an apple compared to the J! + Extention orange.

Make does not add code to the end result that was compiled with it. No code from the Make command is used in the compiled work to operate. Compile yes but execute no!
It is no different than say PHP. PHP also is a compiler. The programs compiled under PHP do not include any code of the compiler to execute. It simply passes data to that compiler and the compiler spits out the result. This is not the case with J! extentions (most anyway)
they pass data to J! but in most cases they use J! to format the data that is output. Use J! to get information from the database, Use J! to configure the extention...All of these tasks require the use of some J! code to make it happen. A COMBINED WORK!

I think people are getting confused between USE and EXECUTION...This issue is all about execution.
If Program A can execute without Program B then there is no combined work. SMF works without Joomla and Joomla works without SMF. Both are seperate works and are not a combined work. But if you use a bridge to have them share and use code from both that bridge IS a combined work. a combined work of both Joomla AND SMF. the Bridge must comply with the license for BOTH works. Which means it must be GPL compatible (which LGPL is...) for J! and must be compatible with the SMF license as well. It is the bridge that essentially combines the works not the use of SMF and Joomla together....since the Bridge is the combined work the only way SMF could be affected is if the bridge is licensed as GPL which if given the same interpretation as J! is now under would require SMF to be GPL...Which is why a Bridge should never be GPL...rather LGPL.

LGPL removes all license restrictions on works that use it. As long as the SMF bridge were LGPL it would be compatible with both licenses and be the only license affected by the J! GPL.