Joomla! Discussion Forums

In the specific case of OpenSEF, this will continue as at least one other developer has expressed an interest in taking it on.  More news on that shortly I hope.

That's one of the strengths of the GPL.  If a developer goes AWOL the code can be picked up by someone else so that support and development can continue.  Since OpenSEF is GPL this is entirely legitimate.

Regards,
Chris.

Really? Could you clarify that please Amy? I thought that end-users could install non-gpl code if they wish and that the license issues are the responsibility of the vendor/developer

Thanks.

I think we are saying the same thing.    Sorry if my word choice was confusing. 

End users can install software - GPL - and - proprietary - into their websites - and not infringe the GPL.

We agree? Thanks!
Amy

I'm not applying 'fault' here. It is certainly their decision that they are leaving. However my response about freedom, was not merely in response to things you have said. It has continued to be claimed that the Joomla! devs are taking away freedom by gently seeking compliance with the license that Joomla! has always been using.

Also a lot of the conversation has been that they should wait to make a decision. If they were to do so, then still conclude that extensions are derivative works, they would have to face similar complaints about having already made up their minds. So stating now that they have made up their minds, just what their decision is, was the best course for them and the community and those developers that have proprietary extensions. This will allow for all a reasonable, calm, and gentle time of transition. We see this possible because many developers are staying and asking honest questions about how to come into compliance.

Naturally the impact is recognized. And that is why they are dealing with it now. Imagine if they waited as requested. How long? Three months? Six months? A year? And then one of those that has contributed code either from another project or directly to Joomla! but who is not a Joomla! core team member realized her code was being used with proprietary extensions. This person has as much right to demand compliance as the core team. Hopefully they would be as gentle about it as the core team is being. But it is most beneficial now for the entire community, including the proprietary developers, and the users, that these things are handled now as graciously as the core team is doing.

Again it is why I state and others have as well, that one of the best things users can do at this point, is communicate with their vendors and let them know that they will purchase in the future, under a GPL model. Eventually many of the developers that have left will see not a whole lot has changed, there are still ways to make money with GPL software and it will be back to business. I think even some that have left will realize that compliance is not being forced with threats but sought gently (and it is) and they will realize that they have plenty of time to gradually come into compliance.

I understand your concerns about emotion, but my posts are not meant to be emotive. Merely to demonstrate that following the path that the Joomla! devs have taken offer choice for all of us. Choice for the users to prevent lock in. Choice for the proprietary devs to for the moment continue on, then learn how to come into compliance. Choice for the community to use a robust system. With GPL we have the choice to charge or not, the choice to alter the code or not or hire someone to, the choice to share our changes or not, the choice to run as we wish without restriction. While there are some users that are not really interested in these things, and that's ok, there are a great many of us that are.

Kind regards,
Joseph James Frantz

LOL! good to hear. I thought this issue through over the weekend and came to the conclusion that as long as the new gpl license interpretation mean that website developers/owners could install and run non-gpl without being in breach of gpl then there is a lot less for me to worry about!

My thinking is that there are two main issues:-

1. what to do with my live sites that use non-gpl extensions, and
2. what to do about creating new sites in the future.

My conclusion on both is the same.. "business as usual" in that I can download and install any extension even if its non-gpl. There may be an issue if the 3PD's stop development; but I think that means in the medium-term my clients will just have to pay a bit more for custom-development (website owners doing it themselves without tech skills have probably got more to worry about here)

Tell me if Ive got it wrong, but there are no short term issues for website owners other than the possible disruption caused by 3PD changing licenses, business models, etc...
..in which case, I'll just cross my fingers and get back to building websites!

Ciao.

For those interested in OpenSEF I have registered a new project, NuSEF, on the JoomlaCode website where you can download the latest version (which is just OpenSEF 2.0.0 RC5 SP2).

This is made possible by the fact that OpenSEF was licenced under the GNU GPL and will continue to be so.  This is an example of how the GPL protects the rights of users not to be held hostage by the action or inaction of a developer.

I hope that interested developers will join the project in the coming weeks and continue to support and maintain this project.

Link here: http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nusef/

Regards,
Chris.

smalcolm -

I am in 100% agreement with your comments.

There is one thing I would encourage you to add to your plan. Reassure the 3PD whose software you use that you are willing to continue to financial support their work if they license as GPL-compliant. They need to know that the community will support them.

I think you are correct and, have the right attitude - MUCH appreciated!
Amy

ROCK! Way to go! THANKS!
Amy

That's right.  This is the message that we have been trying to get across to all users.

The GPL is there to protect the rights of users.  Users can only be affected indirectly by the actions of third-party developers.  With proprietary software users are always vulnerable to being held hostage by developers.  There are risks and benefits to both paths but I know from personal experience the pain of the proprietary route.  That's one of the main reasons I started using open source software (long before Joomla!).

Regards,
Chris.

Awesome.  Thank you.

Wouldn't mind if you'd do that for OpenWiki too.

Thanks Chris.
Good move indeed.

I did the same for kowlong's kl_rssfeed last year as it was not working with the new utf8-aware Joomla! 1.0.9 

I have argued both sides of this issue (strict interpretation of GPL and for allowing 3PDs to continue their business model by licensing the J! API under LGPL.) I don't believe those two stances are in conflict as one is about the realities of the GPL and the other is in regards to dealing with those realities in a sensible way.

The latter would have in essence kept the status quo except it would open up the playing field and allow someone who owns a patented or proprietary technology to expose that technology to Joomla users.

As a user this is my only concern for the "release as GPL" model that is being suggested to come into compliance. If say IBM had a patented system for automatically translating web pages into specific languages, They would be unwilling to expose that technology for use in Joomla because they would not want to release it under the GPL and give away that patent to the world. We as users would lose out on a technology that just about everyone would love to have but never will because someone owns a patent and we have denied the use of a patented technology in J! unless the patent holder releases all rights it has under that patent. Sure they could get around that by providing a bridge to it but if we stand here and say we don't want any proprietary technology that we can't use and distribute as we see fit they simply will go someplace that they are wanted such as Mambo or some other yet to be developed CMS. even if they wanted to make the project free as in beer they would be denied the ability to release it without either loosing their IP or violating the GPL license of J!

It has been mentioned that one of the benefits of this new system is that if you buy a commercial GPL add on that you will be able to support yourself should the developer ever get bored or leave bugs that you need to fix. But the truth of the matter is most of the commercial NON-GPL add ons allow this already as the only restriction is you can't distribute the code once you have changed it. You can use the bought code as you see fit even if you see fit to add to it or incorporate it into your own custom work that is for your own private use. Windows is about as restrictive of a commerical license as you can get and I can change any windows files I want provided I do not re-distribute those files to anyone.

Whats more is it is uncertain what affect this will have on the support side of these add ons. there are a few scenarios that can happen here...

1 - the developer will write his add on release it as GPL and then say well thats done time to work on something else. since it will be assumed that you will support yourself why should they support the project any further since there is no money coming in to support that endeavor. Since the first sale could be your last your business will rely on having lazy clients who will not re-distribute the work or Lazy new clients who didn't know that somewhere someone probably has a free distribution of the same code somewhere or it will rely on making as many projects as possible and never stick with one for more than a single version.

2 - the developer could also inversly be INSPIRED to continue development but remove the SUPPORT system from their business model entirely. They write an initial version. Release it as Commercial GPL and whoever buys that version will have to repurchase any bug fixes, upgrades and new releases to get the new work. While the project will continue to function... as a user you could be forced to pay $100 for the same program some new user just got for $50. Early Adopters would be subsidizing future purchasers and pay 500 Times what a new user paid for the very same code by the time you got to version 25 of a $50 program.

3 - All Support will be moved to an extended warranty model where you buy the program with no support and if you need support you will have to pay a monthly, yearly or a timecarded fee. While those with technical experience will easily be able to avoid these charges most code unsavy users will be forced to pay.

another issue is if all extentions are GPL then what is to stop every GPL extention from going commercial? If you even make $10 off of it thats $10 more than you would have made serving free beer which most GPL programs are at this point. Now I don't really expect this to happen but it does have a potential to happen.

Now I point all this out but lets not get all Chicken Little here...
this does not mean the end of the world or the end of Joomla extentions.

For one...
This will be a boon to new developers who will be able to take these commercial offerrings and build on them to create even better extentions even if the original author decides to continue support for the original project. so the notion that there will be fewer extentions available for users is simply untrue. there will be plenty of extentions available but most will probably be derivative from some AT ONE TIME commercial offerring. Most likely there will be the same number of Free beer releases of original work as well so I don't see any real decline in available extentions. I have only ever used one commercial extention in all my time...Other's mileage may vary...LOL

Some developers may abandon J! in the short term but the truth is where will they go to? The situation is no different for them at drupal. You can still sell code all you want the only thing that has changed is they lose 100% control of it after the first sale. So I think they will find acceptable business models to continue to ply theiur trade.

As a user what is most important to me is that J! stay GPL. Cause if that were to ever change there would be no extentions at all!

With due respect but I have to disagree on this. You may change this to "This was necessary due to the fact that the original developer had no time to continue development as he has mouths to feed".
I have seen GPL components passed from one dev to another, being forked several times and can't see any improvement in those forks at all but only getting the apps worse and worse. However, in the opposite I can't think of one commercial/proprietary Joomla! software that (before this dispute) was simply discontinued due to lack of time or any other reason. You may tell me one as I may have missed that then.


This IMO is an inacceptable and intolerable statement. You are implying that developers of proprietary J! software are aiming on taking users hostage, that this is how they make their business? This - with all respect - is a darned cheek!
If we (commercial developers) would be out to make our living this way, how long do you think would we survive?

Again just my opinion and observation quite the contrary is happening: as a dev of proprietary J! software you will work hard to develop high quality software and work even harder and more to provide the best support to your customers, otherwise your 'out of the game' in a day.

While this may be offending to you Chris or other readers, it still is my opinion. Feel free to modify and/or delete as you wish.

Regards,

Bernhard

Actually we have faced this ourselves. I think perhaps different wording could have been used. I prefer the wording 'vendor lock in'.  While it is true that there is a lot of software released under the GNU GPL that is lacking quality, the same is true of proprietary software. I have listed multiple times issues we have with our proprietary software. The main point though that is being made is this, with proprietary software (that is compiled or encrypted or has license restrictions preventing change), I am unable to fix the problems. If we have two projects, one under a proprietary license and one under a GNU GPL license, and the developer does stop supporting it, well the GNU GPLed software offers us the ability to change it, or if we are users, then to hire someone to change it. And in this particular case mentioned, to provide those changes to others.

To clarify there is both poor quality and good quality FOSS and proprietary software.

Kind regards,
Joseph James Frantz

I understand the restriction on encryption I simply hate encrypted software but it wouldn't really be needed if someone could release source under a license that didn't give anyone who got it the right to ship it off to someone else without paying for it.

I don't think anyone has a problem not encrypting code if they weren't forced to also GPL that code giving anyone else distribution rights.
It would seem like using a wrench to drive a nail...
The GPL may have language that denies the developer from encrypting but it also gives users the right to distribute as many copies for free as they want for others to use...

If there was a third GPL-Limited which allowed you to change and use that code but could not distribute it I am sure most of the 3pds who currently encrypt would save themselves a step since they would have a legal means to enforce their non distribution GPL compatible license.

Asphyx,

I definitely understand where you are coming from. If all of the copyright holders that contributed to joomla! code agreed, then yes the LGPL would be an option. Since Joomla! uses other code, not just that by the core developers, and maybe even code from other projects (like drupal) ...at least that's what I have seen said, I cannot verify, then changing those parts to LGPL would be neigh on impossible.

Also a key point to remember about the LGPL is that anyone can convert that to GPL at a future date. The license allows it. However the GPL does not allow the reverse to take place.

My thinking is, that if the users here support their developers, then the trepidation that so many have about this model will go away.

Kind regards asphyx,
Joseph James Frantz

Well I'm not really all that upset about the decision of OSM and the Devs...They have to do what they think is in the best interests of J! and all who have created it...And they have every right to interpret their license in the manner they see fit. To me that was never in question.

My worry was that ideology came before the project which is why I got involved in these conversations at all...And I'm not specifically saying it shouldn't because it was the ideology that helped to make the project.

But the GPL has always seemed to me to do more to protect the ideology of FSF than to protect individual copyright holders.
And I agree with the ideology of free ideas being freely distributed, and freely changable but never at the expense of limiting proprietary ideas from being implemented. which GPL appears to do. It talks in big strokes about freedom and at the same time uses broad strokes to limit freedom for developers while extending it to the user.

The analogy I have used throughout this discussion is if IBM had some prorietary technology they had created serparate and apart from Joomla being denied the ability to give us users the freedom to use it because they can't legally implement it without either giving up the IP to what is essentially the public domain or getting dragged into court.
I understand the need to deny someone the ability to patent someone else's idea but that should not also over reach to deny them from implementing their own idea.

I always supported the ideology of OS and FSF/GPL because it allowed NEW ideas to be implemented into old. thats a boon to less experienced coders as they get a good base of ideas to work with. But it is totally unfair to the actual innovator who concieved the original code that everyone is basing projects on. IF the GPL didn't try to be all and end all of all ideas there would be that 3rd option where you could release a non-freely distributable idea that allows you (anyone) to build on. This would allow the innovators some market to sell their work while still embracing the spirit of free ideas without the free beer being lumped into the mix. Here you paid for my idea and now you can do what you want with that code provided it doesn't get re-distributed without my permission. Then the fair use would come into play as someone who added so mcuh extra to the original it could be considered a whole new work. They could partner and share the fruits of their labor and maybe even make more money together from a shared portal.

This is what I thought the GPL and FSF was all about. Many working together sharing ideas and making better software.
but it appears it really is all about economics and restricting commercial sales by putting into the GPL license a poison pill that while it allows you to sell product you hardly really own it since anyone can be their own distributor of your product and set their own price even give it all away.

a Blanket license can hardly be made to cover every situation and I understand the need for clarity but it is hard to be clear about a positon that can't be defined with clarity.

I really think that there needs to be a seperation of IDEA license and distribution license. One to dfine the proper uses of the code and another to define distribution. If GPL is supposed to be a free idea then you should be free to use those ideas without having to give away all distribution rights.

But you know who am I to say that would work? LOL
GPL has served the project pretty well over the years, hell there wouldn't even be a Joomla without it!
I just know there are a lot of good coders out there who may not ever provide their ideas to the J! project anymore and that would seem to me to be a shame.

But as I said somewhere else it hardly means the world is coming to an end. where one developer falls others will stand up and I think in the long run the project will be just fine!

I just think that with all the intelligence that posts around here that we might find some third option no one else has thought of.
Me I'm just happy when J! 1.5 is stable! LOL
I can write what I need when I need it and for the most part I don't find I need all that much that I need to go commercial for my features.

bjraines,



You do not need to wait till you have more experience with Joomla!  I assume that you already have excellent writing skills and  that can be very valuable in editing and proof-reading.  Some on the doc team do not write English as their first language, so their work may need editing/proof-reading.  As well, you can even learn "on the job".

Just visit the User Documentation forum to learn more how you can help!

Thanks for your interest! 

As a user of Joomla, I am very concerned about the impacts. We have several joomla sites with commercial extensions (it's a fact of life that a complex/specialized joomla website will use non-GPL extensions just like the Joomla site itself does).

Now, what should I do? I dont see good GPL alternatives to replace them and I dont have the time to do the replacements. I need the support of comercial developers for bug fixes and enhancements.

What I am really upset about is that Joomla had this rider that allows commercial extension. It is on that basis that we started to use Joomla and commercial extensions. One cannot simply change the agreement in the mid course and asks everyone to comply. I cannot do this to our customers. The same goes to commercial extension developers. It was on the basis of the rider clause/understanding they started commercial extensions were started. 

Can one apply new rule retrospectively to the existing Joomla releases and commercial extensions? I am not sure about this from a legal stand pint of view.

Personally, I think this shoudl only apply to release 1.5 so we know what we are getting into.

WD

wd888, have you asked the non-compliant 3PDs if they are going to change the license of their extensions?

Which extensions are you using and what the developers have replied to you?

WD,

Actually the rider never applied to pre 1.5 code. So the extensions that your developer created were always non-compliant. However, you can rest easy because you may continue to run the extensions without any difficulty. The GPL requirements apply to your developer, not to you. Unless you distribute Joomla and the components, which, if they are proprietary, you would be forbidden from doing anyhow.

I assume that you would pay for enhancements. If this is the case, simply reassure your vendor that you will pay for the enhancements when they are GPL compliant, just as well as you would had they been proprietary. The company I work for has done this, and paid for software enhancements that we wanted, and since it was to GPLed software, we turned those enhancements back to the community, via our vendor who created the original product and our enhancements.

Nothing really has changed for the vendor at all. Folks like you that are willing to pay for software, and folks like my employer, will continue to pay.

Hope that helps:)

Aoirthoir,
I think there is really only ONE concern that 3PD are worried about. How long do you think it will take before websites start to appear that sell ALL commercial extensions LEGALLY, for say $4.99. I can see it now 499joomlaextensions.com. Since anybody can resell anyone else's work, this can cause 3PD's to give up and close shop. Heck, they could even offer support. How many free sites will popup trying to run off of google ads?
 
  The main question is: Can 3PD's come up with a way to use a combination of licenses to somehow prevent this from being legal....

Goosemoose,

Since there is plenty of fine GPL software already, both related to Joomla! and not, the answer to their worry already exists. No such sites have sprung up around GPL software.

Next, copying of their proprietary software already exists as we know. Having a proprietary license has not prevented this. Nor have the developers that create proprietary extensions taken folks to court over this practice.

Assuming such a site did occur, the developer would most certainly not provide support to folks that purchased their software via these routes. Such sites would soon garner a poor reputation for selling at best half products. A product is not just the code or program but the fine service that many of the developers currently offer. They are under zero obligation to offer this service to folks that did not purchase their product from them, or purchase service agreements from them. In addition, as you can see from the many users that have posted here thus far, Joomla! extension developers have a loyal user base. Such users wouuld surely continue to purchase from developers. Users that are rude enough to use software that is proprietary in violation of the license, would have done so anyhow, and these are not the users we want of our programs.

http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,2524/Itemid,35/
[quote=∓quot;Chris Davenport"\]This is a "rescue" of the popular OpenSEF component which has since been abandoned by its developers.[/quote]

OpenSEF has not been abandoned (I checked with Marko). NuSEF is therefore not a "rescue", but a fork. Your comments about developers taking users hostage amount to nothing but a smear campaign against commercial developers, and do nothing to advance your cause.

Not only has the official stance been completely reversed, and overt threats been made to commercial developers (not in public of course), but now you are dancing on the graves of the people you are trying to put out of business. I'm saddened, not by the decision that was made (although I disagree with it, I'm not drastically affected by the fact that Joomla has changed its mind), but by the hypocrisy and lies that are being spread by people I once respected. You should be admitting that you made mistakes, that the official position is a reversal and has not always been the case, and allowing some latitude for the hurt feelings your actions have caused, not attacking innocent developers who trusted what you said (and did, eg. JED) before.

Reminder: Keep all commentary civil, and be courteous at all times. Constructive criticism is welcome, but insults directed towards other users or the site admins will not be tolerated.

Also, whilst I didn't like the terms "rescue" or "abandoned" either, keep in mind that OpenSEF was not a commercial product. All it cost me was the donation of a few beers as per the site donation button at the site.

Phil

I assume that was directed at me? Given that you have not censored my post, I also assume it remained within the boundaries of acceptability. In any case, my intention was not to insult, but to criticise.

OpenSEF was, and still is, GNU/GPL. NuSEF is a fork of OpenSEF, which, whilst perfectly legal (in licensing terms that is, even if it violates copyright law), in my opinion has been used as an 'example' unfairly - just because the author, who gave freely of his time and skills to produce it, disagrees with Joomla's new official opinion.

Hello

I fear that this topic could be the first step to the end of joomla. I've read all posts to this topic in this forum this morning (and they are quite a lot )  and I've read posts to this topic in other forums , where also former members of the core team posted their opinion.
I see the problem in the following way: As an example I use form components:
First Phil Taylor developed his Phil-A-Form then Arthur Konze comes out with AkoForms and after this two components the os development started. Today there are dozens of different extensions for this available. I think without the two commercial extensions in the beginnig, we wouldn't have these all today.
The next problem I see is the following:

When I build a website for a customer and I use Extensions under GPL the fiull warranty I have to take. I have to guarantee, that the system works. I have to guarantee that the extension will work with future releases. So  most times I decide to take commercial extensions: If something doesn't work, the developer has to fix ist, he must guarantee updates and so on.  The code of commercial extensions is in most cases much more better than in os alternatives.  

I don' sell extensions I only buy them - and I want to do that in future. If the Joomla License forbid selling extensions I have to stop working with joomla, but I don't want this - I love Joomla....

So please think once more if there are no way to change to lgpl...

Thanks for your clarification.
Yes, it was directed to you, and to future replies at your post.
Some words like "smear campaign" and "dancing on graves" could become a trigger for others... best to be so smart not to use such words.