GPL Questions Continued, Developer related

[marlar]

However (personal opinion) a Joomla site cannot display anything unless there is a template index.php (sticking to my 1.0.x example so as not to complicate things).

Oh no, you are very wrong here:

http://www.joomla.org/index2.php?option ... 0&Itemid=1

Delete the template and this link will work unaffected 

[marq]

Hello,

maybe this is a stupid question.... The GPL allows derived work to be put under any compatible license, not only the GPL. Let's assume someone or some group releases a 'CMS Framework' or something which wraps all or a some part of the Joomla API. Further assume that this framework is released under a different license which is compatible with the GPL - let's say zlibs's license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html). I took this one as an example because it is explicitly listed on the GPL FAQ site. Other examples are the X11 license, I believe... One difference between the GPL and zlib's license is that the latter explicitly allows its use in commercial applications.

So the framework is perfectly GPL compatible. Now let's further assume a commercial extension is exclusively using that framework to communicate with the Joomla API (it makes no direct calls) - wouldn't that mean that this extension is a derived work of the framework only, not of Joomla? Let's further assume that the author of the framework makes some real or not so real attempt to support other CMSs as well just in order to be able to claim that applications using the framework do not exclusively depend on Joomla.

Therefore, could the extension be released under a commercial license?

Again, just a stupid idea. I don't propose this in any way, BTW.  I just wondered what I would do if I would be a developer of commercial extensions (and no, I'm not such a developer, nor do I intend to ever become one) -  and I'm a bit curious as well.

Thanks for your thoughts,

  Christian.

[eyezberg]

Nant's point is the exact question all dev's of commercial non-GPL extensions should await an answer for.

If the answer is yes, that means: if you sell a non-GPL extension, the only ones that can go after you legally are OSM or the individual compyright holders. Which they do not intend to do,

We're not going to go after you, but we can't comment on any one else...
I can't speak for Joomla! but it serves us no interest to go to court over things.

(from posts above by sam moffat - pasamio) and also stated elsewhere. So basically that means, just keep going as before.
The only thing that might worry some is the unfinished statement about future intentions

Here's the plan: first, we clean our own house and bring the Joomla! sites into compliance.  Next, we ask people in the community to voluntarily comply with the license.  At the same time, we try to help people understand what it takes to comply and how they can do it easily.  We believe we're going to get a lot of compliance that way.

That's 1st, next, but what happens to those who still do not volantarily comply after that (those not included in "a lot"..)?!

If the answer is no, please explain...

[mattm]

Given that the Joomla! component is GPL, then extensions to the component will probably need to be GPL too.  Themes are a bit trickier as it depends on how they work.  Images, CSS and so on can be proprietary (because they're not "code").  It isn't possible to give a blanket answer.  We had to face the same issue with Joomla! templates as you know.

Regards,
Chris.
[/quote]

So in other words you can release Joomla with a template as a compiled works and release as commercial ?

or on the other hand change the images and html and css in joomla a realease as commercial ?

And i know this is protected by GPL and not allowed.

My concern is if i release a template as GPL. That my template will not become commercial just because the css and image files were changed.

what is the protection under GPL for someone licensing different? I believe this can also apply to extensions released under GPL.

The index.php holds the major contributions of what makes a template my 10 year old can change images and css.

The only solution i see is that all templates must carry two license's the one in the index.php for gpl and one outside the index.php possibly in the css file for the developers license.

now this is where it gets frustrating since the index.php is GPL anyone can copy modify and Distribute. simply by adding their own css and image files. they have created their own works and can release as commercial?

[Websmurf]

Hello,

maybe this is a stupid question.... The GPL allows derived work to be put under any compatible license, not only the GPL. Let's assume someone or some group releases a 'CMS Framework' or something which wraps all or a some part of the Joomla API. Further assume that this framework is released under a different license which is compatible with the GPL - let's say zlibs's license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html). I took this one as an example because it is explicitly listed on the GPL FAQ site. Other examples are the X11 license, I believe... One difference between the GPL and zlib's license is that the latter explicitly allows its use in commercial applications.

So the framework is perfectly GPL compatible. Now let's further assume a commercial extension is exclusively using that framework to communicate with the Joomla API (it makes no direct calls) - wouldn't that mean that this extension is a derived work of the framework only, not of Joomla? Let's further assume that the author of the framework makes some real or not so real attempt to support other CMSs as well just in order to be able to claim that applications using the framework do not exclusively depend on Joomla.

Therefore, could the extension be released under a commercial license?

Again, just a stupid idea. I don't propose this in any way, BTW.  I just wondered what I would do if I would be a developer of commercial extensions (and no, I'm not such a developer, nor do I intend to ever become one) -  and I'm a bit curious as well.

Thanks for your thoughts,

  Christian.

It's my opinion, that that's correct

[JoomlaChurch]

Thats not quite what the GPL says. You can distribute proprietary code alongside GPL code if they communicate at arms length and are deemed to be separate work.

Elpie, how can this be? i thought that the major reason given by core for wanting to make this GPL change was to prohibit persons or entities like IBM, Microsoft or even at a lower level some 3pd from hijaking the project and profiting from what the core has put together. In this case what is to keep me from taking Joomla! 1.0.12 packaging it up. Changing the name on the .zip file and charging for the download?

i guess the larger question is if the core is doing all of this to protect Joomla! as stated above then how does GPL do that? In the scenario I have given... For instance..

i am so mad at myself at even reading these posts.... I need to go get a life but this is like a car wreck that you slow down to catch a glimpse of.... of what? a dead body? Guess I better watch the analogy...


M.

[eyezberg]

1. there was no GPL change: J! was, is and will be GPL.. as stated by core
2. you don't have to rename the zip, you are allowed to charge for the code, as long as you make it clear it's the download you ask payment for..

[mic]

While i am reading all posts - since yesterday - this came up in my mind and i cannot find an answer for myself.
Maybe someone can do that for me?

The case:
i have an extension in front of me.
The reason why i have to look inside is that it has some/many bugs (like nearly 60% of all extensions [paid/free]) and i got no or not a correct answer back from the developer.

It was released many months ago under the GNU/GPL - and it depends and works only on/with Joomla.

Now i must see that the license has changed - by the same author it was released initially - to something other (not GPL compliant).

If i now fix the bugs, the extension does what it should i cannot release it because the 'new' license is not allowing me this.
But (!) if i would act after the initial license model which was GNU/GPL i would have no problems in publishing it.

What in a case like this?

[marlar]

I would say that if the specific copy you bugfixed is GPL, then you can distribute the modified version without problems. However, you cannot download the new non-GPL version, modify that and distribute it.

[Websmurf]

Mic,

I know you are talking about YaNC in this situation.
You are more than welcome to take the last GPL release of YaNC (1.4 Rc1) and make your own product out of it.

YaNC 1.5. however has been rebuild from scratch, and you cannot use ANY of the code in it other than to make modifications for your own or your clients use. You cannot create a new product based on that.

[JoomlaChurch]

1. there was no GPL change: J! was, is and will be GPL.. as stated by core
2. you don't have to rename the zip, you are allowed to charge for the code, as long as you make it clear it's the download you ask payment for..

Forgive me on the GPL change comment i meant to say enforcement change...

So 90% of my clients dont know Joomla from a hole in the ground. I could literally charge them the going rate for a CMS of 10k USD or so for the "download" which is semantics because these people never see the files during installation anyway. I could change all of the logos and wording in the files to fall under some other name and this would all be OK?

So I ask my question again... how does this protect the project? GPL doesnt really protect it does it?

[Chris Davenport]

1. there was no GPL change: J! was, is and will be GPL.. as stated by core
2. you don't have to rename the zip, you are allowed to charge for the code, as long as you make it clear it's the download you ask payment for..

Forgive me on the GPL change comment i meant to say enforcement change...

So 90% of my clients dont know Joomla from a hole in the ground. I could literally charge them the going rate for a CMS of 10k USD or so for the "download" which is semantics because these people never see the files during installation anyway. I could change all of the logos and wording in the files to fall under some other name and this would all be OK?

So I ask my question again... how does this protect the project? GPL doesnt really protect it does it?

If your clients are willing to pay 10K USD then go for it.  The only thing you can't change is the copyright notices in the code.

The GPL gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute Joomla! with the restriction that if you distribute it (to your customers in this instance) you must give them the same rights.  So your customers could take the copy of Joomla! that you gave them and copy, modify and distribute it, provided they give their downstream users the same freedoms that were given to them (by you).  Most customers just want a website; they're not interested in distributing Joomla! modifed or not.  So if 10K USD is the going rate then everybody's happy.

How does this protect the project?  It does so by guaranteeing that no-one can take away these freedoms and make the code proprietary.  By keeping Joomla! open and free everyone has a chance to make money (if that's what they want) by adding value.  You add value by installing, modifying, maintaining and supporting your customers' websites.  That's really what they're paying for.  So everybody wins.

Regards,
Chris.

[XHTMLSuite]

I could change all of the logos and wording in the files to fall under some other name and this would all be OK?

So I ask my question again... how does this protect the project? GPL doesnt really protect it does it?

This is exactly the right GPL grants you. However GPL is not intended to protect a certain project but to ensure that the source code of a project that was released under GPL license has to remain open and is released under the same terms as you have received it, namely GPL.

In short: Yes, you can copy Joomla!, rename it to whatever you want, change the gfx and release it under another name (this is what commonly is known a fork i guess) and you can charge people for a download or giving the software away stored on a data medium and/or charge for installation but you cannot sell the code.

Bernhard

[JoomlaChurch]

you cannot sell the code.

Bernhard

Semantics no?

[mic]

Mic,

I know you are talking about YaNC in this situation.
You are more than welcome to take the last GPL release of YaNC (1.4 Rc1) and make your own product out of it.

YaNC 1.5. however has been rebuild from scratch, and you cannot use ANY of the code in it other than to make modifications for your own or your clients use. You cannot create a new product based on that.

No - not really and only your product (i did not wanted to advertise your product).
If- i meant you product, i would state this here (or somewhere else).

But, when we are talking about one of your products which has some/many bugs in it - therefore not really useable.
If those bugs where fixed, added some enhancements and sent you the new files as whole release to prevent that case that it will be called a 'derivat' .. and got no reply ... what will you call this?

Again, it is not my intention - as i have not the time and the will to do - to make a new product as a copy of one of yours.

And - finally - i dont want to compare the older release with the actual 1.5.
But i know the code since this component was released the first time - and saying ' ... from the scratch ... ' is good ....
This would be similar to say, Joomla 1.x was build up from the scratch ...

Sorry for that Adam.

[XHTMLSuite]

you cannot sell the code.

Bernhard

Semantics no?

When saying you cannot sell the code I am referring to intellectual property and copyright. You can sell your service based on the code (providing downloads, verbatim copies, support, installation, etc.) but again, not the code.

Even simpler: "You cannot sell what you don't own".

Edited: added explanation.

[mic]

I would say that if the specific copy you bugfixed is GPL, then you can distribute the modified version without problems. However, you cannot download the new non-GPL version, modify that and distribute it.

No i ment code/scripts which were before under GPL and are now under the new license.
As i can remember, i have read somewhere that the copyright holder is allowed to change 'his' license / license of the component.

But as we have to seen (now) - and which was clear the whole time since Joomla was published - extensions which are depending on the J-Core may not (or are not allowed) to be published under another license then GPL.

The coypright holder of this extension/component (and i do not mean a component of Adam or himself) but did exactly this to sell this 'new' product and to avoid any fork/derivats.

I have only fixed code which was orginally/former under GPL. The downloaded 'product' (now under commercial license) is the same as it was under the GPL.

[Chris Davenport]

I would say that if the specific copy you bugfixed is GPL, then you can distribute the modified version without problems. However, you cannot download the new non-GPL version, modify that and distribute it.

No i ment code/scripts which were before under GPL and are now under the new license.
As i can remember, i have read somewhere that the copyright holder is allowed to change 'his' license / license of the component.

But as we have to seen (now) - and which was clear the whole time since Joomla was published - extensions which are depending on the J-Core may not (or are not allowed) to be published under another license then GPL.

The coypright holder of this extension/component (and i do not mean a component of Adam or himself) but did exactly this to sell this 'new' product and to avoid any fork/derivats.

I have only fixed code which was orginally/former under GPL. The downloaded 'product' (now under commercial license) is the same as it was under the GPL.

As long as your copy was made available to you under the GPL it doesn't matter that the developer released an identical copy to someone else under a different license.

Regards,
Chris.

[marlar]

@Chris:

May I kindly point your attention to my post a few pages ago:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg864126

You have probably overlooked it, things run fast here afterall 

I would like a reply since I seriously mean that the distinction between templates and other extensions are inherently wrong. My post gives a good example.

A perhaps even better example is here:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg864181

[user deleted]

Moderator note; topic removed from Phil Taylor. Reason; this thread is for questions concerning the GPL announcement. No reason to start a list here for JED records that get removed from the JED site, which is off topic.

[Chris Davenport]

@marlar:

Sorry, I thought I had answered your original question.  You disagreed with my answer which is your prerogative, but my answer has not changed and was based on legal advice given to us by SFLC lawyers.  If you intend to base a business on your opinion then I strongly recommend that you consult an appropriate lawyer before doing so.

Chris,

[Shamele]

I found this on the link from a law office: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm

I think it makes it pretty clear, at least in their opinion, that extensions do not need to be distributed under GPL.  Once again, the ultimate determination would need to be made by a judge as we can only get advice from lawyers.

[Chris Davenport]

I found this on the link from a law office: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm

I think it makes it pretty clear, at least in their opinion, that extensions do not need to be distributed under GPL.  Once again, the ultimate determination would need to be made by a judge as we can only get advice from lawyers.

I haven't read this one in detail, but the trouble with most of these documents is that they are implicitly referring to compiled languages.  The situation with interpreted languages like PHP is different.  But you're right about ultimate determination.

Regards,
Chris.

[PhilTaylor-Prazgod]

Moderator note; topic removed from Phil Taylor. Reason; this thread is for questions concerning the GPL announcement. No reason to start a list here for JED records that get removed from the JED site, which is off topic.

However it is of interest for users and developers alike: See: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181336.0.html

And now I see you have also removed the JED Listing for the SMF Bridge.

[Shamele]

I haven't read this one in detail, but the trouble with most of these documents is that they are implicitly referring to compiled languages.  The situation with interpreted languages like PHP is different.  But you're right about ultimate determination.

Regards,
Chris.

True, but this one was about programs regardless of the programming language and what constitutes a derivative work. In this case, an extension is not a derivative work, at least by these lawyers' standards.

So unfortunately, the confusion continues.

[LorenzoG]

And now I see you have also removed the JED Listing for the SMF Bridge.

Yes, we have removed the JED listing for SMF Bridge since the developer has done the extension unavailable for download. It's a standard procedure that we don't list extensions that aren't available, not only now, it's something we always have done.

Edit: added the word "unavailable"

[user deleted]

Moderator note; topic removed from Phil Taylor. Reason; this thread is for questions concerning the GPL announcement. No reason to start a list here for JED records that get removed from the JED site, which is off topic.

However it is of interest for users and developers alike: See: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181336.0.html

And now I see you have also removed the JED Listing for the SMF Bridge.

I can see your point Phil, but I hope you can see ours too. We would like to keep this thread clean, and about the GPL. All users a free to start a new topic on the forum to list all these JED listings. That will keep this thread on topic.

So let's say... back on topic!

[HarryB]

Joomla! 1.5 has a new feature that one assumes will be taken advantage of by template developers and will be packaged and distributed as part of the template.

I'm referring to the ability to override the default layout and styling of the raw output produced by the Joomla! core.  For example, one can now write custom code that among other things,  overrides the classic Joomla! component table-based layouts with div-based layouts. I believe the same can be done for modules too. Both templates (Beez and Rhuk Milkyway) contained in the Joomla! 1.5 Beta 2 distributions include and install files containing code that takes advantage of this feature.

For the index.php file, there is one school of thought that says the index.php does not have to be GPL because one can simply remove the Joomla! template-related APIs and replace them with APIs for other CMS, or HTMl, or whatever.  Personally, I really do not know enough about the subtleties of the GPL and the law to make an informed decision about this.

However, I do believe the override files are much more dependent of the Joomla! 1.5 APIs and core functions, so perhaps the same rationale may not apply here.

So my question is simply this: "Must the files containing the override logic source code be distributed as GPL?"


thanks...and please no replies that recommend I talk with a lawyer about this 

[bobbio2007]

Talking about templates being exempt from having to be released under GPL I understand that this also applies to a WYSIWYG editor that can exist outside of Joomla! (stand-alone) and thus has to be considered as a separate work, allowing me to license it under whatever license I want to.

Is this correct?

If so, then the only thing I have to release under GPL would have to be

a) the Mambot/Plugin

and (if available)

b) the component that let's the user configure the editor through?

Please, no answers like "ask your lawyer".

(Mod edit: quote of attack against community member was edited from this post - MMMedia)

Thanks!

Bernhard

Edited: Removed my comment to quote of jcracknell - didn't mean to offend, just found the wording funny.

That is my understanding of it. You only have to release what is dependent on Joomla under the GPL and that is it. That is what a derivative is.

My suggestion to you would be to start re-organizing the structure of your editor. Maybe you will have to make more files and create some class files to split out your work from what Joomla is claiming as their's. Then release each individual file under either GPL or non-GPL, and yes you can do this.

Joomla can in no way claim your images, css, html markup, javascript etc. as being under GPL because they are all stand alone items, only the code that pertains to Joomla can be claimed under GPL.

It's a messy way of doing it, but unfortunately Joomla brought on a mess.

On another note. Your extensions are awesome! I know you are being affected by this. Please do what you can to stay with Joomla. I am a happy customer of yours and had no problem paying for your products. You truly get what you pay for!

[Shamele]

WOW! Awesome find! So what country is this trial gonna take place in? Till it is decided in a court of law I guess it is business as usual! Yipppeeee!!!

So... who wants to be sued first? 

Unfortunately, that's just the nature of doing business. Why do you think large companies have a team of lawyers? And even with a team of lawyers, companies have lost copyright cases. Nothing anyone does can ensure that they won't get sued and no one knows for sure what the outcome of the case will be.