Joomla! Discussion Forums

Out of the box?

No!

With some modifications that the ordinary end user cannot do?

Yes.

Well then, both answers applies equally well to content mambots.

You don't even have to resort to hypothetical examples:

1. About a year ago I, as a courtesy to a user, modified my MosHide mambot to work outside Joomla. I did this free of charge because it was a trivial matter for me.

2. This afternoon I just for fun modified my popular Multithumb gallery mambot so that it now works outside Joomla. It just needs PHP, that's all. It took less than half an hour.

So you still believe that extensions inherently are derivative work of Joomla?

I agree with you regarding the mambot examples you have given.

But you have to agree that there will be some extensions that need to be within Joomla! to operate?

It is the very point that it interfaces with Joomla! and makes changes to it, and alters items.

Templates don't actually alter anything.  They can stand alone.  Now the part of a template that could not be considered stand alone is a Joomla! specific index.php.  But that doesn't really matter because it is pretty much held to be a belief that HTML cannot be be copyrighted. 

Sure, but that doesn't matter. What matters is if the extension is created using a significant amount of code from another GPL program to constitute a derivative work. For example, if you make a proprietary program that only runs on Linux (GPL), do you have to release your code under GPL if you distribute it? I don't think so, even though you NEED Linux to run it.

It seems to me this decision means "code using the Joomla! framework must be GPL". Example: index.php must be GPL; images and CSS does not.

So how can developers encourage users to pay for their code AND keep their code proprietary?

1. They could build a bridge that is GPL compliant and use this with their components.
2. They could create their component with no "view". And charge for the different views (html, css, images- the frontend so-to-speak).
3. Similar to #1, they could re-create, in their addon, the main parts of the Joomla framework needed (CRUD - create database and info, read database info, update database and info, and delete database and info). You would still need some type of GPL bridge.

I like that this decision makes it harder for developers to encrypt their programs (i hate purchasing addons and not being able to modify them). But things can stay the same for the most part. Proprietary developers will just have (a little or alot) more work to do.

But this could do well as good developers can make their addons CMS-ambivalent and release for other CMS' (like Drupal or MODx). The newbies could still have the Joomla framework to learn on (Joomla taught me PHP) but must release their addons GPL.

So: This decision means if you use the Joomla framework, your addon must be GPL. Is this right?

Chuck

PS - Wouldn't this affect WYSIWYG editors as well since they use the Joomla framework?

There are *some* extensions that need to be within Joomla to operate.

Almost anything that doesn't play off Joomla's content structure would be an exception to this rule.  I really can't think of anything besides mambots that *aren't* an exception to the rule.

I recently had a programmer write a component for a series of clients of a particular industry.  The component's main function is to pull information from an external database into the content area of Joomla, and display it properly within the template.  To make it easy on the end-users, of course configuration happens in the Joomla Admin control panel.  This to me is not a derivative work, even if there are *several* configuration and admin screens in the administrator control panel.  We're not talking about deriving and improving upon Joomla code, but rather on making our own admin screens show up where all the user's other admin screens are.

Another example, a programmer writes an extension that formats DHTML menus within Joomla. 90% of this code is the manipulation and display of the DHTML styles, using an ajax or php interface via the Joomla admin.  The other 10% is how it interacts with Joomla's mainmenu module so the user doesn't have to create menus from scratch.

To me only that 10% is subject to the GPL (and even there I am fuzzy on what constitutes "derivative" when the intent is simply to integrate a standalone dhtml code and apply it to Joomla programming).

And finally, it doesn't matter if this is ajax or PHP... where people have said "encode the AJAX part".  I could be writing it in PHP, I just used the ajax example to prove not a speck of code needed to be shared by Joomla's core files and the component.

To me, there are more exceptions than rule.  In my opinion only extensions that are derivative of current Joomla "stock" components, modules, and mambots are going to fall under the new strict interpretation of the GPL.

For example: I write fresh PHP that displays content from my Joomla database in a different pleasing format from the original com_frontpage... that's an "exception" to this rule.  My extension is php code that displays information from a MySQL database with HTML and CSS styles.  It can be used anywhere, with any MySQL database.  The only question is whether or not the interface is showing up in a Joomla admin screen. There's nothing Joomla-derivative about that.  It's almost like a wrapper without the unappealing iframe.

If I use the code from com_frontpage as a guide for my new component and simply revise it, THAT is derivative.

(I want to stress that these opinions are my own interpretation of licenses, law, and programming in my own limited experience in those fields... not meant to be contradictory, inflammatory, etc... just my view)


Shamele posted while I was writing this lonnnnnnnng thing and said everything I did except in a few lines.  How does that happen? LOL.

Certainly! But only some. And there are templates so advanced (for example, with built-in menus) that they cannot in any sensible way work outside Joomla.

But then my point is: if it true that for example most content mambots (and to only a little lesser degree, modules) can easily be separated from Joomla and do the same, why are they not by default excepted from the GPL compliancy?

When writing this I remember that my very first module for Mambo actually was porting another script by taking the Hello World example and insert a few PHP includes. I didn't know a thing of what I was doing (the joomla part), but it worked nonetheless! So how can inserting a couple of PHP includes in a dummy file suddenly make the script a derivative of Joomla.

Makes no sense to me 

Need to sleep - will be away for a while even though I find this thread extremely interesting.

I have been reading and writing about the GPL enforcement for so many hours now that I can't believe it! Better get myself a life 

Good night to everyone. You all do a great job. No doubt about that.

[Edited the grammar]

I thought this posting about PHP's license was very interesting and I think everyone should read it:

http://www.php.net/license/

PHP, the language that Joomla uses, specifically removed GPL when they moved  to PHP 4 because:

"GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as popular as possible."

Joomla, this is what everyone is trying to tell you. Restricting and trying to enforce your opinions on everyone is going to hurt your project and make it less and less popular by the day. The developers who created PHP understood this a long time ago.

Great find!!! One of the most important posts I saw today. Sadly I am to tired to comment it more.

Thank you.

[Heck - must sleep now!!!]

Joomla! has always been GPL and the new "changes" are more a reiteration than anything else. I can completely understand what you are saying but that is a matter of opinion (referring to)


Maybe I just live in a dozey world were everything is fine and dandy which is most likely true

On another note, I loved the following quote from the link you sent

I saw that quote too, I have no clue why it's in there, but the rest of it is valid.

As to your comment that Joomla has always been GPL I understand that and so does everyone else. The point we have been making for days was it was never enforced. For those of you who don't know when you submit an extension to Joomla's site it goes through an approval process by the Joomla core team. Once it's approved it's in their extension listing. For a team of developer's claiming that they have always been GPL can you tell me why these extensions were approved by you if they were in violation of the GPL??

By you approving extensions that were in violation of the GPL you have also forfeited the right of claiming the GPL because you have not stuck to the part where it states that derivatives must abide by the GPL license. You Joomla, approved extensions that were non-GPL.

Claiming the GPL as your license on day one doesn't hold any value because you, in many cases, did not stick to it. Because of this it is making this whole situation very laughable, but I am afraid that the developer's are not laughing.

Please also note that yes, PHP's comments on GPL are opinions but they are very valued ones with many years of wisdom behind them. They went away from GPL because their experience told them there was a better plan. It's an opinion yes, but it's also a good business practice that they took to help push their language. And yes, it worked!

Just a quick note.  It is clear that more information is needed regarding the "template" issue.  So instead of more comment on it how about we do this.  I am going to write up a text trying to explain the decision and how we came to it.  I'll do the best I can.  I plan to post it some time tomorrow as I need some time away from this computer I have been tethered to.  So lets calm that one down until at least those who are confused can read what I have to say.  Underhanded jabs at Andy because he runs a template club commercially are not productive either.  I bet if I wanted to contrive some sort of underhanded jab at each and every one of you I could likely find a shred of truth to expound on to make it sound legitimate.  Let that rest, its childish and immoral if not unethical in and of itself.

Quit acting like enemy combatants and start acting like a community and we will find solutions faster.

Louis

Sounds like a good plan Louis.

Hopefully this will include a direct answer on index.php. GPL or NOT. From the readings on this forum it is implied that it is.
Now is it to my benefit to release a template under GPL. I think not when i do have the option to release it as any other licence. And if I do release under GPL.  The original Index.php can stay the same and someone changes css and images and poof they are allowed to license this template with my existing code whichever way they want?

This is what needs to be cleared up. Because if you state index.php is GPL and needs to be released as such but because of css and images it can be released as any license anyone chooses.

Instantly 1000 of free gnu/gpl templates can now be used and redistributed as another license just by changing the css and images.

and believe me most of the older templates don't have extensive css files.

And nothing here has stated why the license of a template being commercial resides in the index.php when it supposed to be GNU/GPL.

Please answer this question I dont care if other people use my templates as longas its passed on as intended and not put up for sale somewhere. with a restricted license

That will probably be enough to demonstrate your editor is not a derived work, I would still advice you to seek legal counsel though as I'm not a laywer. But based on my interpretation if you can show that your editor can run-standalone you can indeed easily argue it's a none-derivative work.

This is a correct interpretation of the announcement and license FAQ's we have provided.

This is a very good question and one I don't have any answers for. I will try to get guidance on this question from the SFLC and get back to you.

Here's the answer for commercial programmers:

Just develop a library of generic functions that don't require Joomla to operate. Then encrypt your library. Those functions become the basis for your commercial work, without which your extension won't function. You can use this library for other CMS's, too...since it's a library of generic functions, it doesn't have to be use only within Joomla. It's non-GPL code that can be used in any GPL project.

Then just require the library into whatever GPL'ed PHP files that might be necessary. Like mod_myModule.php is necessary for every module to work. That would be GPL according to Joomla. But the library of generic function calls is not GPL. Those are proprietary code that protects your development time. Obfuscate and encrypt to your heart's content, because there's no way the Joomla GPL can touch a function library developed to be generic.

Easy.

If you think your functions would be too easy to duplicate, then put other, trivial functions into your function library. Like a function that does string replacement. Just call it something else obscure and put it into your function library. You absolutely have the right to do so. Call it something bizarre that doesn't give anyone purusing the open source parts of your code a clue about what your functions actually do. There's nothing in the GPL that says your code has to be clear, just open.

Lock the function library to a particular domain as copies are sold, and invite users to pass around and modify the open source parts of your code, in congruence with the GPL. Once the open source part of your code is run, it checks for the presence of the library. If it's not found, then your GPL code pops up a message inviting users to purchase your module.

So, the emphasis on free distribution in the GPL can be turned into an advertising channel for your extension, which won't work without your proprietary library. This lets the GPL go to work advertising your commercial components.

Budda boom, back in business, total compliance with the license. Everyone's happy.

Roger

Charging for offering downloads of GPL code is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged. However in case of the Joomla! core code why would anyone want to buy it from you if they can download it for free on the Joomla! site ?

In my previous post, I argued that commercial developers need only develop a library of generic functions to defeat the GPL. This library is required by GPL'ed PHP Joomla files. The library itself would be encrypted and locked the functioning of the library to a particular domain or IP address. If the library finds that it's functioning on a domain other than the domain on which it was licensed, then it pops up an add to buy the module. This allows the GPL to be turned into advertising for developers who want to use open source as a distribution channel for their commercial works.

But there's an even better solution...instead of popping up an add to buy, just allow your proprietary function library to provide a crippled functionality to the extension, one where certain functions are turned off.

So as people pass around the source code, as the GPL encourages them to do, they're really passing around crippled copies of your works that entice the public to buy.

CONCLUSION: The GPL is really just a new advertising channel for commercial developers.

Roger

Just to clarify a couple of points:

First, a person is definitely able to copyright html and css code. Anything, once placed in fixed media, is immediately copyrighted. This includes but is not limited to text, video, and audio in many formats, such as print, computer media and so on. It does however not include short statements, sentences, words, recipes or lists. Thus a full html file would be copyright-able. But this would not be: Hello World!.

Next, it's not been stated on this thread, but was on the other, not placing a copyright notice on your work, does not cause it to enter into the public domain. Still it is best practice to include such notices. In fact they are required with GPLed software. Most especially if you are using another's GPLed software you must retain their copyright notices, and add your own for changes you have made.

The issue with templates has been well stated and frankly is no different from extensions, even though it has been stated it is different. Why is it not different? The statement from the core developers is that the code part of a template in their opinion must be GPLed. This is the same requirement placed upon extensions. So in that respect there is absolutely no difference.

Now, if your extension also includes graphics, well the code part of the extension must be GPLed, however the images distributed with your extension are not GPLed. This is exactly the same case with a template. The code part is to be GPLed, the images are not. Why? Well, the GPL is a software license and should not be applied to other works such as images or software manuals. The image is not a derivative of the code. If you prefer, use the GNU FDL license for these kinds of works.

The JS and CSS are another issue. It depends entirely on whether you are using already existing JS or CSS or you write such from scratch. If you used someone else's JS or CSS, and their JS or CSS file was GPLed, then certainly your JS or CSS code must also be GPLed. However if you scrapped their JS or CSS entirely and wrote your own, then you may apply whatever license you wish.

All of these statements are on the statement from the core developers. So again to clarify, the CODE part of your extension OR template must be GPLed. Other parts of your extension or template (images, flash, so on) must follow the license of the provider of those parts, be it yours or another's. (Proprietary, GNU FDL, Creative Commons, Public Domain...)

Thus making statements that there is a conflict of interest on the part of core members that also distribute templates for a living, is in the least completely unhelpful. The requirement for templates is really no different than the requirement for extensions (code = GPLed, images etc not). So there is clearly absolutely no hidden agenda here on the part of core members. If there were they would have said just the opposite. Template CODE = non-gpled. But that is not what they said is it? So I hope we can lay to rest the accusations of a double standard being applied here.

-----
Again to clarify because the terminology keeps getting confused...

Proprietary Code (or more specifically GNU GPL-incompatible licensed software), whether given away without monetary renumeration (free) or charged for (Commercial) is a violation of the GNU GPL. It is not the act of charging for the software that is a violation. We have several cases then:

1. GNU GPL-incompatible w/o renumeration (a violation)
2. GNU GPL-incompatbile w/renumeration (a violation)
3. GNU GPL-compatible w/o renumeration (allowed)
4. GNU GPL-compatible w/renumeration (allowed)

Of these 1 and 2 are *typically* (not always) proprietary while 3 and 4 are FOSS. It should be noted that both 1 and 2 are a violation of the GNU GPL regardless of the monetary cost or lack thereof. The GNU GPL allows for both cases of 3 and 4. 4, like 2, is commercial. However, unlike 2, 4 respects the GNU GPL.

I state all of this because there is continued talk of what 'commercial developers' need to do in order to get around the GPL requirements of Joomla! However, commercial developers need to do nothing to get around the license. The only developers that need to play tricks to get around the license are proprietary developers, whether they are proprietary commercial developers or proprietary free (beer) developers.

Thanks kindly and best regards,
Joseph James Frantz

Next I would like to tackle the sudden change claims.

The license has not changed at all. I think that has been clarified over and again. It is true that the developers may not have spent time up to this point seeking compliance. However, as I understand from the many posts, the code is not merely 'joomla' code. Parts are? borrowed from other projects, some of them CMSes. This is the nature of GPLed software. Along the line, any of the upstream can seek compliance. This is not merely an issue of the Joomla! devs seeking compliance. Technically anyone that has created code that has been incorporated into Joomla! is in a sense a Joomla! dev. (Please note I said in a sense, even if they are not working with the project in any way.) Since their code is GPLed, Joomla! has to be GPL-compatible to use it. Any of them along the line could seek compliance.

This is why many pages ago on the other thread it was recommended that persons seeking to use non-compliant licenses seek legal counsel before so doing. Without any recommendation from the Joomla! developers this is just plain business sense. When the rider was finally put forth so I could read it, one of the questions I asked, was whether it had been approved by all of those that had contributed code to the Joomla! project. All of the upstream. This is exactly what I would have asked if I were creating a proprietary extension. It is why I stated that I would not use any GPLed software if I wanted to create proprietary software, due to the fact that it leaves me on very shaky ground. Businesses wishing to do so should have asked these very same questions. Had they done so, the issues now faced would not exist. I believe the onus is on me to follow proper business procedures. Verify everything, make sure.

Why? Because it is not just the core devs that own copyrights, and can seek compliance.

Moving forward, the very best advice has been offered by the developers and complained about from a few. Get a lawyer. This is just plain business sense. Honestly, even if you are going to be GPL-compatible, you should seek a lawyers advice. Before we release any of our code, we will be consulting with a lawyer. This was our plan before this thread ever came to our attention. It should be standard business practice.

Now plenty of example questions are being asked with many what ifs... Personally I do not feel it is the developers responsibility to cover as many examples as can be thought up. In particular live examples certainly have a bearing. Your best bet in most cases is to release your code GPL-compatible. If your intention is not to do so, again, seek a lawyers advice. Specifically if you are heck-bent on releasing it in such a manner, why inundate the developers with questions that will not sway your decision regardless of their answer? So then as these questions are asked, we should understand that it is in no way a cop out for the devs to suggest we seek legal guidance. They should not have to attempt to answer every possible situation we can devise.

About compliance seeking....degrees...

It is impossible to set an arbitrary level of depths that this must go. Only the component creator can seek compliance since the sub component is a derivative of their code? Well if the component is a derivative of Joomla! then the sub component is by extension also a derivative. Certainly if we were talking about the Core of Joomla! itself being changed, by A, then B changed the file that A changed in the core, B's changes of A's changes are still using the code that Joomla! devs created. So Joomla! could easily seek compliance from B if they tried to make the code non-compliant. The same is exactly true of extensions. Now, if you think this is not true, then before you attempt to make a sub-component of a GPL component of Joomla! non-compliant, please seek legal counsel.

Thanks Kindly and Best Regards,
Joseph James Frantz

EDITED: s/if we were not talking/if we were talking

Sam,

I've dug a LOT of what you said. So please understand I am not stating this for mere disagreement sake, quoting:



The GNU GPL says:



and



These are just a couple of quotes. Forbidding re-distribution to third parties is forbidden because it imposes further restrictions. In fact it specifically forbids that which the GPL is created to ensure.

Thanks kindly and best regards,
Joseph James Frantz

If you are in business, any business, you will at times need to get legal advice. We can have an interesting discussion and talk about all kinds of hypotheticals, but in the end we all have to understand two things:

1. Not all lawyers are going to have the same interpretations or opinions. If everyone agreed all the time about what laws, regulations, contracts etc. mean, we in the US  wouldn't have a civil court system.

2. Lawyers represent the interests of their clients. If you want a lawyer to think about your interests and how best to protect them you need to have your own lawyer. Although a lawyer representing someone else may tell you his or her opinion on the issue in dispute, that opinion will always be presented in such a way that it supports the best interests of the client, not your interests.

In no way should someone who has financial or other investments in this (or any) issue look for definitive answers to legal questions in a forum, on a faq or for from conversations with their neighbors. Even consulting with a lawyer is not going to give you a definitive answer to most questions, but rather that lawyer's educated opinion on the issue.

In no way should someone who feels they have a dispute with the Core Team/OSM rely on the legal advice given by the lawyers who represent the Core Team/OSM. By all means, read what the Core Team says about what SFLC has said to them because it may make you realize that you have no dispute or it may help you understand what it is the dispute is really about. But do not expect them to provide you with legal advice that represents your specific interests in your specific set of circumstances.

Part of what is happening here is that people are realizing that if there is going to be a mature commercial environment surrounding Joomla! 1.5 everyone, third party developers and Joomla! core, need to take care of business in a more serious, businesslike way. That means getting legal advice, working with accounting professionals and so on. This means not flying by the seat of your pants or making decisions based on what you see in a forum or your own interpretation of laws or contracts.

This should probably be in the dev discussion thread but this is something that a lot of people get hung up on so I am going to respond.  If you do a bit of research on Redhat you will find that that they use trademark and contract law to achieve exactly this.  Furthermore, the Redhat system has been approved by the Free Software Foundation.  The GPL limits you from applying extra conditions to the software license but if rethink what you are trying to do a bit, you can use another area of law like trademark or contract law to achieve a decent amount of protection.  There are of course, some caveats to the system though, that is why we continuously stress the importance of developers talking to proper legal advisers--which I am definitely not.

The idea that "the other side of the spectrum" hasn't been heard when there is a thread with almost 2000 posts that has been open since April is pretty funny. In addition there has been plenty of off-forum communication between all of the parties, please rest assured of that. And, yes, that is the point of my post. If the people who disagree with the legal interpretations behind this decision decide to present a legal argument that represent their interpretation of the set of facts we will all know what that is. The other point of my post is that our lawyers are not going to present the opposing argument.

I thought I would share some advice I've gathered over the past few chaotic days. This is not official advice but hopefully something that will lead to other alternatives on other extension levels as well.

After speaking with 3 attorneys today, (some of whom do not have software related legal experience and some who do) Overall, I have been advised the only GPL code that needs to be made available is an outlined reference or link to official reference in congruency to the GPL code used in the template code.

Templates:
http://help.joomla.org/content/category/12/116/125/

One attorney advised I should outline how the code is "derived" with a commented legend which would allow the purchaser to modify the "derivative source".

An example is given here:



This also includes CSS, scripts and images.
One attorney mentioned that styles such as div.componentheading or div.contentheading must be GPL and suggest putting all styles referenced by or generated by the Joomla! code in their own CSS file.

What this means is the entire index.php is NOT GPL and that the copyright holders need to provide thorough outlined information to compliance guidelines before any claim can be made of what is and is not derivative works.

Hope this helps and does not confuse.