Joomla! Discussion Forums

Chuck -

Thanks so much for the PS. 

No - it is not at all offensive to me. Yes, this is a change from what we are accustomed to.  A bit shocking would be an understatement.

But, they believe they are risking the Joomla! core by not enforcing the GPL like the other open source CMSs do (ex. Drupal, WordPress, Typo3). They can't pick and choose who gets to violate the license. If someone came along, rebranded the core, and began selling it, a cavalier attitude about extensions *will* be used against us.

So - here we are!!!! All together, as a whole. We are facing our first huge challenge as a community. The backs of ALL OF US built Joomla! and the MINDS of each of us are required to find our way out.

The copyright holders of the Joomla! core made their decision - extensions need to comply with the GPL.

This doesn't spell the end of commercial entities. Think about the flow of community members. They come to the forums. They use the Joomla! extension directory. They go to the 3PD site. They purchase extensions - now, they can purchase distribution/support.

Make it work. We can't continue to compromise the core just because we've been doing it that way for years. We can adapt and, as a community, we can *continue* to promote a strong and growing commercial extension environment.

Thanks, Chuck, for taking the emotion down a bit. Help bring this all back together, please. Let's all do what we can.
Amy

Actually, just to clarify, anyone could take Joomla!, rebrand and sell it. Anyone can sell it without rebranding for that matter.

What they can't do is remove the credits, the license information, or encrypt or otherwise make it so that their buyers can't copy, modify or redistribute.

True - they could charge for the distribution. You are correct. 

And this is also true about any extensions or templates released under the GPL.

We are talking about protecting the very core that gave and gives the opportunity to everyone to enjoy and make money... in the process enabling users to design and be creative with their own sites without an expensive overhead.

Tydust - I wasn't suggesting any change to the J! license at all...
What I was suggesting was to create a seperate license for J! 3PDs that upheld all of the notions of open source without granting any user the right to distribute unless they add to the code which in essence turns the user into a developer.

Since OSM has the right to prosecute on behalf of J! this license would only ensure that OSM would not prosecute you provided you met the terms of that license. It would not exempt the 3pd developers from prosecution from any other source such as Miro if their code infringed on that project...

The issue is not about what license J! must be released under. that point has been clear from the beginning it MUST be GPL-Compatible to comply with it's derived project's license. This is because J! actually distributes code from that derived project. The question is what mechanism can be made to ensure that OSM will not take legal action against someone who does not distribute this GPLed code and merely calls to it within their own project.. OSM has the right to enforce or not enforce their GPL license. This license I propose would be nothing more than a guarantee that OSM will not prosecute a developer of a derivative work provided some requirements are met. Such as Must be open source, user modifyable and distributable once modified.  The notion that you can distribute any code even without modification should apply to the code of the original program that it was derived from, not the code that may call to that code! That should be up to the individual who wrote that code. Not the FSF!

This is the core issue...GPL is made to make more GPL. It has this midas touch ability to turn every code into GPL gold!
J! has to comply with the GPL license of it's derived program because of this midas touch but it does not have to extend that midas touch to programs derived from J!.You will if you are more concerned about enforcing GPL ideology than you are about the goals that ideology is meant to achieve which is free exchange of ideas that can be used by anyone and added to in order to create an even better idea!
you do not need non-modified user distribution rights to keep that goal of the ideology. the right for unmodified distribution should only be given by the writer/copyright holder of the code that will be distributed. Since a 3PD does not actually distribute the code in the calls that are made to a derivative work there is no real infringment on the FREE DISTRIBUTION of the original project that it was derived from since the license it is released under does not deny the distribution of that code only the code that uses it.
And to get the right to use that derived code you must also give the right to derive code from that project. Which means you can write an extention to an extention and release it, Add functions to an extention and release it, use parts of that code and release it.
All in line with the FREE IDEA ideology but denying the free beer aspect of buying and then giving it away as the non-modified re-distribution in the GPL currently allows.

The notion that J! can't change the license from the original GPL is not entirely true...As long as the license is GPL compatible there is no problem...LGPL is compatible with GPL. GPL suggests you should not do this but you most certainly can. Why does it suggest this? Because it hurts the free beer allowance that they say is not what they are after but the language says is otherwise true.

But no one is suggesting that J! should try this as it will most probably lead to a court battle at some point. What we are saying though is that the GPL itself is more concerned with keeping software free not only as in Ideas but as in Beer. And if the license tries to say this isn't so the truth is the ideologues who are involved and give opinions most certainly are and getting away with that due to the language of the license. If it was limited to just the ideas then it would not allow anyone to simply make unmodified copies and distribute unless the writer of that code choose to add that permission to his codebase. this whole notion of the derivative clause is meant more to create a bigger GPL selection and prohibit any economic model from operating effectively because that economic model can easily be usurped by buying one copy and releasing it essentially to the public domain. Free Beer!

this is why I say GPL and FSF is more concerned with protecting GPL and free distribution than they are in protecting the copyright holder!
Sure they claim that the copyright holder can grant any license they see fit for their project. But the language in the license does a hell of lot more to protect the GPL than the person who actually wrote a GPL program!

this extra 3PD license I am proposing would project J! just as well from some commercial entity coming in and trying to patent J! on it's own. Because despite the patent they would think they have the license that they would have to release under would still allow other developers to use that code, make modifications and release those modification. Their patent would be just as useless as it would under the GPL. And anyone could add and modify it.
But Joe User couldn't simply take that package and make it FREE without also adding to the technology that they are re-distributing.
This is fair to the original project, the 3PD developer, and the user as well.

the core Values of the GPL would be maintained and this would not infringe on anyone else's right to make copyright infringement claims against that project where that project might also be considered derivative. OSM has the right to create a license for derivatives of the J! project exclusively. If a Developer uses that all they would be safe from is prosecution from J!

It is a legal way of incorporating a rider without putting J! in jeopardy of infringing on the license of the work it is derived from.
Because the license will not be included into J!s own license...It would be seperate and apart from the J! license.

3PDs could develop AND contribute to the project (and open source as a whole) and this would tie up any loopholes that would allow a 3rd party to try and hijack the J! project and try and claim an IP.
Provided they are not distributing actual J! code there would be no harm to J! , It's license, it's users or any license from any derivative work J! may have been derived from. And the users would be gaining the abilty to modify, improve and even eventually release any work that they added to the extention. More variants on good ideas as the GPL and FSF ideology proposes to promote but at the same time give greater control to ALL WRITERS of original code to limit distribution to only DERIVED works not simple knockoffs that are distributed as free beer!

I think GPL and the FSF went too far in allowing anyone to distribute code in the license. It was not needed to meet the goals the GPL and Opensource claimed they were meant to meet. If they are truly only interested in free ideas not free beer, the use and distribution of those ideas should be granted to IMPLEMENTATIONS ONLY not verbatim distribution.

Users should be able to modify and distribute the modification. but this notion of verbatim distribution does more to protect FSF, GPL and FREE BEER than it does to protect the person who wrote the code!

Yes, it is not just proprietary licenses that will need to follow the license or other GPL compatable licenses. There has been a lot of confusion and many people licensing without really understanding what their licenses mean or what is appropriate.  For example, releasing software as Creative Commons is incorrect.  It is just that the propriety/commerical developers are the most vocal in the discussion.
This is a complicated issue and a big headache for all concerned.

Updated to add: But I am not a lawyer and am speaking only on my own behalf.

Leo, I don't understand why you're so angry. I make a living out of Joomla related work too and that's what i keep doing. There have some legals matters been taken care of, and yes some businesses will have to reconstruct their businessmodel. But you don't need to do that overnight.
I got a newsletter today from a comdev which, in my view, contents an attack against the coreteam. And I understand that more comdev's sent this kind of emails.
I don't think that this fight is good for anyone's business. I don't think it's good for Joomla!, nor for Open Source in general.
If you want to communicate you should at least read well and try to understand the people you want to communicate with. If you want to be considered as a serious respectable businessperson you ought to behave like one and not rant in public. Your clients are here as well.

My business is not fully dependant on Joomla!, I could switch to another CMS if needed. If your business ís fully dependant on Joomla! you ought to be sure you have the right businessmodel and cover yourself against changing circumstances. That's your responsibility as a businessman, not the responsibility of others.

People like Alex Hokamp and Andrew Eddy have given well informed advise about businessmodels around Joomla! and OS, to me this seems ignored by the people who could take advantage of this generously offered support.

You get sick of the word lawyer while for me this whole GPL discussion reminded me that I have to give more attention to legal matters too, if I want to continue my business for a long time.

We all agree that Joomla! is a great succes and that we like working with it. Let's go on than and communicate in a polite way about which way to go.

(edited poor english grammar, hope it helped )

Leo -

The copyright holders of the Joomla! core have the right to establish licensing guidelines for their work. We don't get to vote on that. It is not a democracy when it comes to their rights. Just because we rely on their work, it does not mean they are somehow obligated to share their copyright with us.

MOD NOTE: Please don't speak for the core team. - UNIXBOYMD

I also do not believe this spells the end of the commercial third party developer. There are opportunities for those who chose to make it work. Some are already positioning for this change.

I know you are sincere and I appreciate that.
Amy

Ah, Mr. Landry,

But didn't the FAQ in practice say that all index.php fiels must be GNU GPL when it said the following? (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/)
" We believe that the code elements of a template must be licensed under the GNU GPL because they are derivative works."

Or are you (Core/OSM) taking the stance that it is possible to have a functional index.php that contains no code elements?
Can you point to such an example?
And what exactly does the term code elements refer to? Specifically. Please use examples that are commonly found in the most basic index.php.

Is the index.php that is built in the tutorial on the dev site http://dev.joomla.org/content/view/1136/79/1/4/ an example of a template that is derivative in nature? If so at what point, and what point in the code did it the code become Joomla derivative?

If that particular index.php example on the Joomla site is not a good example to can you point to another that is?

I am asking these questions because I don't feel it is useful or helpful to tell people that if they break the rule then a particular consequence flows from that infraction, but then not to tell folks what the terms mean, what the rule is, under which circumstances the rule comes into play and how they can recognize if they are about to or are in breach of the rule.

And just saying well to be safe just make it GPL is not a good answer. That's just saying do it because we say so. Give us the tools so we can make informed decisions about what we use on our sites.

IMO, this is a basic and fundamental question that anyone who runs a Joomla site needs answered in a practical, straight forward manner.

I do thank you and eveyone who has spent so much time and effort on the Joomla project.

My statement still stands.  The belief that something should be licensed GNU GPL is based on the belief that those code elements are a derivative work.  If they are not a derivative work then obviously this would not apply.  I am not a lawyer nor a judge ... nor an omniscient entity so I really cannot say that all index.php files for templates are derivative works.  Stating such is an invitation for someone to find an edge case to argue and foolish in so much as it would mean I believe I can predict all cases .



I don't know if there is such a case, but I acknowledge that I don't know all, thus the statement.  Is it possible to make a functional index.php which contains no code elements?  I simply don't know, and because I don't know I choose not to make a blanket statement in asserting that all cases are equivalent to most cases. 



I believe that it is, and the definition of derivative work is a hard one to nail down.  In fact, I would argue that almost all of the perceived ambiguity surrounding the GNU GPL is actually ambiguity in copyright law surrounding what defines a derivative work.  The definitions vary from juris diction to juris diction and there is no finite or exhaustive definition.  I am sorry but I cannot give you a "point" at which something becomes derivative.  My understanding is that for the most part it is a value judgment based on the whole, not a specific line of code or a specific number of lines of code that define something as derivative.



I'm afraid not, see above.



I agree with your sentiment fully, I do not thing anyone has stated a particular consequence though.  As for definition of terms, I agree fully.  I wish that governments and lawmakers would do a much better job of nailing down what a derivative work consists of and where lines are drawn.  Unfortunately we do not live in that land of clear understanding.  Copyright / Intellectual Property law is in my opinion one of the fuzziest areas of law.  This is only compounded by the fact that it varies from place to place.  I can only hope that clarity in the law comes with time.  In the meantime we can all do the best we can to understand the situations we are presented with and make the best decisions we can.  This is what I try to do and I believe what most everyone surrounding the Joomla! project intends to do.



It may not be a good answer but it is the easiest one.  It involves no ambiguity and is certainly the easiest to defend.  I do sympathize with your stance and wish I could do more, but I cannot make tools appear that do not exist when it comes to law ... I can do so when it comes to Joomla! and code



I've done the best I can.

I feel as if it is important to state that I have not studied all the edge cases to provide legal advice or a stance on them and I am not going to.  I am not here trying to find ways around the GNU GPL, nor am I a substitute for sound legal advice.  These are my beliefs based on research and counsel from the SFLC which deals with most cases.  My main focus and drive is the Joomla! project itself. I am a developer and as such my primary point of interest is the Joomla! code base.

Louis

I think we should look at the include statement.

It has been posted here that most consider the include statement as a simpler way of copy paste. I have to differ.

It is the intension of the developer to exclude a portion of code such as javascript which may not be GPL compliant. And therefore cannot be merged. The include statement simply includes the code to perform certain functions when the program runs. The key thing here is you are not merging code before runtime it is a seperateworks and can be licensed separately from the GPL.

You have to be very careful that the code you include does not contain any gpl code

Also when merging code to GPL first the code to be merged must be GPL compliant.  

you cannot merge non-gpl compliant code with GPL code.

once you merge the GPL with GPL compliant code the merged code then becomes GPL.

It is a misgivings that if you simply add GPL code to non GPL code that the works become GPL
this is not true....
It is not allowed to ad any other code that is not GPL compliant to GPL code.

If you include at runtime and do not make a compiled works before runtime this should be submisable as long as

all licenses are included stating which files are licensed under the GPL and which are licensed under the developer.

Of course again we need a definite answer for this.

This is my opinion only.

-edit added line
there is also the require statement basically the include and require serve the same pupose dont they?

I'm sorry Matt...I have to disagree....

the include statement is most definitly a copy and paste operation the only difference is when that copy and paste happens. In an Include it happens during compile. in a standard copy and paste it happens before the compile...

But the fact that an include exists should apply to the program that makes the include which is why I am confused by the template model being virally GPL when it does not include any portion of J! and infact is included BY J! itself...

It seems to me that since J! includes the template that it is not the template that is actually making the calls to the API but Joomla itself via the include function that makes these calls.

If I were to make a,ist of grocery items and buy them then I should have to pay...
But if I make a list of grocery items and you go buy them using my list I don't see why I should have to pay for them if your the one who is going to CONSUME the information i provided...

And in the case of the include it is the program that makes the inclusion that should have rights to use the code not the responsability of the code you included to be compatible with your license.
the onus would have to be on J1 since it makes calls to the routines that makes calls to the API...
It would not make those calls until J! actually included them into itself!

Wow, very sincere and to the point statement.

Yes this is the heart of the problem (and possibly the solution).

So tell me, if by some means a definitive decision is made and a global understanding is reached that extensions using the J! API are not derivative work, is the Joomla GPL CMS in jeopardy (as it has been stated that one of the main concerns is that GPL enforcement is needed to protect Joomla!) ?

Asphyx
?exactly  I think 


so the change is in the way it is compiled.

I am not totally against Proprietary software.

But I am interested in keeping the core of Joomla protected as GPL.

And I am trying to find solutions that allow both without adding or changing any licenses.

So far there seems to be no answer. I simply thought this method of using include or require statements would allow for differant licensed products to work together.

I would suggest that Joomla! is the least of anybody's worries in the event such a judgment came down.  It would shake the foundations of the whole software movement - in a good or a bad way I wouldn't be able to predict though.

You make it sound that such a decision would be a total reversal of best known practices.
Even though it is obvious that there are divided opinions (legal statements have been presented on both ends - some stronger than others - some say they believe others use stronger vocabulary) and that this has never been tested.

My question still holds.
Since one of the stated concerns motivating the license holders (?) to (now) push for GPL compliance is their (noteworthy) desire to protect Joomla!, I ask once again, would Joomla! be in danger?

I cannot see how this would shake foundations - I cannot see how a "not proven belief" could be the foundation of anything.

I don't want anyone to think my extreme examples of "protection" are somehow from the horse's mouth.  All that has actually been officially released from actual people with authority is something to the effect of "we want to be in compliance, and we want everyone else to be in compliance too so we'll help you."

I think it makes good business sense to NOT continue practices that you find out are against a license, contract, agreement, whatever.  It is good for the foundation of Joomla.

That does not mean that NOT doing these things is somehow going to throw off the space/time continuum.  They're choosing to be in compliance sooner rather than when something--anything--forces them to do it. 

I just think, as a businesswoman myself, that they have made a valid, albeit unpopular, business decision to comply with laws voluntarily based on legal advice.

My own examples of our litigious society were not meant to scare anyone, and I'm sorry if they did.  As a businesswoman I always plan for the worst possible scenario so I can protect my business, my income, and as a result my family.  I think of Joomla's decision that way... they're protecting themselves, us, and the project as a whole.

As an end user of Joomla, I want the 3PD to be dependent on Joomla - this is crucial to the longevity of the project. Without this dependence the 3PD will switch to the next best thing as soon as it arrives - I know I would if there was no financial reason to stay. I need them to have a monetary incentive to continue developing JOomla extensions and one day pass on the business on to someone else.

Without this dependence, projects will continue to be passed from one developer to another who has no real vested interest in the extension. This ends up being bad for everyone.

I think developers are just asking for the same consideration and rights as the Joomla developers have with their own software. Joomla is built on top of Linux (or Windows), on top of PHP, on top of MySQL, on top of drivers and libraries, etc. etc. that are not all licensed under GPL. Joomla chose its license. Now developers want to create applications on top of Joomla. Shouldn't they have the same rights to decide what license they want to use?

This is the reason why many open source projects release an exception with the GPL and believe it or not, the dual licensing actually strengthened the project. It also made it much more attractive to corporations. We can keep debating what constitutes a derivative work, but unless someone goes to court for it, it's all speculation. So, instead of waiting for that, can the core team let us know if they are even considering an exception like other large open source projects have already?

No Shamele they are asking for more...
They also want exclusivity of the code which Joomla doesn't have...
A Monopoly on distribution that Joomla doesn't have...
And the ability to charge for code which none of the J! devs have either...

you are not asking for the same thing...

If you were you would be asking to release code that anyone could use in their own programs provided it was GPLed...


So lets stop these awful comparisons...

Ok, here is how it's going to work now.


Look here: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/board,48.0.html
You will find 3 new sub forums. These will allow you to post and receive replies where possible without fear of off-topic or personal attacks (we hope).

You have 3 choices:

• GPL Questions - User Related
• GPL Questions - Developer Related
• GPL - Your Opinion

The moderators thank you in advance for your cooperation and support in maintaining a measure of dignity and decorum on our forum.