Joomla! Discussion Forums

And I was naively thinking that in open source world we could all get along    .... all together now...

kum baya ma lawd....  

In all seriousness. The 3pd may or may not stop doing business as usual. By this I mean they will probably keep selling commercial proprietary licensing for their products... what is going to happen? The Joomla! statement says that they don't intend to sue anyone... So what is to stop them... And if they do sue someone? well the again... what country? With what precedent? I honestly don't know if any other cases involving extensions of open source projects have taken place because I have not looked.... What were their outcomes? Actually that might help us understand if the Core statement has merit or is just a positioning so that they don't get the project taken away ala mambo....

M.

A small reminder to JoomlaChurch to stay on topic, and mind the forum rules. No need to post something like that.

nant,

I completely agree. Any component being released for Joomla has to be GPL, I do not agree that this is productive or moral but that is beside the point. If an extension, module, plugin etc. is created for the component then it becomes a derivative of the component and must abide but IT'S license. Since all Joomla components must be GPL that means the new extension for the component would have to be GPL as well because the component is forced into being GPL as well. The only thing I can say is cross your fingers and hope and pray a lot that other components do not enforce the GPL like Joomla has.

But the GPL is also what saved Joomla... they were able to take their code and fork a new project (as long as they keep any original copyright information in the code).  I think that you hit the nail on the head. People want it both ways. They want to release something "freely" under the GPL, but then retain some level of control afterwards. The "control" you actually get is that your copyright needs to remain in your software if/when it is distributed again. Now extensions are a separate entity all together. Unless a programmer uses a significant part of code from Joomla or someone else's program, then they can be proprietary. So what constitutes a "significant" amount? I'd say more than 50%, but there is no exact number. This reminds me of the old argument about plagiarism. It's such a gray area that is usually decided on a case by case basis.

Now there are a few loopholes in the current GPL which is why there are so many arguments going on about the GPL 3.

You cannot carry business as usual while taking everything by chance or faith, it just makes bad business sense. Part of a business's strategy is to reduce external threats. You cannot internalize a highly probable threat and wish it will just go away.

This document from Rosenlaw does not differ between compiled or interpreted languages, simply because that is irrelevant. Why should it be different with a interpreted language like PHP? What do you base that assumption on? And also, you can compile PHP!

Not being listed on JED is a first step we could take...

Sadly, the tone of your posts seem to indicate negativity. We'd much rather foster a spirit of cooperation and togetherness. We want to help and work with developers, rather than push them away. How can you have missed that? We've been doing out best to make that clear.

Template question:
I can understand images and Flash not being GPL, but not why CSS & JS wouldn't be?
Why is only PHP to be considered as code, not CSS and Javascript.
Rephrased: please someone define "code" in this context?
I'd consider in any template the CSS as the most important part, remove it and the site looks ugly (if readable at all for some..). TIA

Does this help Joe http://www.rockettheme.com/option,com_s ... c,13981.0/ ?
Sorry if it doesn't, your question has merit though.

Quote from Wikipedia's article about CSS:



Clearly, CSS is code, just as HTML, Javascript and PHP.

Again, there is simply no substance in claiming the templates are any different than other extensions.

[Edited a layout problem]

One of the best discussions on the copyrighting of css I have seen is on Mezzoblue http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2003/ ... s_copyrig/

The trend I got from that discussion is that it is how the css is put together that makes it a unique work.  Which is the point of the ZenGarden.  The HTML is the same for all, what is unique is the CSS.

Just something to consider.

Brad, thanks for the link. Still a bit unclear in my mind, but interesting. MMM, exactly what I think, so that's really the part (+ images) templaters would want to protect. Now can they..?

I have to agree with Jenny (MMMedia), in that the art of CSS and graphics are unique and unrelated to Joomla's GPL.  Also, the illustration of csszengarden.com is a good one (for those who don't know what ZenGarden meant).  The designs on zengarden are all just style sheets written for the stock HTML files they have there... and each page looks dramatically different from the other styles--all with the same HTML.

I think the distinction in templates is that they are independent of the php-generated-HTML and PHP.  Joomla doesn't even have its own templates... they're donated by individual developers.

That said, it really doesn't matter... if the owners of the original license (OSM) say commercial templates are even an *exception*, then super!  They own the original license, they can say and do whatever it is they want.

Joe,
We (Core) discussed this in detail. I just have to head out, but I asked Louis to try to explain it for you when he has some time free (ie after food ). The Zengarden example is noteworthy though.

I think it might be handy to mention this about copyrights and licenses;

A license can be viral; it's a permission that can be transfered to someone by the license itself.
Copyright is not viral; it's a right recieved for making the work.

When someone creates an artistic or literary (original or new) work, he automatically receives the exclusive right to publish and reproduce it: the copyright.

When a work is copyrighted, others may not use or redistribute the work without the permission of the author. This permission is typically called a license for the work.

Free from: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/ (Very basic copyright, not into software)

I'm also in the dark about J! derivative works, but hope to find clarification... And if this thread is going to be sort of legal, definitions can be usefull.

And also; about the template item: do read the short crashcourse mentioned above; it sheds some light on the originality of a work.

Just to expand a little bit... your site will still display without a style sheet and without images that are from the template.  What it won't do is display without the index.php.

I hope that makes sense.

That might be a valid statement, if not for the fact that there are core members selling templates.

Lets try to keep it related to the GPL and not get personal

/rant
What I am seeing is still plenty of questions that *WE* need to answer. Let me assure you, we will, we just need to work though things one at a time.

It's been a harrowing time for us, me personally as well.. I am still trying to recover before I jump back in. Please, bear with us... we will get there, and the information you are after will be made available.

Mod note: Spam post removed and user banned.

If you mean the template's index.php (which I assume), then this is actually not correct:

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

Here you see the article without using anything from the template. So strictly speaking, nothing in the template is necessary.

But, we have seen enough explanations of why templates are not considered derivative work of Joomla, whether one agree or not. Until now, I have yet to see just one explanation of why other extensions inherently are. Other than recursive explanations in reality just saying "extensions are derivative work because they are".

I have given examples actually proofing this is not the case, but no one has dared to comment on it, other than the usual "contact your lawyer" answer 

*some* stuff here: http://www.jdaywest.joomla.org/index.ph ... nd_the_GPL

However, I can just hear James explaining this very question to us while we were at the summit. It is complicated, BUT the SFLC has been making calls like this for a LONG time.

Actually it is still pulling in an index.php file. It just happens to be pulling in the index2.php which is part of Joomla!  Which then calls the template_css.css file from a template called jw_joomla.

Brad, I understand why you write this, but actually you misunderstood me (I should probably have worded it differently, sorry).

What I was trying to make clear is that it is simply not correct what tydust said. The OSM claims themselves that they cannot make any exceptions to the GPL, but if they could it would be a dubious affair if they only did it in an area where some core members have commercial interest.

So actually I am backing the core up here. They don't include templates because they believe they are not derivative work of Joomla. Not because they feel like making an exception.

However, I don't share their belief, but that is an entirely different matter.

I see marlar's point.  There are many extensions where the only connection they have with Joomla is the installer xml.  For instance let's talk about an ajax slideshow extension.

I write a slideshow in Ajax, myself.  I then write the install xml, backend module interface as per the API/developer notes found on joomla.com so I connect my script with Joomla.  I could just as easily run that slideshow on any other website via a php include -- the only time I use Joomla-derived code is when I create the administrator access of the extension.

There is no derivative work here, in my humble opinion.  The ajax is my own, the interface for Joomla admin panel is simply API (and itself should remain GPL). If I encode some portion of the ajax, or a separate file, and leave the interface (XML and necessary API files) openly viewed, so that the source code of "derivative" files would be easily distributed, but my own copyrighted code would remain under whatever license I choose... that seems fair.

That said, I hate hate hate encoded extensions.  I feel like once I own an extension I should be able to use it freely on my own sites... and I'm on the fence about clients' sites.  Do I use them? Yes.  If they are the best way to get a certain job done, I have no problem paying for it.  Do I understand why they must protect their stuff from being distributed "underground" ? Yep.  Don't like it.  Hate ioncube loaders.  But understandable, in my opinion.

As long as Joomla derived code is not encrypted/encoded itself within the package, I don't see how this violates the license.

I don't see why I must license my ajax (man, I wish I could write ajax, hehehe) to be copied and used under the GPL simply because I choose to make integration with Joomla easier.

Well can you get your extension to work within Joomla! without using the installer?

Templates you can.

Quite thin, if I must say

I hope you can understand why it feels extremely frustrating that someone (OSM) come with claims they can't back up with good arguments. Anyone can claim anything if they are not obliged to back it up.

My claim is that if I can proof that some extensions (virtually all content mambots)  as a piece of cake can be rewritten to work outside Joomla, then it makes no sense to insist that they are derivative work of Joomla.

It bothers me very much that nobody has challenged, or even commented, that claim.

Almost all extensions can be used without the installer, sure.  You'd have to create a standalone php interface to make config changes and add database rows for items (slideshow individual images).  That's the easiest part of the extension... I actually can do that without any ajax knowledge... I've got software that generates PHP input forms and displays.

The question is why that would be necessary.  Creating the Joomla interface doesn't, in my opinion again (not a lawyer... and I'm sure the core team has consulted lawyers), constitute derivative work.  And even if it did, only that one file would, in my opinion *again*, have to remain GPL.

(edited to clarify that it was directed at a quote)

And templates can also work outside of the Joomla! environment whereas most extensions need to be inside Joomla!. (just adding to the quoted point)



This seems to me the exceptions that have been mentioned. Of course, this is just my opinion but I do not see why not.

Might be an idea to have a few hypothetical examples of extensions that can work as non-derivative 

Adding some brackets

You can get any extension to work within Joomla without using the installer.

@tydust
Good point on AJAX. Technically, you can release your extensions as "GPL", then encrypt the AJAX script and sell it separately under any license you want. Lesson: write your own AJAX scripts instead of relying on frameworks

Highly debatable. To be precise: images, css and .js can be used outside of the Joomla environment, but not the template as a whole. Similar to any other extension, the .js and .css and images can be used outside of the Joomla environment.


Search for "AJAX" in the JED.