Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

[lobos]

Just updated the 'unofficial tally' of GPL v. LGPL at http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=704&t=837342

So far we are at
Supporting GPL: 65
Supporting LGPL: 26

I had a lovely letter of support the other day from someone watching closely, but they said there weren't comfortable to enter for foray of debate. I suspect they are not the only one. While I think a running tally of participants in this thread is academically useful (the trend of the swing being the most important), it's by no means a reflection of the actual temperature of the community.

Funny I don't see my name in the tally... I wonder if there are others that have been accidentally (conveniently?) left out. Anyway it is as Andrew says... and more to the point, less than 100 people does maketh a pisspoor survey when the Joomla user base numbers in the millions...

Then one could also wonder... has the new user that stumbles upon this thread any credibility in making a vote? oh look it's a vote, I don't really know what it's about but (insert popular guy) here thinks so... so I think so!

One could stretch this further and conclude that developers, especially core FW developers have a better understanding of licensing than the majority of users... you know because they have to be thinking about licenses when conceiving and deploying code.

From witnessing the complete ignorance displayed in this thread an easy conclusion to come by...

I feel that most would easily agree that core developers at least contribute 50% of the work that makes Joomla what it is today - you know, you have nothing without the code... and yet we don't have much without the user base either! So logically we must somehow weight this vote properly! Because there are a lot less core developers than users... duh!

So conservatively speaking there must be at least 100 times more users than core developers (VERY conservative estimation!) so in effect each core developers vote should be worth 100 times that of a user! soooo being fair lets take our tally and... fix it?

Supporting GPL: 65
Supporting LGPL: 2600 (well maybe all those votes weren't just core devs, but you get the point)

[NivF007]

Just updated the 'unofficial tally' of GPL v. LGPL at http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=704&t=837342

So far we are at
Supporting GPL: 65
Supporting LGPL: 26

I had a lovely letter of support the other day from someone watching closely, but they said there weren't comfortable to enter for foray of debate. I suspect they are not the only one. While I think a running tally of participants in this thread is academically useful (the trend of the swing being the most important), it's by no means a reflection of the actual temperature of the community.

Funny I don't see my name in the tally... I wonder if there are others that have been accidentally (conveniently?) left out. Anyway it is as Andrew says... and more to the point, less than 100 people does maketh a pisspoor survey when the Joomla user base numbers in the millions...

Then one could also wonder... has the new user that stumbles upon this thread any credibility in making a vote? oh look it's a vote, I don't really know what it's about but (insert popular guy) here thinks so... so I think so!

One could stretch this further and conclude that developers, especially core FW developers have a better understanding of licensing than the majority of users... you know because they have to be thinking about licenses when conceiving and deploying code.

From witnessing the complete ignorance displayed in this thread an easy conclusion to come by...

I feel that most would easily agree that core developers at least contribute 50% of the work that makes Joomla what it is today - you know, you have nothing without the code... and yet we don't have much without the user base either! So logically we must somehow weight this vote properly! Because there are a lot less core developers than users... duh!

So conservatively speaking there must be at least 100 times more users than core developers (VERY conservative estimation!) so in effect each core developers vote should be worth 100 times that of a user! soooo being fair lets take our tally and... fix it?

Supporting GPL: 65
Supporting LGPL: 2600 (well maybe all those votes weren't just core devs, but you get the point)

1) If I have incorrectly recorded your position, please PM me so that I may correct it.

2) If you have not yet stated your position and wish to be included, please PM me (as opposed to posting) - it will be easier for me to keep track.

You will be added as +LGPL in the next update.

At this point we are at

GPL: 65
LGPL: 27

[AmyStephen]

At this point we are at

GPL: 65
LGPL: 27

To set expectation correctly, as has been said dozens of times to Niv, this is not a vote, nor does Niv in any way represent an official part of the Joomla project. He seems not to care that he is implying this is how decisions are made and running the risk of upsetting people.

The fact is OSM requested community feedback on changing the Joomla! Framework from GPL to LGPL.

Open source projects do not operate on votes, it is volunteers "scratching their own itch" that moves the project forward. Unless people are paid, they cannot be told what they must work on, so voting is ineffective.

For this change, OSM requested feedback, pro and con stances and arguments to help them with this decision. An earlier poll showed 2 out of 3 respondents supported the change. All of this input and the board's good judgement will be used to make a decision that will guide the communities efforts.

[NivF007]

Sorry, Amy - you are incorrect.

Here's my position as I've already stated

3 statisticians went hunting for deer with bows and arrows.

The first statistician's arrow landed 10' in front of the deer.

The second statistician's arrow landed 10' behind.

The third jumped up in the air and shouted, "We got it!!!"

The benefit of the unofficial tally is that you don't have to count through over 1000 posts to get an idea of where those who've voiced their opinion (on this topic in this forum) stand.

To use this tally as a basis for rendering a decision is not recommended - I accept that it's deeply flawed for the reasons you state, and for those as stated by others (you can quote me on that).

---

OSM absolutely cares what the community thinks about this issue. We wouldn't have published a blog post and requested community feedback if we didn't.

As stated in the original blog, this discussion will remain open through March 6. After that OSM will follow up with SFLC on any new legal questions, and then OSM will have a discussion, make a decision, and announce that decision. I feel sure that the discussion will include the re-branding idea along with suggestions for more polls. Those points may or may not end up impacting what the scope of OSM's upcoming decision will amount to.

It raises the question, how would we as a community do effective polls? If we had registered participants (notice I did not use the word 'members'), it becomes very easy for this and for other issues - but I think this discussion is best left for another day and another thread.

[Webdongle]

@wilsonge
Firstly I apologise for lumping you in with the handful who will only contribute on the condition that Joomla as a whole becoming either ... Joomla cms GPL and Joomla framework LGPL or Just Joomla cms GPL with the GPLed framework renamed . I will rephrase my reply to your post

I definitely support the CMS. But I'm sure the framework wouldn't be where it is today without my 3 line pull request into JFile
George

It's just a pity that you contribute to the Joomla project then ... ask for that the Joomla Project to be divided into two licenses



Secondly

....
Sorry who has said they want Joomla to be LGPL - no one. The framework people want to be LGPL and the as was made clear even if the framework powers the CMS the CMS will STILL be GPL. You are someone who seems to only wish to contribute if Joomla stays GPL so actually you fall under this condition as well
'''

You still miss the key point here. The Joomla project as a whole is GPL by virtue of the fact that is a combination of different parts that use the same licence. Change the licence for part of Joomla then 'Joomla as a Whole' no longer exists.

ie 'Joomla as a Whole' is the Joomla framework and Joomla cms both under the same GPL licence ... but ... the Joomla framework and Joomla cms under different licences is not 'Joomla as a Whole'.

Only contributing if all parts of Joomla remain under the same licence is different to only contributing if part Joomla if is re-licensed. The former is agreeing to contribute to Joomla unless there is a change in the original conditions ... the latter is agreeing to contribute to Joomla only if certain conditions are changed.

If 'Joomla as a Whole' is fragmented by changing its condition with re-licensing part of it then I will need to consider carefully if I wish to continue contributing under different conditions. But that is a personal decision.

[deleted user]

Joomla GPL and Joomla LGPL or Just Joomla cms

I've seen you use this phrase a few times now. Are you inferring that the options are a fractured community because of license or we all roll up under one software (CMS) and not work on the Framework as a separate product?

[masterchief]

I think the poll summarises this groupthink:

The Framework team wants to increase adoption of Joomla source code by using a more appropriate license in the GPL family of licenses, and by association help replace an ageing Joomla Platform in the CMS. But more people appear to refuse to give the Framework team that opportunity to increase adoption. But, speculating, those people would also like the Framework team to support the CMS to become lighter, faster and more flexible.

Do we have a fair quid pro quo?

My axiom is this. If you are directly and actively contributing to a "thing", your voice has weight. If you are not, your opinion has merit.

[reeseyontz]

You still miss the key point here. The Joomla project as a whole is GPL by virtue of the fact that is a combination of different parts that use the same licence. Change the licence for part of Joomla then 'Joomla as a Whole' no longer exists.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying here. If part of what is included with the CMS package is not licensed GPL then, in your view, the whole Joomla CMS is not GPL licensed. Am I reading that correctly? Because it has already been mentioned more than once in the past 36 pages of comments that there are several libraries that are currently being used in the CMS that are not GPL licensed (Bootstrap and jQuery seem to be the two pointed out most often). If I am understanding your reasoning correctly, the whole of Joomla is already not GPL; so, why are you arguing over changing the license for the Framework if by your logic it already is not GPL?

Or to put it another way. If I am understanding your logic correctly, you are wanting the PLT to write replacements for all of the non-GPL libraries that are being used by the CMS so all code referenced from top to bottom is GPL licensed. Which means re-inventing thousands of wheels to make you happy that you are using 100% GPL code. I think that is a lot to ask of paid programmers, let alone volunteers.

[Webdongle]

Joomla GPL and Joomla LGPL or Just Joomla cms

I've seen you use this phrase a few times now. Are you inferring that the options are a fractured community because of license or we all roll up under one software (CMS) and not work on the Framework as a separate product?

I have edited the original phrase

who will only contribute on the condition that Joomla as a whole becoming either ... Joomla GPL and Joomla LGPL or Just Joomla cms

To more accurately describe the meaning.

who will only contribute on the condition that Joomla as a whole becoming either ... Joomla cms GPL and Joomla framework LGPL or Just Joomla cms GPL with the GPLed framework renamed

[masterchief]

If Joomla "as a whole" must become only GPL, then I would probably look elsewhere. That's not a "if I don't get my way I'm walking" statement. That's a "are your freaking crazy and do you realise how much work that will involve if we don't allow even compatible GPL licenses in our source?".

[deleted user]

Joomla GPL and Joomla LGPL or Just Joomla cms

I've seen you use this phrase a few times now. Are you inferring that the options are a fractured community because of license or we all roll up under one software (CMS) and not work on the Framework as a separate product?

I have edited the original phrase

who will only contribute on the condition that Joomla as a whole becoming either ... Joomla GPL and Joomla LGPL or Just Joomla cms

To more accurately describe the meaning.

who will only contribute on the condition that Joomla as a whole becoming either ... Joomla cms GPL and Joomla framework LGPL or Just Joomla cms GPL with the GPLed framework renamed

Thank you, that clarifies things quite a bit.

[masterchief]

who will only contribute on the condition that Joomla as a whole becoming either ... Joomla cms GPL and Joomla framework LGPL or Just Joomla cms GPL with the GPLed framework renamed

I can only speak for myself that my contribution will not change with an LGPL framework. With a GPL framework, I would be included to support the existing code in so much as I have projects that need it, but I would probably not add any new packages and just publish them myself (github.com/eddieajau) under the LGPL or MIT. That gives my code, at least, a chance to have wider adoption (and the CMS or extension developers are free to use them as well).

[Webdongle]

...
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying here. If part of what is included with the CMS package is not licensed GPL then, in your view, the whole Joomla CMS is not GPL licensed. Am I reading that correctly? Because it has already been mentioned more than once in the past 36 pages of comments that there are several libraries that are currently being used in the CMS that are not GPL licensed ....

You are not correctly reading what I wrote. You may have missed it but

Because the cms absorbs the framework like it does with other 'added code' and thus the cms still stays under it's own licence. That is the part where the devs and non devs are at loggerheads. Devs see that being separate to the cms like Tinmce etc and think the non-devs don't understand it. But the non-devs (at least most of us) already know that and many knew a long time ago.

[Nick Savov]

If Joomla "as a whole" must become only GPL, then I would probably look elsewhere. That's not a "if I don't get my way I'm walking" statement. That's a "are your freaking crazy and do you realise how much work that will involve if we don't allow even compatible GPL licenses in our source?".

I think you're misunderstanding him. Webdongle means code from the Joomla project, rather than 3rd party code that we absorb.

Hope this helps!

[masterchief]

I think you're misunderstanding him. Webdongle means code from the Joomla project, rather than 3rd party code that we absorb.

Right, I get that now. My apologies. So in that case I would prefer to create new code as a third-party since the CMS does not have a problem with that.

[NivF007]

I think the poll summarises this groupthink:

The Framework team wants to increase adoption of Joomla source code by using a more appropriate license in the GPL family of licenses, and by association help replace an ageing Joomla Platform in the CMS. But more people appear to refuse to give the Framework team that opportunity to increase adoption. But, speculating, those people would also like the Framework team to support the CMS to become lighter, faster and more flexible.

[emphasis mine]

To my mind, and without taking anything away from other arguments put forward, the wants of the Framework team, I think, are also very important to people considering these matters.

Because we've heard statements to the effect that by virtue of having signed a CLA, that contributors 'support a switch' to CLA, and that has obviously been proven flawed, could I politely ask that someone from the Framework team, if you feel it would be helpful to support your position (I think it would), to get some verifiable hard data on the position of Framework Contributors and Team Members?

I've attached a CSV sheet that can be used.

In any case, I don't want to push the point if anybody on the Framework team doesn't want to take the initiative, but if you do, I would certainly post it alongside the 'unofficial tally' that I've been keeping.

Just let me know what you'd like to do, I would be happy to accommodate either way.

My view is that I think folks might be interested to see a) exactly who has contributed to the Framework; b) who is currently on the team; and c) the wishes of each with respect to licensing.

[Webdongle]

If Joomla "as a whole" must become only GPL, then I would probably look elsewhere. That's not a "if I don't get my way I'm walking" statement. That's a "are your freaking crazy and do you realise how much work that will involve if we don't allow even compatible GPL licenses in our source?".

I did not say Joomla "as a whole" must become only GPL. I said The Joomla project as a whole is GPL by virtue of the fact that is a combination of different parts that use the same licence. Change the licence for part of Joomla then 'Joomla as a Whole' no longer exists. . In others words Joomla is Whole because the different parts have the same licence. But if the framework is GPLed then Joomla will not be whole it will be Joomla with a split licence. Of course it will not alter the way the code works but it will change the ethos.

[Webdongle]

... With a GPL framework, I would be included to support the existing code in so much as I have projects that need it, but I would probably not add any new packages and just publish them myself (github.com/eddieajau) under the LGPL or MIT. That gives my code, at least, a chance to have wider adoption (and the CMS or extension developers are free to use them as well).

Are you saying that wider adoption of your code is more import to you than adding new code to Joomla ?

[masterchief]

Because we've heard statements to the effect that by virtue of having signed a CLA, that contributors 'support a switch' to CLA, and that has obviously been proven flawed

That was not the argument. The CLA was used to justify that the LGPL has never been explicitly excluded from planning at a leadership level. Signing the CLA is about ownership assignment. It does not imply support one way or the other (for example, I signed but I do not support the AGPL).

Here is the data I collected last year (+ is approved LGPL, - is disapproved GPL):

Total: +72, -41
Signed CLA: +24, -10
Contributed Platform/FW code: +21, -5
Contributed CMS code: +34, -13
Written extensions: +62, -29

We received an overwhelming majority where dev contributed to the framework. We also see a majority in people that contribute to the CMS and write extensions. I doubt the ratios would change much were we to take the same poll today.

[masterchief]

Are you saying that wider adoption of your code is more import to you than adding new code to Joomla ?

I'm saying that publishing myself gives me "both". I can still contribute to Joomla even as an indie package owner. However, if you are saying "Andrew, I force you to write GPL and only for Joomla", I am politely going to tell you where to go

[masterchief]

In others words Joomla is Whole because the different parts have the same licence. But if the framework is GPLed then Joomla will not be whole it will be Joomla with a split licence. Of course it will not alter the way the code works but it will change the ethos.

If you mean "Joomla as a brand cannot claim to be exclusively GPL", then I agree. Joomla could still claim to be within the "GPL family" though. But what's worse: Joomla as GPL and LGPL, or OSM+Joomla CMS(GPL)+Acme Framework(MIT). The latter sends a mixed message in my opinion.

EDIT: Further, I think the second option gives significant weight to Extension Developers to pressure OSM and the CLT to allow other licenses for extensions.

[NivF007]

Because we've heard statements to the effect that by virtue of having signed a CLA, that contributors 'support a switch' to CLA, and that has obviously been proven flawed

That was not the argument. The CLA was used to justify that the LGPL has never been explicitly excluded from planning at a leadership level. Signing the CLA is about ownership assignment. It does not imply support one way or the other (for example, I signed but I do not support the AGPL).

Here is the data I collected last year (+ is approved LGPL, - is disapproved GPL):

Total: +72, -41
Signed CLA: +24, -10
Contributed Platform/FW code: +21, -5
Contributed CMS code: +34, -13
Written extensions: +62, -29

We received an overwhelming majority where dev contributed to the framework. We also see a majority in people that contribute to the CMS and write extensions. I doubt the ratios would change much were we to take the same poll today.

[emphasis mine]

(In bold is what I was seeking to clarify) - thank you for providing.

I still wish to extend the offer that you if you have that data, or any other available, and you would like me to include those spreadsheets alongside the 'unofficial tally' of this thread that I've been maintaining, then just let me know and I'd be happy to accommodate.

[masterchief]

@Webdongle, not all extensions are allowed to be in the CMS. Therefore we have independent extension developers. Some of those developers want increased adoption so they also publish to Drupal and WordPress (templates for example, but other big extensions like CRM's etc) using appropriate bridging code.

At the library level, why is the same concept so hard to grasp? Self-publishing does not exclude, for example, you taking that code and making a pull request against the Joomla Framework (because you can do anything with MIT, even relicense it). But self-publishing means I get more help from others (and the Framework teams is not going to care two-hoots about which repository the original code is in - we all know how to contribute to each others personal repositories and also those of other authors). Laravel, for example, could also use my indie library. Awesome!

[Webdongle]

Are you saying that wider adoption of your code is more import to you than adding new code to Joomla ?

I'm saying that publishing myself gives me "both". I can still contribute to Joomla even as an indie package owner. However, if you are saying "Andrew, I force you to write GPL and only for Joomla", I am politely going to tell you where to go

I am NOT trying to force you to write anything. I am asking you if

With a GPL framework, I would be included to support the existing code in so much as I have projects that need it, but I would probably not add any new packages and just publish them myself (github.com/eddieajau) under the LGPL or MIT. That gives my code, at least, a chance to have wider adoption (and the CMS or extension developers are free to use them as well).

Means you are saying that having your code more widely adopted is more important to you than adding your new code to Joomla under a GPL Joomla framework ?

[masterchief]

I am asking if you are saying that having your code more widely adopted is more important to you than adding your new code to Joomla under a GPL Joomla framework ?

You are asking the wrong question. It's not mutually exclusive. Let me put it this way. I do not want the Joomla project to be my exclusive "publisher" if the Framework is GPL. In that case I would self-publish under MIT which allows wider adoption AND Joomla to use the code at the same time. However, if the Framework is LGPL, I am inclined to make Joomla my exclusive "publisher".

Likewise, I have many CMS extensions that I self-publish because they are not suitable to include in the core Joomla CMS stack. I could also make Drupal or WrodPress variants if I so chose (and some people do).

[lobos]

Means you are saying that having your code more widely adopted is more important to you than adding your new code to Joomla under a GPL Joomla framework ?

Wow you are getting creepy dude... Joomla / GPL is not a religion... so what if Andrew wants to focus on his own career more if he feels it diverging from Joomla for whatever reason.

This thread is supposed to be about "Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change"... personal questions to Andrew don't seem a part of that...

[dilbert4life]

+1 Lobos

[masterchief]

This thread is supposed to be about "Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change"... personal questions to Andrew don't seem a part of that...

He's just trying to trick me into an answer that implies my ego is more important than my loyalty I'm saying that people being free to use my code is more important than both.

[AmyStephen]

... With a GPL framework, I would be included to support the existing code in so much as I have projects that need it, but I would probably not add any new packages and just publish them myself (github.com/eddieajau) under the LGPL or MIT. That gives my code, at least, a chance to have wider adoption (and the CMS or extension developers are free to use them as well).

Are you saying that wider adoption of your code is more import to you than adding new code to Joomla ?

You are not getting it. PHP developers aren't using GPL Framework packages.

In keeping it GPL'ed, you are preventing these things -
1. Proprietary use of the Joomla Framework (unlikely anyway given better options to them);
2. Use of the Joomla Framework by developers like me who are offering open source solutions under a non GPL license because we want to HELP increase adoption https://github.com/Molajo/Database/blob ... r.json#L20
3. Any use at all of the Joomla Framework.

Now, ask yourself - why would any developer bother releasing a GPL Framework package today? You make it sound like it's *evil* to want your work used. And yet, you don't seem to understand -- the users of Framework code are developers. Having developers involved in the Joomla project helps users.

What happens when developers aren't involved? Will there be big relief in knowing the code was prevented from possible use in proprietary applications? Hope so.

[masterchief]

(In bold is what I was seeking to clarify) - thank you for providing.

You've had the data all the time. It *was* referenced in the original blog post http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... ework.html