Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

[mattbaylor]

No from me. I think it's a horrible idea.

You're basically saying OK big business, feel free to take and not give back. Without giving back, at some point there will not be anything left for anyone to take.

[allrude]

No change to LGPL.

agree with Brian 100%

[rvbgnu]

Thanks Brian to keep the Joomla principles alive!

EDIT on Wed 27/02/2014, 12.46 GMT:

I don't know, and I trust the wise community members that will debate and decide for both the CMS and the Framework projects.

Following my reply here
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 5#p3144955
I am removing my initial post:

I am clearly NOT for the LGPL move.

[JoeJoomla]

Thank you Brian Teeman for stating a very intelligent and precise viewpoint for not changing the license.

Regarding Victor's statement:

The idea of working together against proprietary software vendors is important. I must say I had not considered that before. And re-licensing the CMS is a complete non-starter.

What is more important to me is the folks who developed the framework/platform and are currently developing it (PLT). If they are requesting it, are we in danger of a developer exodus if we don't change the license?

This has to be about doing the right thing for Joomla! and can not be based in fear. We haven't heard, or at least I haven't heard, that there would be any sort of response like this from the developers on the PLT. I would hope that Joomla is important to all of them in the same way that Joomla is important to everyone else that loves it. All the leadership groups should be working toward the wellbeing and benefit of Joomla.

I would like to hear from Joomla's important contributing developers that the wellbeing of Joomla is indeed at the top of their list. This would go a long way in preventing the kind of drama that this discussion can descent into and keep it civil and respectful.

[zorkhh]

Joomla(community) always has fought for the most "open" approach in regards of licensing to push forward OS-Software. This also had massive influence on 3rd party developers - do you remember the huge discussion about licensing of J!-Extensions? The result is, that all JED-Extensions have to be GPL... So why on earth should Joomla leave this way?

Absolutely NO to LGPL.

Thomas

[opware2000]

++
NO LGPL
I agree totally with Brian, as I stated already in the former discussions.

+1 for me... Non LGPL

[JacquesR]

These are the facts:

- The request from the Production Leadership Team, after they tested support from contributing developers in a survey a year ago, is/was for the Joomla Framework code license to be changed to LGPL version 2.1. (and not LGPL v3 as was wrongly assumed)

- Such a license change is already allowed for in the Contributor Agreement that everyone signs when they contribute code to the CMS and Framework.

- The change in the Framework license will not change the Joomla! CMS license.

- The requested change in license of the Framework is a change to a different Open Source license, and not to a proprietary licence.

- A Framework is not the same thing as a CMS.

- GPL version 2 and later is the chosen license for the Joomla! CMS is there's no plans to change that.

- Rules and policy regarding the licensing of extension for Joomla! is based on the CMS being GPL.
(and the understanding of what it means to extend that code)

- LGPL is an Open Source license, and LGPL v2.1 is compatible with GPL v.2 and 3.

(I was previously involved with OSM's consultation with the SFLC about this, but I'm no longer on the board)

---
Jacques

[Radek Suski]

- LGPL is an Open Source license, and LGPL v2.1 is compatible with GPL v.2 and 3.

Nobody claim it is not, but it is advantageous for non Open Source software.
And for that reason even GNU, its author recommend not use it at all: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html << first sentence in its description rads "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library"

Not arguing - just clarifying

[PolishedGeek]

NO to the LGPL from the folks at Polished Geek too.

[wilsonge]

- A Framework is not the same thing as a CMS.

- GPL version 2 and later is the chosen license for the Joomla! CMS is there's no plans to change that.

So the GPL v2 and LGPL are incompatible. We all know the eventual plan is to move the framework classes back into the CMS - with this in mind I would like some clarification on how this would work - baring in mind the fact these licenses are incompatible

Kind Regards,
George

[Bakual]

So the GPL v2 and LGPL are incompatible. We all know the eventual plan is to move the framework classes back into the CMS - with this in mind I would like some clarification on how this would work - baring in mind the fact these licenses are incompatible

Kind Regards,
George

Jacques stated this:

LGPL v2.1 is compatible with GPL v.2 and 3

[rvbgnu]

These are the facts:

- The request from the Production Leadership Team, after they tested support from contributing developers in a survey a year ago, is/was for the Joomla Framework code license to be changed to LGPL version 2.1. (and not LGPL v3 as was wrongly assumed)
…

- A Framework is not the same thing as a CMS.

Thanks Jacques for this clarification. We know more about what this license change is NOT, rather than what it is FOR?

The majority of the surveyed JFramework contributors were in favour of the changes. And I do not want to abound into sarcasm, or about "who" tells, coder or non-coder, "big mouth"… These behaviours do not help. Please, let's have a discussion among adults and people who care about the whole Joomla project.

Coders used to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it !"
What are the needs and real benefits (based on real case studies) for the Joomla Framework?

[Enes]

I say NO for LGPL, too.

[dilbert4life]

I'm Don Gilbert. Many of you may not have heard of me, but I am a PLT member and one of the maintainers of the Joomla Framework. I contributed over 500,000 lines of code to the Framework from 2012 to 2013, and more since then. I'm also the PLT liaison to OSM for the LGPL v2.1+ license change and have done a ton of legwork to research the possibility of the license change. Needless to say, I have a lot invested in this.

Some unbiased facts:

- 99.99999% of the code is covered by the JCA, which gives OSM the legal right to relicense the code as LGPL.
- 48 lines of code that remain in the Framework are not covered by the JCA.
- 25% of the Framework contributors explicitly support changing the license to LGPL. The remaining 75% implicitly support it by way of the JCA.
- The Framework Team is unanimous in its request to change the license to LGPL v2.1+
- The PLT is unanimous in its request to change the license to LGPL v2.1+

What you can learn from these facts is that those people who actually wrote the Framework codebase support the change. I think it would be reasonable to support them in this request.

Furthermore, the LGPL is an open source license and it satisfies the 4 freedoms that we all know and love. An excerpt taken from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

All 4 freedoms are kept in tact by a license change to LGPL v2.1+.

====

JoeJoomla, to answer your question, I would take offense if I thought you were suggesting that the Framework team and the PLT did not have the best interests of Joomla in mind when making these requests.

George, to answer your question, LGPL software takes on the GPL license when distributed with GPL software. However, LGPLv2.1+ and GPL v2+ are compatible licenses.

Richard Stallman wrote a great post on "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library", linked here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html Brian Teeman already alluded to this post, even though he ignored the strongest argument for the LGPL that is stated therein.

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.

The second sentence states that it would be advantageous for a library to use the LGPL when a free library's features are readily available through alternative libraries. This, in my opinion, is the strongest argument for the LGPL. Nothing in the Joomla Framework is unique. It is a set of building block libraries, whose functionality is readily available in alternative libraries. What differs in the Framework is the implementation of that functionality in ways that makes sense to the contributors. This however doesn't suggest uniqueness, but rather an alternative implementation for the same functionality.

Stallman goes on to state in the second quoted paragraph that using the GPL for a library whose features are readily available in an alternative can actually hurt that library. Using the GPL for the Framework will drive proprietary software developers to use another - no problem for them, only for us.

Where Stallman's "why not the LGPL" argument breaks down is when he turns it from a technical argument into a religious one. His last paragraph (that Brian quoted) starts with

But we should not listen to these temptations

. The only other place you read such warnings against evil is in religious texts, as when the serpent beguiled Eve, or when in the Psalms David is writing his son to be wary of "the strange women". However, this is not a religious debate, but a technical one.

tl;dr;
Based on the technical merits of the LGPL v2.1+, the fact that it respects the 4 freedoms, as well as the support of those who actually wrote the code for the Framework, I feel we would be remiss to not take action and approve the request.

[brian]

So 75% of the Framework contributors did not explicitly state they support the change - interesting ovservation

[instance]

No. Some of my code likely still survives in Framework, albeit modded to hell.

The only argument I can see for doing this is that more people might use Framework. To this, I say "so?" Is there going to be some massive benefit to CMS from this? A few more contributions, maybe. Shrug. Worst case a pile of developers fork. I'll miss you guys, but the fact is nature abhors a vacuum.

Let's take two polar views of Framework under the LGPL. First, the positive view: this code is so wonderful that given the LGPL, it will see widespread adoption, bring more developers to the project, etc. CMS will gain more power from having these new contributions. The rider here is that contributions to Framework would need to be actually useful to CMS, which isn't guaranteed.

Now the negative LGPL view: Framework is so wonderful that it gets adopted by a wide range of proprietary software developers, some of whom contribute bug fixes. Meanwhile they focus most of their effort on their proprietary solutions.

To be fair, we should do the same with status the quo, Framework under the GPL. Positive view: this code is so wonderful that it encourages other developers to look at the success of Joomla and decide to build their product under the GPL. The whole open source ecosystem expands as a result. If Framework is missing key functionality, they contribute it because they gain no advantage from keeping it in their code base. More users gain more software freedom.

The negative GPL view: Fewer developers adopt Framework, the project continues to enhance it primarily for the needs of CMS and any other applications we decide to build. Maybe some Framework developers decide to pack their bags and fork it. Now "Forkwork" takes one of the two LGPL paths I described above, and Joomla integrates anything it finds useful into Framework.

I don't know about anyone else, but to be BOTH of the GPL scenarios look more attractive than either of the LGPL scenarios.

Therefore: no, no, and no.

[ianmac]

Joomla was founded on the principle of Open Source Matters and a change to using the LGPL licence for the framework is completely against that. For those of you that don't know the LGPL allows the code to be included in proprietary, closed source software.

Yes, Joomla was founded on the principle of Open Source Matters and this change is consistent with that. The LGPL is an open source license and is still on the strict side of open source licenses. You are correct to say that the LGPL allows code to be included in proprietary, closed source software. However, in contrast to the MIT license and the BSD license, proprietary vendors cannot make closed source modifications to the LGPL work. i.e. you wouldn't be able to take the Joomla Framework, add enhancements to it and sell the enhancements as a closed source work. If you wanted to use the Framework, you could, but you'd have to use it as is.

I obviously can't speak on behalf of the founders, but a large portion of the development community that played major roles in bringing Joomla to where it is today are or have been in favour of this change. These people include (but are not necessarily limited to):
Andrew Eddie
Louis Landry
Sam Moffatt
Rob Schley
Kyle Ledbetter
Rouven Wessling
All current Joomla Framework team members (David Hurley, Don Gilbert, Michael Babker, Andrew Eddie, Chad Wingnagle, and myself)

I suspect others from amongst the founders would also be in favour but I do not have the knowledge to say so definitively.

A large portion of the current framework was developed by these people, and in fact, there is an MIT fork at https://github.com/grisgris/skeleton of most of what was the platform at the time made by people who had rights to the majority of the code or who obtained consent from those who did. You can see at https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/gr ... ntributors that these people represent a significant portion of the code base.

Thus to say that changing the license of the code goes against the principles of the people that developed the code is disingenuous, IMO.

How does allowing people to produce closed source software with the Joomla Framework support the principle of Open Source Matters?

We have never been able to stop people from producing closed source software and to pretend that we could is laughable. What changing the license of the framework to LGPL 2.1 does is give proprietary software developers the choice to use the Joomla Framework in their projects. This is a space that would normally be reserved for proprietary libraries or other open source libraries with more permissive licenses (such as the scads that are licensed MIT or BSD). This would support the principle of open source matters by increasing the use of open source software.

Just another rant?
Before you think this is Brian just going off on a rant of his own I'm not alone with this view. The Free Software Foundation, the people behind both the GPL and LGPL licences, agree.

The same document that you have quoted also says:

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.

(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html)

I think this situation describes us far more accurately - there are plenty of other PHP libraries, the large majority of them using BSD, MIT or similar license. Using the GPL for ours will only drive proprietary software developers to use another.

It doesn't effect Joomla?

So a statement that says "This potential license change would only apply to the Joomla Framework, but not to the Joomla Content Management System (CMS)." is, potentially, not true. IF the Framework uses LGPLv3 then Joomla would need to change its own licence to GPLv3 in order to use its own framework.

You are right to say potentially as the requested license is LGPLv2.1 and not LGPLv3. The effect on the CMS is minimal - the CMS will still be distributed as a GPL product and all the same terms would apply.

But our competitors use LGPLv3?
While some use a more permissive licence than the GPL others do not. Drupal for example uses GPLv3.

Drupal is not in the space that the Joomla Framework is in and so that's a rather misleading argument. I get that a huge portion of people here don't understand the difference, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference.

Who benefits?
The only people that really benefit are those people who want to take the Framework and use it in a proprietary piece of software. Are those same people likely to contribute to the Framework itself and help to develop it?

There are a number of people that benefit, not least the developers who have built a large portion of the CMS, the platform and now the framework who will be able to release code under the Joomla banner under the license that they would like to use.

Not only that, establishing the Joomla Framework as a contender in the framework space means that those who have put in countless of hours of work into the codebase can include Joomla on their resume as a point of pride rather than having it as something to explain.

This obviously indirectly benefits others in the community because it allows developers, those who have worked to produce a world class CMS, able to be proud of representing Joomla in the wider PHP development community (which we have traditionally not participated in) rather than being questioned about why they are there. I don't want to have conversations with executives and managers from companies like Zend and have to argue for the Joomla Framework being in the same space as Zend Framework - I want to be taken serious as a developer of the Joomla Framework and I believe the higher profile we can achieve by going LGPL will help us to accomplish this.

While the change gives this benefit, it does not impact:

• Those building their own websites using Joomla
  Those making large amounts of money using the software that was built by these developers
  Those building, giving and/or selling extensions in the market enabled by these developers
  

  Open Source Matters
  This is our founding principle. If someone won't use the Joomla framework because they want to use it to produce closed source, proprietary software then tough luck go and find another php framework to use.

  They will do just that and the net result will be driving people toward using proprietary software. If that is your desire, then fine - but please state that openly.

  In Summary

  • This is against the principle of Open Source Matters
    This would, probably, mean changing the licence of Joomla to GPLv3
    The argument about competition is irrelevant.
    This only benefits those who wish to take open source software and use it in proprietary closed source software.
    And once againt this is against the principle of Open Source Matters

  In summary
  • This solidly maintains the vision of Open Source Matters by promoting the use of open source software.
    This would not mean a change to the license of the Joomla CMS
    The argument of competition may seem irrelevant to those selling services based on the CMS, but it is very important to those actually building the framework and the CMS and I believe this should be considered
    This is desired by and benefits the people who built the Joomla Framework and the Joomla CMS, while not impacting others
    I would implore you to take the desire and request of the people who have put the lion's share of effort into building the software seriously.

[dilbert4life]

So 75% of the Framework contributors did not explicitly state they support the change - interesting ovservation

Correct. However, this is simply because of limited resources. Had I had more time or volunteers to help me contact the contributors, we could get a better number of those who actually explicitly support changing the license to LGPL. I never directly contacted those who signed the JCA, since they already approve because they signed the JCA.

It should be noted though that those 25% that explicitly support the license change wrote 88% of the Framework code.

[brian]

I would implore you to take the desire and request of the people who have put the lion's share of effort into building the software seriously.

I'm struggling to come to terms with that statement. Are you really saying that Joomla is just a piece of software built by a few people and that no one else matters. That is what is sounds like.

[claualfbel]

Thanks Brian!

NO LGPL!

[instance]

I do believe most of us take Framework developers seriously. I do. I just think they're wrong. There's an intrinsic conflict between wanting to see Framework more widely used and forcing users of Framework to license their code under the GPL.

To use the argument that people will just violate the license anyway is disingenuous. If that's the case, leave it as GPL and wait for the infringer to be exposed in the media. Clearly not everyone is going to break the license, and those who don't will make more code available as a result.

As for the quotes / misquotes of Stallman's article, it is on balance a plea to consider the LGPL as a last resort. I honestly don't see that we're in a last resort scenario.

And by the way, when I signed the JCA I saw it as a necessary formality. If I ever thought we were going to do this without being forced to by external forces (like a strange legal decision), I would *never* have signed it.

[ianmac]

I would implore you to take the desire and request of the people who have put the lion's share of effort into building the software seriously.

I'm struggling to come to terms with that statement. Are you really saying that Joomla is just a piece of software built by a few people and that no one else matters. That is what is sounds like.

I'm saying that since the greatist impact of this change is for the people who built the software then perhaps their voice is important. Or are you saying that the people who are contributing to the framework should not have a voice in the future of the framework?

[dilbert4life]

As for the quotes / misquotes of Stallman's article, it is on balance a plea to consider the LGPL as a last resort. I honestly don't see that we're in a last resort scenario.

They are anything but misquotes, Alan. The link to the article is right there, read it for yourself. As for LGPL being a "last resort" issue, I heartily disagree there. It is simply a matter of interpretation of what he's saying. You read it as last resort, I read it as being proactive.

The GPL is hurting the Framework libraries, and driving developers who would like to check out Joomla to use proprietary alternatives. The LGPL solves that issue. If you're really for Open Source and Free Software, you'd support the request.

[claualfbel]

This thread is for discussing the following blog:
Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

Dear Paul Orwing
Who requested the change of license?

Thanks

[dilbert4life]

Dear Paul Orwing
Who requested the change of license?

Thanks

In Paul's absence, I'll interject here.

The Framework team originally made the request to the PLT, which after internal discussion made the request to OSM.

[wilsonge]

As long as there is no impact onto the CMS when it comes to using LGPL code from the framework I have no issues with the framework being LGPL (which as I understand it is the view). I think we need to cut these guys a break as it's clearly given aspects of Joomla a new lease of life and will eventually benefit all of us.

Kind Regards,
George

[instance]

Okay, they're not misquotes. They're selected quotes that people on both sides of the issue have posted to support their argument.

Don says "the GPL is hurting the Framework libraries", but from the CMS perspective I don't see that at all. They seem to do just fine. Yes the GPL may be hurting more widespread use of Framework in proprietary apps. Shrug. Really don't care.

Then he says "driving developers who would like to check out Joomla to use proprietary alternatives". Huh? Here, you mean Joomla Framework, not Joomla CMS -- let's make a clear distinction. Right now CMS isn't affected in any way by the Framework license. GPL is compatible with GPL. So again on this, my reaction is "so what?" Developers are being forced to look at proprietary alternatives for code they obviously plan to keep proprietary in the first place. Tough. Why exactly should we contribute to lowering their costs by offering them a free one?

What I'm saying is that if the people contributing to Framework want to have a voice in a LGPL licensed version of it, then maybe they should start a project for that or something. I think it goes against the spirit of the project; if they are that passionate about it, then let's let 'em take a copy under LGPL and go forth under their own brand. Leave Joomla(CMS) out of it.

[pmichelazzo]

From Brazil, NO to LGPL!

[deleted user]

I'm very glad we can publicly talk about it. Thanks Paul for asking.

A clear no from me.

Out of personal interest, a year ago, you indicated you did support this move at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla- ... 6uSL_ReB8J. Today you do not. Is there something that changed your opinion on the matter?

[JacquesR]

Thank you Don for sharing more information, and for ianmac eloquent response to some emotive arguments presented.

Yes, Joomla was founded on the principle of Open Source Matters and this change is consistent with that. The LGPL is an open source license and is still on the strict side of open source licenses. You are correct to say that the LGPL allows code to be included in proprietary, closed source software. However, in contrast to the MIT license and the BSD license, proprietary vendors cannot make closed source modifications to the LGPL work. i.e. you wouldn't be able to take the Joomla Framework, add enhancements to it and sell the enhancements as a closed source work. If you wanted to use the Framework, you could, but you'd have to use it as is.

(my emphasis added)

I wonder how many of those who are so passionately against LGPL for the Framework, have stopped using JQuery since JQuery moved their license from GPL-or-MIT to MIT-only in 2012. (Note that's not an option for Joomla under our contributor agreement)

No Freedoms are lost by this requested change, and no CMS user (or contributor) is affected negatively.
Joomla! (both the CMS and Framework) remains firmly Free and Open Source, and the CMS remains GPL v.2 or later.

Could the energy not rather be spent on giving specifics or scenarios where the license change could potentially present a licence/legal problem, so that it can be checked by OSM with the SFLC?

--
Jacques
(Joomla! user and volunteer)