Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

[omaralmeida]

NOT for movement LGPL.

[JoeJoomla]

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.

My intent with that statement was to imply that I believe the core developers do have the best interests of Joomla at heart and to come out and clearly say so would be helpful to the conversation.

I'm sorry that it came out fuzzy. I hope this clears it up.

[deleted user]

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?

I can't speak for all involved, but I personally have no intents on going elsewhere over this single item. From my personal view, the license change is one way in which we can expand the use of Joomla code outside the Joomla community, an area in which we do not target for increasing adoption typically.

[deleted user]

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.

This is already happening in our current ecosystem. How many companies which are built around supporting Joomla do not contribute to the project? Do you think changing the license would make this a more common behavior?

[instance]

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

However, in contrast to the MIT license and the BSD license, proprietary vendors cannot make closed source modifications to the LGPL work.

(my emphasis added)

So all they'll contribute are bug fix patches. Whoop.

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)

--
Jacques
(Joomla! user and volunteer)

Wrong question. From my perspective the question is more "how much code wasn't made open source because jQuery adopted a more permissive license?"

[deleted user]

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.

Alan, there are a couple of comments in this post that lead me to believe that you feel the Framework should primarily support the CMS or our own project needs and being usable outside those scenarios shouldn't necessarily be a priority. Is this me misreading your comments or is that what you meant? I personally think the Framework has the opportunity to expand the use of Joomla code with useful code packages. For example, the Framework's GitHub package was the first PHP wrapper for their v3 API with full coverage of the API and 100% unit test coverage. Things like this are useful to the PHP community and we should enable developers to use those packages without being tied to the Joomla CMS.

[instance]

Alan, there are a couple of comments in this post that lead me to believe that you feel the Framework should primarily support the CMS or our own project needs and being usable outside those scenarios shouldn't necessarily be a priority. Is this me misreading your comments or is that what you meant? I personally think the Framework has the opportunity to expand the use of Joomla code with useful code packages. For example, the Framework's GitHub package was the first PHP wrapper for their v3 API with full coverage of the API and 100% unit test coverage. Things like this are useful to the PHP community and we should enable developers to use those packages without being tied to the Joomla CMS.

Generally speaking my priority is working to ensure that more code is available under the GPL, in the most global sense possible. I think we could nitpick about whether package X "belongs" in Framework from the perspective of "CMS support vs. a general library" forever and not achieve anything useful. But let me try this one...

Who is the audience for Framework's GitHub package? Arguably, developers. What are most developers going to do with it? My guess is that the vast majority will integrate it into tools that are never distributed, so the GPL vs LGPL distinction is moot.

Now we look at the minority who use it to build a product for developers. If Framework is GPL, and they want to keep their source closed, they have to build their own GitHub package. Sure, they might lift our code and use it anyway, but that's a non-trivial risk, particularly in the developer community. Some of them will choose to build their own, but some will decide to embrace the GPL. The world gets more open source code.

If Framework is LGPL, they integrate it into some product that they'll ask you to pay for with no code available. No issues.

So yeah, I'd rather force people who want to release proprietary code to write their own GitHub package. GPL. All the Way.

[deleted user]

Thanks, Alan. That's a better perspective than what I gathered from your first post.

[pchardnet]

Frankly. This thread may not have the same motivation that occurred between developers and Miro, but there are some similarities. What causes some concern for the future of the project.

I am not in favor of adopting the LGPL license for Framework from CMS Joomla!

This kind of change makes you think that there are people (inside) interested in using what has been produced in commercial projects for free. Wait. Or you live in community or go beg alone.

If developers (remember 2005), who do not own the code and contribute freely to the LGPL Framework, so they make a FORK him with this license.

Any change in this Framework may spill into the CMS in the future. You better beware, because watching the steps you can notice the changes, even if they will not soon happen.

Let the Joomla! in peace.

[dilbert4life]

This kind of change makes you think that there are people (inside) interested in using what has been produced in commercial projects for free. Wait. Or you live in community or go beg alone.

Those who are most interested in this change are those who have contributed the most to the Framework over the past 2 years, and even prior to that while it existed as the Platform. If we were simply interested in taking the code and running to build proprietary software, we never would have contributed the code under the JCA to begin with.

[pchardnet]

Those who are most interested in this change are those who have contributed the most to the Framework over the past 2 years, and even prior to that while it existed as the Platform. If we were simply interested in taking the code and running to build proprietary software, we never would have contributed the code under the JCA to begin with.

AND

If developers (remember 2005), who do not own the code and contribute freely to the LGPL Framework, so they make a FORK him with this license.

[Tonie]

Joomla is a community, it consist of developers, translators, people helping each other out, documentation writers, ant others I'm forgetting. Joomla would be nowhere all those people. Changing the license of the Framework is not simply a developer decision, it's a change that changes the philosophy of the whole project. The project spent years trying to get Joomla extensions to comply with the GPL, so to me it's rather strange that we'd move the Framework over to a more permissive license.

The reason I joined the project is because of the community and after a while also the belief in the working of the GPL license. For the moment I do not see the benefits for the project.

[itoctopus]

I think the main reason why Joomla is GPL and not LGPL is to disallow forks. If Joomla moves to LGPL, then we'll have a zillion Joomla versions, some commercial, some are not, some secure, some are not, some easy to use, and some are not, some working, and some are not.

This action will dilute the value of Joomla and will confuse the community, eventually leading to a mass de-adoption of Joomla and migration to other CMSs, such as WordPress, Drupal, and the likes.

I personally don't see any single benefit to Joomla changing its license to LGPL, whether it's the framework or the CMS. This will definitely hurt the Joomla brand.

My vote is against LGPL.

[dilbert4life]

I think the main reason why Joomla is GPL and not LGPL is to disallow forks. If Joomla moves to LGPL, then we'll have a zillion Joomla versions, some commercial, some are not, some secure, some are not, some easy to use, and some are not, some working, and some are not.

You are misunderstanding the article and the purpose of the change. This change does not effect the CMS in any way, it only effects code that is part of the Joomla Framework. If you are saying no to the GPL based on your current understanding, you should re-read the article as well as the replies in this thread that present both sides of the issue, and form your opinion based on that.

[brian]

I think the main reason why Joomla is GPL and not LGPL is to disallow forks. I

Sorry but you misunderstand this. Both the GPL and LGPL encourage forks. What neither of them allow is for you to use the name as that is a trademark.

The issue here is should the Joomla Framework be allowed to be used in proprietary closed source software. That is what a change to the LGPL would allow

[Radek Suski]

Joomla is a community, it consist of developers, translators, people helping each other out, documentation writers, ant others I'm forgetting. Joomla would be nowhere all those people. Changing the license of the Framework is not simply a developer decision, it's a change that changes the philosophy of the whole project. The project spent years trying to get Joomla extensions to comply with the GPL, so to me it's rather strange that we'd move the Framework over to a more permissive license.

Totally! I couldn't have put it better myself!

[pchardnet]

Okay, the "developers of the last two years" already has a FORK - https://github.com/grisgris/skeleton

[dilbert4life]

Okay, the "developers of the last two years" already has a FORK - https://github.com/grisgris/skeleton

Those are the developers from before 2 years ago. The Framework team as it consists today was formed 2 years ago and is made up of:

Andrew Eddie
David Hurley
Don Gilbert
Ian Maclennen
Michael Babker

The GrisGris developers are:

Louis Landry
Sam Moffat
Rob Schley

None of them have been around in the last 2 years.

[dilbert4life]

The GPL vs LGPL can be broken down to this basic scenario:

GPL: You can use our software however you like, as long as you also use the GPL for any software you build on top of our software. If you modify our software, you must make those modifications available under the GPL.

LGPL: You can use our software however you like, even in proprietary software. We feel that you the developer know what the best license for your software is, and you should be able to pick whichever license suits your software best. But, if you modify our software, you must make those modifications available under the GPL or LGPL.

====

I'm pro personal choice. I like it when others don't tell me what to do with my stuff. If I write some code, I want to be able to license it however I like. I don't need the GPL telling me it MUST BE GPL OR ELSE. I'm a big boy, I can make those decisions.

[ot2sen]

Yes to the suggested change to LGPL.

I have full confidence in the judgement made by our former Platform team, our current Framework team and our former and current Production Leadership Team.

They would only request this adjustment in license, if it has positive impact for joomla!, which I believe it will have.

[brian]

If you want complete personal choice then I would never contribute to a community project that has already adopted a licence

[instance]

I'm pro personal choice. I like it when others don't tell me what to do with my stuff. If I write some code, I want to be able to license it however I like. I don't need the GPL telling me it MUST BE GPL OR ELSE. I'm a big boy, I can make those decisions.

You were a big boy when you came to the project and you made a choice then, implicitly or otherwise, you accepted it. Now you want to change that, which defeats your argument utterly.

[pchardnet]

The GPL vs LGPL can be broken down to this basic scenario:
I'm pro personal choice. I like it when others don't tell me what to do with my stuff. If I write some code, I want to be able to license it however I like. I don't need the GPL telling me it MUST BE GPL OR ELSE. I'm a big boy, I can make those decisions.

Then you make the code for free and freely to Joomla , even though GPL is yours?

Sorry , but I did not . It is a contribution to the project or not ?

[dilbert4life]

You were a big boy when you came to the project and you made a choice then, implicitly or otherwise, you accepted it. Now you want to change that, which defeats your argument utterly.

And you were a big boy when you chose to sign the JCA, thus allowing OSM to make this change. So buck up and say you approve of it, as your signature on the document already states.

[deleted user]

... so to me it's rather strange that we'd move the Framework over to a more permissive license.

This has legitimately confused me. Why would we not want to legally allow Joomla software (in this case, the Framework) to be adapted in other ways to expand its growth?

[jrstylle]

No change to LGPL.

agree with Brian 100%

[Radek Suski]

I'm pro personal choice. I like it when others don't tell me what to do with my stuff. If I write some code, I want to be able to license it however I like.

And you have a choice. if you write your code for your personal needs you are allowed to license it however you wish.
If you however going to include MSDN into your code you have to comply with their license agreement.

If you are going to use library which has been created for a project which has, as a one of the primary reasons for which it has been created, to protect the Open Source nature of the software this project is creating then you have to comply with the GPL.
Then you however still have the choice not to use it.

[mattbaylor]

This is already happening in our current ecosystem. How many companies which are built around supporting Joomla do not contribute to the project? Do you think changing the license would make this a more common behavior?

I see it first hand on a daily basis. Changing it just because it already happens is tantamount to making speeding legal. With 7k+ extensions listed on the JED I'd bet out of the the paid listings less than 5% give anything back.

I have read through more dev licenses and their interpretations than I care to admit. It always amazes how many try to play some sort of angle to get around the GPL and impose limitations.

Looking at the framework side of things I do think it would get worse in the long run. Sure, it opens it up to be used in more applications but I'm not sold on the idea that a license change to allow usage in a closed atmosphere would really help improve the framework.

License differences and details aside, it seems more of a change in course to me. We have been in the business of promoting open source. On the JED we go as far as to say you can't distribute limited extensions from the same site. Are we missing out on something because we've excluded ourselves from proprietary projects?

Reading though the prior discussions I see a lot of "I don't need it this way but it would be nice to have" type statements. Are there any real case examples of someone running into a roadblock because of the current license?

At the end of the day I feel we're trading off ideals for some vague possibilities.

[instance]

And you were a big boy when you chose to sign the JCA, thus allowing OSM to make this change. So buck up and say you approve of it, as your signature on the document already states.

Okay so your argument is valid and mine isn't just because I signed the JCA? Moving on...

As I have said when this came up on list, my impression was that we gave OSM freedom to change licenses essentially as a last resort, that it was something that we'd do if forced to protect the code. I realize that this is just an impression, that it carries no legal weight, but it remains the context in which I signed that document.

So while OSM has the legal authority to change the license, personally speaking and form my personal context only, they don't have the moral authority. [Again, "moral authority" has specific legal meaning, and I am using it in the colloquial context not the legal one]

What underpins the view that you seem to be putting forward is that by writing whatever number of tens of thousands of lines of code, developers get some innate special right to determine the fate of that code. I understand that without the code, there is no project, but to somehow discount the contributions of the rest of the people involved is pure arrogance.

Some of the code that I contributed was ported from a framework I developed before discovering Joomla. Nobody uses it except me. So there's essentially the same code in two frameworks, one with millions of installs, one with three.

Without the rest of the project we might be talking about hundreds of thousands of lines of little-used code. It's successful mostly because it's part of Joomla. Thus the larger community does get to determine what happens to "your" code (oh, wait, you signed that agreement too), like it or not; "unanimous" agreement from the developers or not.

[phproberto]

Yes to LGPL.

For me it's simple: framework stays opensource but it can be used by any application. Less restrictions = more people using it, more popularity and more contributors. And high quality contributors.

This is not trying to convert Joomla! in closed source. This is about building a tool that is useful for both worlds.

Our framework is the last at the party and having the most restrictive license won't help us to go up in the ranking.

I want a top quality framework and see it dealing with other top frameworks. I want to read the Joomla! word tied to quality code and libraries. I want to see Joomla! in high PHP enviroments and in debates about best PHP tools.

P.S.: PLT won't fork Joomla! Remember that we are here because we do our best to improve and spread Joomla! (and because we are supposed to be good on that). I've never been in a conversation where fork Joomla! was mentioned.