Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

[instance]

If you really care about Open Source and the 4 Freedoms, you'd support LGPL. Or you can stick to your religious debate of "Free Software Matters".

Ah yes, if you can't make a valid counterargument... That statement is ridiculous. I've used logic and asked for rebuttals, yours is to call my position a "religious debate". Seriously.

This is your core misunderstanding. It is Open Source Matters, not Free Software Matters. LGPL is a legitimate Open Source License,

I will grant you that it's an Open Source License, but that doesn't mean that switching licenses is likely to result in less open source software. You seem to be reading this as "Open Source Licensed Software Matters". I suppose the distinction is subtle, but you'll have to do better than just insinuate that it's not a rationally held position.

and in reality it is the only one that guarantees all four freedoms of free software. The GPL violates Freedom 0 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. The GPL forbids running the program in proprietary software, thus violating Freedom 0.

That is a pre-post-er-ous interpretation. You're seriously suggesting that being unable to include a library in a non-open application is violating a user's freedom to run and modify it? [sorry hyphens required to get past a weird filter]

Here's the thing. The GPL is designed to strip rights from developers so that end users have more freedom. It's about user freedoms, not developer freedoms. It's about giving freedom to the people who run programs (as in execute, not bundle into something else). The "freedom" you're complaining about there is the core intent of the GPL, and you are attempting to pervert it by putting developers into the position of users and then complaining that it restricts freedom!

I'm standing by this: if someone can present a cogent argument as to how this will result in more open source software rather than less, I'd happily climb on board LGPL licensing. Although for clarity it should get rebranded to something that doesn't include the word "Joomla" -- it's hard enough to get people to understand this project without having to explain some abstract software library along the way. [abstract here being the English usage, not the software development term]

If this is going to be a huge divisive issue that alienates the vast majority of people who just want to build a decent online presence with Joomla and other Framework based applications, then I'd support allowing those who feel sufficiently strongly about this to fork a LGPL copy, but only outside the purview of OSM/Joomla, then amending the JCA to strike the clauses that make this discussion possible in the first place. If it's only about the code, this should be your ticket to framework nirvana. I know as scores of developers flock to help build more into your Obviously Wonderful LGPL Framework we'll have to do extra work to to keep up, but I'm pretty confident that that's an acceptable risk.

It's too bad that the "community" is so amorphous. I'll wager that however you define community (other than "people who committed Framework code in the past few years") if we could find a way to put this to a vote, this proposal would be thoroughly trounced. You appear to take as axiomatic that an hour of developer time is somehow worth more than an hour of time spent answering forum questions, organizing user group activities, building free extensions, promoting Joomla, and so on. The problem is that none of those other constituencies shares that axiom because it is false.

[dilbert4life]

Here's the thing. The GPL is designed to strip rights from developers so that end users have more freedom. It's about user freedoms, not developer freedoms. It's about giving freedom to the people who run programs (as in execute, not bundle into something else). The "freedom" you're complaining about there is the core intent of the GPL, and you are attempting to pervert it by putting developers into the position of users and then complaining that it restricts freedom!

I agree with you that the GPL was designed to make clear distinctions between Users and Developers in order to strip Freedom 0 from developers while still flying under the banner of an Open Source and Free Software license. Regardless of how you slice it, the GPL violates the 4 Freedoms by restricting Freedom 0 for Developers. What right, in today's world where everyone and their brother is a "web developer", does the GPL have to make such a distinction?

I'm standing by this: if someone can present a cogent argument as to how this will result in more open source software rather than less, I'd happily climb on board LGPL licensing.

You want me to show you how adopting the LGPL for the Framework would create more Open Source software. I would like you to show me how adopting the LGPL for the Framework would create less.

The thing is neither can be shown. Your setting up an arrangement that can't be proven.

Proprietary software developers will build their proprietary systems, regardless of the license of the Joomla Framework. If it's GPL, they won't even consider it. If it's LGPL, they might consider it and even use it, and any modifications they make on it must also be made Open Source if they decide to distribute the application. This benefits Open Source in general and the Joomla Project in particular. The more proprietary developers that adopt Open Source software, the broader it's reach and the closer we get to the goal of "open-source all the things!". IMO, it's a net win with no negative impact.

Does keeping the Framework as GPL put proprietary software developers at a disadvantage? Not at all, as there are readily available alternatives available that have a less restrictive license, such as MIT or BSD. Does it help Open Source and Free Software to keep it as GPL? No, and in fact it hurts it. According to Stallman himself (speaking of the GNU C library, in comparison with others):

using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.

Does changing the license to LGPL put Open Source or Free Software at a disadvantage? Not at all, actually the opposite is true. As already stated, it broadens the reach of Open Source Software and opens the door for potential new contributors. Does it put proprietary software developers at an advantage over Open Source developers? No, because we already have access to the library; changing to the LGPL does not change that.

[rdeutz]

Proprietary software developers will build their proprietary systems, regardless of the license of the Joomla Framework. If it's GPL, they won't even consider it. If it's LGPL, they might consider it and even use it, and any modifications they make on it must also be made Open Source if they decide to distribute the application. This benefits Open Source in general and the Joomla Project in particular. The more proprietary developers that adopt Open Source software, the broader it's reach and the closer we get to the goal of "open-source all the things!". IMO, it's a net win with no negative impact.

I can't get the logic in this. If proprietary developers consider a framework only when it allows them to stay in the closed software corner why this should have a positive effect for open source?

[uriel29]

NO LGPL

[julianoaso]

I wanted to say a big NO to this license, Let the Joomla quiet please.
We and all Joomleiros from Brazil, will join us during Joomla Day Brazil to say a STRONG NO FOR LGPL.

[instance]

I agree with you that the GPL was designed to make clear distinctions between Users and Developers in order to strip Freedom 0 from developers while still flying under the banner of an Open Source and Free Software license. Regardless of how you slice it, the GPL violates the 4 Freedoms by restricting Freedom 0 for Developers. What right, in today's world where everyone and their brother is a "web developer", does the GPL have to make such a distinction?

Obviously I think the distinction is not moot.

I'm standing by this: if someone can present a cogent argument as to how this will result in more open source software rather than less, I'd happily climb on board LGPL licensing.

You want me to show you how adopting the LGPL for the Framework would create more Open Source software. I would like you to show me how adopting the LGPL for the Framework would create less.

The thing is neither can be shown. Your setting up an arrangement that can't be proven.

So if that's the case then it's back to community opinion.

Proprietary software developers will build their proprietary systems, regardless of the license of the Joomla Framework. If it's GPL, they won't even consider it. If it's LGPL, they might consider it and even use it, and any modifications they make on it must also be made Open Source if they decide to distribute the application.

Or they just stick their code in a proprietary library that leverages Framework. All they're likely to give us is bug fixes. After all they have demonstrated that they don't really care about open source by developing proprietary code in the first place.

This benefits Open Source in general and the Joomla Project in particular. The more proprietary developers that adopt Open Source software, the broader it's reach and the closer we get to the goal of "open-source all the things!". IMO, it's a net win with no negative impact.

I still see this as "developers get open source, users get encoded files they can't modify". Although I think you're wildly overestimating the potential of Framework and the contributions you'll get as a result. Even if those expectations are met I see at best a small indirect benefit to the project.

I also just don't see strong coupling between CMS and Framework as products. When you say Joomla, people think you're talking about a CMS. When you start talking about Framework to non-developers you might as well be speaking Klingon. If we had half a dozen apps built on Framework, your average pointy-haired technical manager might clue in, but the rest of the decision makers probably weight that near zero. In a project that's so dependent on volunteers this comes across as a lack of focus.

I'd submit that as nice as Framework is as a software engineering exercise, it's mere existence as a separate entity is actually doing the project harm. We have a highly engineered library and a haphazard process for adding functionality to CMS, the app that got us here in the first place. While Wordpress has a laser focus on being a better solution for more people with a meh code base, we're losing ground but have a highly polished library that we want to hand to proprietary developers. And we argue that we don't have it backwards.

We have a bunch of developers who are more entertained with adding neat stuff to framework than they are with adding functionality to CMS. I get that, I really do. I'm just not sure they should remain a part of Joomla. If Framework is good enough to go it alone, as you seem to believe, then we should give it that opportunity and get back to doing what our users need.

Does keeping the Framework as GPL put proprietary software developers at a disadvantage? Not at all, as there are readily available alternatives available that have a less restrictive license, such as MIT or BSD. Does it help Open Source and Free Software to keep it as GPL? No, and in fact it hurts it. According to Stallman himself (speaking of the GNU C library, in comparison with others):

using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.

You are comparing a library that was, at the time essential for every single application that ran on a machine, unless you were coding in assembler. This argument doesn't port to Framework.

Does changing the license to LGPL put Open Source or Free Software at a disadvantage? Not at all, actually the opposite is true. As already stated, it broadens the reach of Open Source Software and opens the door for potential new contributors. Does it put proprietary software developers at an advantage over Open Source developers? No, because we already have access to the library; changing to the LGPL does not change that.

If Framework had sufficient intrinsic merit, people would consider GPLing their code just so they could use it. That might be ridiculous, but no more so than trying to apply the logic for the GNU C library to Framework.

It "broadens the reach of open source software" to people writing proprietary applications. Again, I can see how this benefits developers, not users.

I think we're at the point where the debate is circular and neither of us have changed positions. I'll address anything new that comes up, but at this point nothing has convinced me that switching Framework to LGPL and keeping it as part of the project is anything other than a very bad idea.

[AmyStephen]

+1 for the move to the LGPL.

The heated discussion reminds me of a discussion we had at the very beginning of the Joomla-Project about license related things. This discussion had only losers, I hope this discussion here will have a better end.

Wise words.

This discussion has a serious problem, we all are guessing. There isn’t a role model for the proposed change. We also don’t know what are the side effects, maybe some people working in other areas leave the project because we are not 100% GPL, who knows. <snip>
This discussion has a serious problem, we all are guessing.

Unfortunately, it's not guessing. There is considerable data demonstrating movement away from the GPL for more permissive licensing. Here are a few resources which document this fact:

The 451 Group - The Trend towards Permissive Licensing
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource ... licensing/

RedMonk (company behind Ohloh) Quantifying the shift toward permissive licensing
http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2013/04/02 ... licensing/

Software Freedom Law Center "Licensing of Software on Github:
A Quantitative Analysis"
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resource ... es-aaronw/

The challenge to the community is attracting developers. Changing the license from GPL to LGPL will indeed help remove a real barrier for many developers. It's fair to say that the Framework Team also has to demonstrate that using the Joomla Framework is a reasonable alternative to other choices. But, if the license isn't changed, it is a show stopper for many developers.

Please understand, this is *not* a move to assist proprietary solutions. Open source is on the increase. This change is intended to support open source developers who use OSI-approved licenses for applications. It does allow developers to use MIT for their applications built on the framework. In general, that is who it would support.

The question for the community is one of how to attract developers. There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not non-developers matter. Of course, those voice do matter. But, if there is no motivation for framework level developers to participate, it will impact the CMS. In turn, that will create more problems for strengthening the ecosystem for GPL extension developers. This move would do nothing but help that process.

This one change is not enough. The framework team still has an uphill battle in providing a viable product. The marketing team still has to craft a message that presents the truth and convinces developers to participate. But, I'll say I've been impressed that there is interest in Joomla by the broader PHP community and this one change will help. Be encouraged by that.

I hope it's considered. I believe Drupal's inclusion of MIT-based framework software will help that project but I also very much believe this licensing change for the Joomla FW is necessary for the health of the project.

Thank you.

[novinfard]

Freedom for Freedom,
NO to LGPL

[humvee]

Very definite No +1

Joomla is, as Brian eloquently states, founded on being open. Where does this step lead to - separate availability of the Framework; the latest version with full features if you pay or a "lesser" version for the OS community? Does OSM start to become a commercial foundation - was that not part of the issues with the previous software that led to the fork in the first place?

Commercial support for development, payment for extensions (that are still open source) and occasional payment of individuals, is one thing but this could become a very sticky downward spiral.

Andy

PS
Just one further note that whilst the "framework" developers might be a significant part of the project they are not and never have been the whole Project! There are a lot of other people who have contributed solutions to problems, or done the testing, the promotion, the support, and all the other elements of this project that have created the Joomla name on the basis of it being open, and that is not just the framework or the CMS it is the whole PROJECT.

[infograf768]

It is quite interesting to note that, when looking at the date the people posting in this topic joined this forum -see under the avatar-, all (except Ianmac) who joined in 2005 (most already coming from Mambo after the spork) voted against the LGPL move...
Among them 2 Joomla co-founders (Brian and I).

Yes, I signed the JCA, I guess without being conscious (bad understanding of the legalese for sure) that one day this project would favorise proprietary software.

When Don Gilbert insists on the JCA, it looks like he tells us that this topic is useless as anyway the license may be changed without my agreement or anybody's agreement here. Is our feedback even necessary?

The main reasons why I participated to this adventure for the last 10 years was to help people around the world:
1. to be able to use a free CMS (as in free beer) AND its Open source code;
2. to not be forced to use proprietary software, which anyway most of potentiel users could not afford to buy and was most of the time seriously flawed.

I second Alan's demonstration, see above http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 2#p3142086

It is a very well known fact that many companies just use LGPL software for their own closed source benefit and never give back.
Why should we help them?
What do we care if they use another library?
Is that only a matter of ego from the main Framework developers? (Mom, You know, the guy that just sold that piece of proprietary software for $500 million to [add a company name here] is using MY code...)
The "potentiality" that a few would help Joomla CMS, even by just stating they use our library? I would not count on that...

Not worth changing our "raison d'être" IMHO.

[brian]

It may surprise some of you but I 100% agree with Jean-Marie

[Jurian]

I also say NO to LGPL.

[deltapapa]

100 % NO to LGPL!

[ot2sen]

I think that many reading this interesting discussion thread, may not have followed the years of discussion on the topic, and it is understandable that any mention of a license change would make people think it could be a bad thing.

As I recall I too was rather sceptic and concerned when Louis introduced the idea to me back in 2009. He convinced me then, and the many on list discussions since, raising lots of pros and cons have had me thinking a lot of whether it would be the right decision. Having read this thread again, and the former threads, of great discussions, I still feel good about supporting the suggested change. We will still be open, our software will still be open source and free. Being more open to how others can use our free and open source software wouldnt have negative impact, I believe.

It may just end at status quo, but when our senior developers are convinced it will have positive effect, I forced myself to think which effects these could be:

What if a Joomla Framework license change meant:

- That some outstanding PHP IDE(´s) (closed source) suddenly could support joomla better, and give free use licenses to the project, and help improve how our open source software is produced?
- That more top-500 companies would be able to use our free and open code, and feel encouraged to contribute as development sponsors?
- That other top-500 companies would use our free and open code, and feel encouraged to become global project sponsors of the joomla project?
- That more closed source companies could use our free and open code, and indirectly raise the awareness among developers, increase the adoption of our free and open software?
- That the joomla framework would be among the mentioned frameworks, when large it-sites/blogs/medias post articles like 'best PHP frameworks for 2015'
- That the increased awareness and use, and the related increased income for OSM, meant that many JDays could now be free to attend?
- That the awareness and new adoption among developers would bring more heavy weight contributors aboard on the framework team, and improve it further?
- That external webtools useful to the joomla cms volunteers and contributors, would be able to have better built in support for joomla related tasks. Social-, localization-, community-, and more external platforms, with free to use option for OS projects?
- That more documentation in form of external blog posts was created from "non-contributing" users of the code, indirectly helping contributors to better volunteer their skills directly to joomla cms and framework?

It would be easy to just say no.

But saying YES could, to use a word from initial post, - potentially - be a change that would empower the project seriously in helping the CMS side of the software getting wider adoption by making JDays free, by giving more scholarships, by getting better tools for producing our open source software.

[brian]

Sorry but I just don't share your views. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing any of the things that you mention.

[AmyStephen]

It is a very well known fact that many companies just use LGPL software for their own closed source benefit and never give back.

Again, this really isn't about closed source software.

Question for OSM: If the framework is licensed GPL, will the GPL be required for applications written on the framework? The FSF FAQ says yes. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-license ... braryIsGPL

Consider the impact on adoption of the Joomla Framework given those three links I shared previously (one is from the SFLC). The data clearly demonstrate developers are increasingly turning towards permissive licenses.

It is equally untrue to say that developers who use a license other than the GPL "never give back."
- Nearly 1,000 developers have contributed to Symfony 2. http://symfony.com/contributors/code
- Laravel has 226 contributors https://github.com/laravel/framework
- ZF2 has 511 contributors https://github.com/zendframework/

So, to the question JM asks, Why should the project "help" them? Only one reason, to get them to help the project.

Those against the LGPL change need to ask themselves why framework developers would help the Joomla Framework project? For those who say they don't care, I'd ask how how the project plans to sustain itself? This is the same code that powers the CMS and it needs senior level developers. Where will they come from?

The ones who help Joomla in this way now are asking for this license change. Those objecting are not the ones who work on the framework. Think about that.

[brian]

I thought this was a joomla community forum for people in the joomla community of users, developers, translators, designers etc

[Vimes]

I support the proposal to move to LGPL (even though that brings me into conflict with some of my peers in the J community. Sorry guys/girls).

[rdeutz]

This discussion has a serious problem, we all are guessing. There isn’t a role model for the proposed change. We also don’t know what are the side effects, maybe some people working in other areas leave the project because we are not 100% GPL, who knows. <snip>
This discussion has a serious problem, we all are guessing.

Unfortunately, it's not guessing. There is considerable data demonstrating movement away from the GPL for more permissive licensing. Here are a few resources which document this fact:

The 451 Group - The Trend towards Permissive Licensing
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource ... licensing/

RedMonk (company behind Ohloh) Quantifying the shift toward permissive licensing
http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2013/04/02 ... licensing/

Software Freedom Law Center "Licensing of Software on Github:
A Quantitative Analysis"
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resource ... es-aaronw/

Amy,

thanks for the links, unfortunately this are all numbers of changing the licence and not one about how many more developers a project get when it has changed the licence. So it doesn't convinced me that we will get more developers when we change the licence. It is still guessing.

The numbers show that there is a trend away from copyleft licences but I don’t think there is a need to follow the trend. Joomla! is a very unique project.

I understand that this licence change will low the barriers for "other" developers. But only for developers that are producing closed software and yes I know LGPL is still an open source licence. Lowering the barrier is also not a one way street. I can remember the time as there was a big discussion that company X is buying Joomla! (not possible at all) but we have to handle this influence then.

What we really need are developers that help with the CMS, with testing, fixing bugs, writing documentation and many more things.

[ot2sen]

While we all can only guess on the actual impact, there is a real option available for OSM to explore in getting qualified feedback from the popular VideoLAN open source project, that did this exact change for their libraries within the latest two year.

The moved from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1 for the libraries, and kept the main player GPLv2 which meant no change for the majority of users.

The reasoning was the same, to spread their software to a wider audience, to attract more professional developers and to allow inclusion in appstores and closed software.
http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl.html
http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl-libvlc.html
http://lwn.net/Articles/525718/
and all described in the project lead Jean-Babtiste Kempf´s blog here:
http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/H ... ce-project

Since then lots have happened, and OSM would be able to actually ask Jean-Babtiste if the result of the license change has had the impact as was intended.

I would be ready to listen, and have an open mind to be prepared to maybe change view, if the real world examples tells another result than what is hoped for.

[uriel29]

Create a fork, be happy

[skOre]

It is equally untrue to say that developers who use a license other than the GPL "never give back."
- Nearly 1,000 developers have contributed to Symfony 2. http://symfony.com/contributors/code
- Laravel has 226 contributors https://github.com/laravel/framework
- ZF2 has 511 contributors https://github.com/zendframework/

I think we both agree that this argument does not hold water, and I think this cuts to the heart of the issue:

The people who have put effort into the Joomla Framework would like it to be competitive with Symfony, Laravel and Zend Framework. The argument is that a change to a permissive license will help that.

I'm not so sure that it's the license, ladies and gentlemen.

From what I can tell, the entire notion of a framework is seeing the end of its lifecycle and the only thing that can keep your boat afloat during that is if you already have a sizeable audience. The Joomla Framework has no sizeable audience and I don't see how it would gain a sizeable audience through this move. If you want a framework and a permissive license, you take one of the candidates above. The audience that the Joomla Framework does have is in this thread and I think it is making its opinion heard rather clearly.

As for my personal opinion: I really don't care on a technical level and I think that a number of people in this topic are a little too trigger happy trying to attack the notion from that angle.

I do however think that this topic displays a more fundamental disconnect and that investing energy in a license change instead of figuring out ways to address that disconnect is more revealing of the underlying issues that the community is dealing with these days.

[montano]

Consider this... we can discuss this ad nauseam and hope that our voices are heard, but at the end it is the OSM board who will decide. 6 of 12 members are leaving the board in March. Two of the remaining have a professional interest in the outcome of the GPL/LGPL decision. The new board will be entirely self-appointed, no community vote. There is no longer any involvement of the Core Team or Community Oversight Committee. The new board will decide alone, without any community oversight what the license will be.

[dsweltweit]

NO LGPL!

[konlungkao]

NO to LGPL

[claualfbel]

Lovely to see the community strongly manifesting not LGPL!

[dilbert4life]

It is quite interesting to note that, when looking at the date the people posting in this topic joined this forum -see under the avatar-, all (except Ianmac) who joined in 2005 (most already coming from Mambo after the spork) voted against the LGPL move...
Among them 2 Joomla co-founders (Brian and I).

So now you're pointing out that length of service is more significant than quantity and quality of service? Got it.

It is also quite interesting to note that a handful of the NO LGPL votes come from people with accounts created for the specific purpose of replying NO to this thread. Very interesting indeed.

[MarijkeS]

Is our feedback even necessary?

I probably will be one of them voting, if I will be re-elected.
On a personal note, yes your feedback is necessary and helpful for me.
There are a number of posts in this thread that ask this question and tend to jumping to conclusions about the way OSM will/can decide.
I'm sorry to read that, though I can understand where the feelings come from, I like to emphasize that I do try to be a board member in the best interest of our entire community. That's why all your feedback on this (and on many subjects) really matters to me and is helpful for me to make up my mind, and to be able to vote in the best interest of our entire community.
I consider this from time to time a difficult task, since I realize that it would be very hard to keep everyone satisfied. Especially in these kind of subjects, it is almost impossible. But for what it is worth, I follow this thread closely and read all the pro's and cons and thank you for educating me.

[Matrikular]

[...] So now you're pointing out that length of service is more significant than quantity and quality of service? Got it.

It is also quite interesting to note that a handful of the NO LGPL votes come from people with accounts created for the specific purpose of replying NO to this thread. Very interesting indeed.

It's getting ridiculous. Stop being polemic. What is your point in saying something like that? And a handful?! - I count one.

[Tonie]

I kindly ask everybody to stay calm, and not let emotions take over any more than it is starting to do now. We all know that this is one of those discussions where people will not change their views, however long this discussion will take.

This discussion did make me realize that personally I did miss one thing in the last few years, and that is one off face to face communication. Something which came natural when I was on the core tema. To me, one hour talking to somebody is better than a year of reading online stuff.

I do thank everybody for their ideas in this thread, as it has given me food for thought for the next few days. For me, and no doubt a lot of others, Joomla has been important part of their lives in the last ten years. It has been too long since I challenged my thoughts and ideas of the project.

For the people creating a forum account just for participating in this thread, please state your name and your relation to Joomla so people can put a face/nickname to the post, otherwise they are useless and better not posted.

PS: I posted this as me, as I naturally will not be moderating this thread since I participated in it. Now back to bed, as I'm having the flu, which might explain my rambling here.