Joomla Framework changes to LGPL

[masterchief]

Hey folks. Good discussion, but could you please move it to an appropriate thread.

Well I opened up a thread on the Framework list, and as expected no takers (aka it's more fun to complain about someone else than to put effort into improving processes). As for finding a place where you can talk to the GWG, there is no public place to do that (and I think that's a serious problem given the nature of what that group is supposed to be doing).

[vdrover]

there won't be any takers if you keep replying here

[porwig]

Anyone is welcome to talk about the GWG in public on the forum, but as Vic has pointed out that's off topic for this thread.

Earlier in this thread, Niv linked to a new topic that he started in the OSM forum about the GWG.

[NivF007]

As for finding a place where you can talk to the GWG, there is no public place to do that (and I think that's a serious problem given the nature of what that group is supposed to be doing).

+1 here, with a caveat - let's be respectful of Vic's request to keep things on topic.

I think http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=381&t=840925 (Progress Announcements from Governance Working Group) is appropriate place to continue that discussion.

Let's give the folks from GWG a few days to respond with an update on when we can expect communications.

As for moving forward with an LGPL'd Framework - I've given my opinion on my concerns with how OSM handled the decision - but I do support LGPL as an appropriate license for the Framework and would like to have discussions on how we can assist the Framework project.

As you are aware, we've scheduled a joint presentation with our JUG and the local PHP user group - we're excited about it and I'm interested to know if there are any other JUG's who would like to do the same (a special thanks to Michael Babker for agreeing to present via Skype!!!).

And there is still discussions to be had about engaging the academic community - which I'd love to pursue as I have some great ideas on how to go about doing just that :-)!

N

EDIT: Paul - thanks for your response - came just as I submitted the above - on that thread, can we get idea of when we will hear some progress reports and updates from the GWG?

[masterchief]

As for moving forward with an LGPL'd Framework - I've given my opinion on my concerns with how OSM handled the decision

The only reason I replied to that point was because you implicated everyone else in the process. Please use a sniper rifle, not a shotgun in future.

[NivF007]

OSM Andrew, "OSM." I expressed concerns about how OSM handled the decision to switch the license to LGPL.

[masterchief]

OSM Andrew, "OSM." I expressed concerns about how OSM handled the decision to switch the license to LGPL.

Niv, I'm a pragmatic engineer. I can't write a unit test for what you mean by that :P So what you are saying is:

1. It was ok for the FW team to discuss the license change in Dec 2012 on the mailing list.
2. They did correctly get a sense that it was worth polling the community.
3. They did in good faith receive a result (in round figures a two-thirds majority in favour) that it was worth asking the PLT to ask OSM to investigate the license change.

So are we good up to this point? What happen next, is this:

4. Don contacts the SFLC to review whether this is legally possible.
5. The answer is yes, although they are concerned about 49 lines of code that aren't "technically" covered by the JCA (we have a number of options, including just removing the code, but that's an engineering matter).
6. OSM deems this is sufficient to ask seek community consultation (resulting in the second GPL thread from hell).
7. The OSM board votes on the request from the PLT.

I would love for you to hep me understand what part of that process you have concerns with. Please be as succinct and as objective as possible (remember you are dealing with pragmatic engineers that are used to dealing with assertions that are either true of false). I'm not concerned about your subjective appraisals about whether OSM is set up the right way or not "now". I can't ask a future OSM to make a decision today (time travel is not invented yet).

[NivF007]

Andrew, see http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 7#p3159276

[masterchief]

Andrew, see http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 7#p3159276

Ok, I give up. I would be more than happy to unpack the many problems in that post in minute detail but this is not the place. I think you've got some seriously faulty thinking about how organisations should run which makes me worry about governance changes you might have proposed.

[NivF007]

Andrew "I feel da luv!" - wrong thread here for OSM governance/membership discussion - give Paul and GWG a few to respond (on that thread) and then let's continue the discussion there. I'd like to see provisions for proposals from the community to be considered by OSM (that discussion --> that thread :-)).

[wilsonge]

I'd like to just follow up on

Also, an idea that came up in the recent public forum discussion was to consider a potential new name for the Joomla Framework. OSM feels that this idea deserves some more investigation. A separate announcement will be published when progress on that idea has been made.

Just to clarify whose actually going to be investigating this? OSM or the PLT or some special group?

This has definitely become a ever escalating issue recently and I think it's important to get this sorted out and I mean it's not a one way thing where the CMS people are cross because they feel brand dilution is happening. The name Joomla also implicates on the frameworks standing as even several people of the framework team have admitted in the past

https://twitter.com/AndrewEddie/status/ ... 0206001152
https://twitter.com/mbabker/status/440592505252638722
https://twitter.com/dilbert4life/status ... 4407144448

https://twitter.com/mbabker/status/380443507703291904 (RE: reasons of slow uptake of the framework code)

Obviously Joomla and the framework don't want to break ties completely as it doesn't really serve each others interests (as the CMS will still in all likelihood be the biggest user of the framework code). So I mean staying under OSM to keep the Joomla associations but having it's own name and it's own independant PLT might well be a better solution - I dunno. Just musing now.

But I think it's becoming increasingly important these things are resolved soon because this uncertainty is becoming a major issue

Kind Regards,
George

[AmyStephen]

Congratulations to the Joomla community on the licensing change for the framework. This was an essential step forward and I am happy to see this move!

The Joomla Framework project has been underway for a couple of years. Before it, the Joomla Platform effort. That's been helpful to the reputation of the project.

I would agree there are a couple of major issues for the project to sort out.

1. The first is: how do you modernize an aging CMS product?
2. The second question is: how do you do so in a way that your community supports your efforts (rather than the visible infighting on public networks)?

The Joomla Framework project is intended to address the first point. Retaining the brand clarifies for users that steps to address known issues are underway. Distancing the CMS from those improvements makes it unclear that the community is modernizing the software.

The second problem is more of a concern. It seems like there should be an easy to settle on common ground. Everyone familiar with the code base is aware of issues that must be addressed. Most should agree that ignoring those issues and continuing with a monolithic, coupled set of code is in no one's best interest.

The framework project is moving the platform code base from STUPID to SOLID code (note: those are industry terms, not insults.) Here are three links from well respected PHP developers talking about these topics:

Anthony Ferrara (former Joomla PLT) https://www.[youtube].com/watch?v=z_LxkB-Pgf0 - slides - http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2012/05/dont- ... lides.html
Nikita Popov - http://nikic.github.io/2011/12/27/Dont- ... SOLID.html
William Durand - http://williamdurand.fr/2013/07/30/from ... olid-code/

A side benefit to that work is flexibility. That means flexibility for the CMS (ex. you could swap out the Joomla DB and bring in the Doctrine ORM.) It also means the resulting code can be used to build other applications. Hence, the Joomla Framework project. Building a community around a reusable framework code base will not be easy but it should be something the community supports since bringing in framework-level developers will benefit the CMS. Having those developers associated with Joomla will help the brand.

The point to remember is that this movement towards quality development practices is sweeping the PHP industry. Better solutions are coming available now. Drupal is in the same situation as Joomla and they are addressing their problems by adopting the Symfony framework. If nothing is done to improve the Joomla CMS, it is just a matter of time before users realize better solutions can be found elsewhere.

On the other side of the argument, what needs to be recognized is the cost to the community of change. Joomla has implemented change poorly. In the past, from 1.0 to 1.5, 1.5 to 1.6, 2.5 to 3.0, 3.1 to 3.2, sites and extensions have been left behind because change was not well managed. Deal with this problem openly and I believe support for the architectural improvements will follow.

Most people understand the need to address the architectural issues. The concerns are largely about managing change in a way that extension developers can keep pace and users don't have to invest in costly upgrades. The project has not earned the trust of it's users or developers in this area. That's where the conflict appears to be coming from.

Keep up the good work! There is a lot of positives going on in Joomla these days. Stay encouraged!

[masterchief]

This has definitely become a ever escalating issue recently and I think it's important to get this sorted out and I mean it's not a one way thing where the CMS people are cross because they feel brand dilution is happening. The name Joomla also implicates on the frameworks standing as even several people of the framework team have admitted in the past

https://twitter.com/AndrewEddie/status/ ... 0206001152

My quote was made in the context that I've always held that Joomla is a project, not just a software application (much like "Apple" and "Zend" can refer to many things depending on the context). But you are right. If the Joomla Framework should not use the Joomla name it's critical we find that out soon because we don't want to waste time marketing under the wrong brand.

[NivF007]

I think we have to take into account that people entering into the the 'Joomla!' sphere may be confused by both a CMS and a Framework going under the label Joomla!

For this reason, I very much support renaming the "Joomla! Framework" to the "J! Framework."

It still provides a 'tribute' to Joomla!, but neatly separates the two.

If we do this, then in conversation, when one speaks of Joomla!, we know that they are referring to the CMS, and helps to avoid confusion.

It becomes a much easier concept, for those getting oriented, to understand that "Joomla! is built on the J! Framework," and to instantly know from that statement, that these two are separate, but related projects.

[deleted user]

I think we have to take into account that people entering into the the 'Joomla!' sphere may be confused by both a CMS and a Framework going under the label Joomla!

For this reason, I very much support renaming the "Joomla! Framework" to the "J! Framework."

It still provides a 'tribute' to Joomla!, but neatly separates the two.

If we do this, then in conversation, when one speaks of Joomla!, we know that they are referring to the CMS, and helps to avoid confusion.

It becomes a much easier concept, for those getting oriented, to understand that "Joomla! is built on the J! Framework," and to instantly know from that statement, that these two are separate, but related projects.

Except jframework is already in use - http://jframework.info/

So, it's either "Joomla! Framework", "Unnamed Framework based upon Joomla!", or "New Brand Framework" (rebrand with no reference to Joomla). And it seems like the latter is preferred.

[masterchief]

It becomes a much easier concept, for those getting oriented, to understand that "Joomla! is built on the J! Framework," and to instantly know from that statement, that these two are separate, but related projects.

I think that will go down as well as Prince changing his name to a made up symbol. I'd start with asking the Framework contributors "what do you think?".

[masterchief]

... or "New Brand Framework" (rebrand with no reference to Joomla). And it seems like the latter is preferred.

I'd keep on the table the option of merging with or transferring our efforts to another existing framework.

[AmyStephen]

It really is quite silly. What's next? If the Joomla Framework is forced to stop using the Joomla brand, will there next be complaints about how the revenue from JED is used for travel? How will anyone figure out how much revenue is due to the framework powering the CMS from that directly related to the CMS from that which is related to Bootstrap, and therefore, neither can claim outright?

All Together, eh? Very #jpositiv.

The truly ironic thing is the very same developers who are investing volunteer time to make the CMS work release after release after release are your Framework developers. Might want to think thru the implications of pushing those volunteers off their community brand or you might end up cleaning house.

Brian's running the "reclaim the name campaign" on Twitter. Maybe he can find a new set of developers willing to give up all spare time and take the insults people like to hurl at core developers.

I know one project that will take all Joomla core developer orphans with open arms. =)

Seriously, I hope this is settled quickly and that everyone realizes the value of a united community.

[NivF007]

Except jframework is already in use - http://jframework.info/

So, it's either "Joomla! Framework", "Unnamed Framework based upon Joomla!", or "New Brand Framework" (rebrand with no reference to Joomla). And it seems like the latter is preferred.

1) Bugger! Thanks for the clarifying that.

2) "No reference to Joomla!" - Personally, my thoughts are that it would be nice to find a brand that gives some sort of tribute and to have a name that distinguishes the two a bit better, but it makes me wonder if, going LGPL, then branding with no reference to Joomla! would be the 'thin edge of the wedge' ultimately resulting in two very separate communities, in a sense, a 'spin-off.'

@ Andrew: When Prince bought a mansion on one of the poshest streets of Toronto, we renamed it to "The Street Formerly Known as the Bridal Path."

[masterchief]

2) "No reference to Joomla!" - Personally, my thoughts are that it would be nice to find a brand that gives some sort of tribute and to have a name that distinguishes the two a bit better, but it makes me wonder if, going LGPL, branding with no reference to Joomla! would be the 'thin edge of the wedge' ultimately resulting in two very separate communities, in a sense, a 'spin-off.'

Niv, I think you risk a disgruntle "split off" if there is a lack of consultation. When we wanted to change the license the first thing we did was ask people for their opinion and did not move forward until there was a clear sense of majority support (this is before OSM got involved so please don't go there). Nobody's asked the Framework contributors if they even want to change.

[NivF007]

Niv, I think you risk a disgruntle "split off"

The word 'you,' I understand to mean 'we the community.'

Nobody's asked the Framework contributors if they even want to change.

Hey, I'm on your side here and in agreement.

There has to be a better paradigm to how decisions are being made.

There is a world of difference between being allowed to 'speak' and having a 'say' in these affairs.

Nobody in the community, on the PLT or CLT can vote in the OSM Directors, they make all the decisions - and they do so without oversight.

That's our current reality with OSM (I don't like it - but I can't do much about it).

In the meanwhile, I'm so eternally grateful to so many folks who contribute, I love the code, the community - I feel like I'm blessed to learn and cooperate with some brilliant and well-meaning folks.

So as for risking "disgruntled split-offs" I don't know what to say about that - I'm just trying to understand and navigate through this all - like I think so many of us are.

[masterchief]

Nobody in the community, on the PLT or CLT can vote in the OSM Directors, they make all the decisions - and they do so without oversight.

Do you actually know how to have a conversation without twisting it into an opportunity to lambast OSM at every turn? Do you think we are stupid?

[NivF007]

Do you see my statement above as 'lambasting' OSM? You misunderstand.

[deleted user]

Do you see my statement above as 'lambasting' OSM? You misunderstand.

OK, can we please have a discussion where your opinion of the current OSM situation doesn't come up? We're all aware of your feelings, but there's a time and place for it. *EVERY* chat isn't the place. Note I'm not trying to tell you to shut up about it, I personally prefer discussions stay on course rather than get sidetracked with other issues, especially in a mailing list or forum environment.

[masterchief]

Do you see my statement above as 'lambasting' OSM? You misunderstand.

You are right. I don't understand what that has to do with asking the developers who are most affected whether they should have a say in the matter. That's just common courtesy - it doesn't require a recommendation from the Governance Working Group to work it out. The point is there is already a somewhat nasty campaign being waged to presumably stop the Framework using Joomla in the name. Not one of them has asked the Framework contributors their opinion. That is, there is a section of the community putting the Framework contributors off side and that's going to threaten an amicable outcome. Of course, there's a common practice in conflict management where you don't deal with the problem directly, you just create an environment that's toxic enough for the people you want to leave to up and leave in disgust. Whatever the motivation or real point behind it, it's unsettling and distracting (and those same people expect us to continue to fix bugs for them).

To be fair, did we put people off side with even the suggestion of relicensing - yes we did. However, we gave people ample opportunity to have their say (and it's unfortunate it turned nasty at the eleventh hour, but we'll be more prepared next time) and there was ample opportunity to complain before it even got to OSM.

[NivF007]

@ Andrew - Ahhh... I'm not part of that nasty campaign...but just as the Framework Team wants their views to be heard (and rightly so), there is a whole community out there that does too.

@ Michael - please allow me change my response to Andrew in light of him complaining about nobody asking the Framework team.

Andrew,

1) If you want a vote in these matters, do something about it;

2) If you want to express your opinion on what the Framework should be named, please express it.

In the meanwhile, I'm rather excited about the new release schedule, LOVING Joomla! 3.x and incredibly excited about the Framework (call it the "Framework formerly know as the Joomla! Framework" for all I care - I'm ecstatic about the project's direction, grateful to the contributors and looking forward to the possibilities and the work being done)!

Long live the [INSERT NAME HERE] Framework!!!!

Cheers,

N

[NivF007]

In the end...this is going to require a vote of the OSM Membership [ducking for cover]

[masterchief]

@ Andrew - Ahhh... I'm not part of that nasty campaign...but just as the Framework Team wants their views to be heard (and rightly so), there is a whole community out there that does too.

I know you aren't and that's fine, BUT it's not my job to drive that discussion anymore than I would expect someone else from the no-LGPL camp to have driven the license change for me (that's just silly).

I'm not asking to anyone to drop Joomla from the name of the Framework. I'm happy with it and I'm also happy for the Joomla project to keep referring to the next versions of the CMS as "Joomla 3.3", "Joomla 3.4" and so on. I have no issue with books on "Joomla" to generally refer to the CMS. Books on the framework will probably be entitled "* Joomla Framework *". I'm positive most users of Joomla (in the widest possible sense) would agree with that. As Amy pointed out, Joomla means "all together", not "if it's not part of the CMS download, we don't want you". Sounds like a plan to me and it would save us hiring a real brand consultant.

However, what is clear to me is that we need to split the development portals so that developer.j.org is CMS centric and framework.j.org is Framework centric and that will do a lot to reduce potential confusion and dummy spits. That would seem to be a rather obvious peace offering if you will. Sadly, I don't think it's realistic that we can mix the two developer communities, at least not while the CMS is running on it's old architecture (2 or 3 years hence when all the code is name spaced, it won't be a problem). One can only hope the branding police realise that letting us do this in peace is in their best interests.

[NivF007]

However, what is clear to me is that we need to split the development portals so that developer.j.org is CMS centric and framework.j.org is Framework centric and that will do a lot to reduce potential confusion and dummy spits. That would seem to be a rather obvious peace offering if you will. Sadly, I don't think it's realistic that we can mix the two developer communities, at least not while the CMS is running on it's old architecture (2 or 3 years hence when all the code is name spaced, it won't be a problem). One can only hope the branding police realise that letting us do this in peace is in their best interests.

I think one thing we can always do is provide helpful resources and guidance targeted to specific interests and 'communities' - and by 'communities' I mean non-coders, freelancers, administrators, developers etc.

My view is the underlying spirit of open-source is collaboration and the willingness to help each other - I'm sorry (but understanding) that the community is so divided about the branding and licensing - but let's not loose sight of the big picture.

Amy is very right in reminding us that Joomla! means all-together as one (thank you Amy!) - even though we may disagree at times - I'm all for that - that's what brought me here - that's what's going to keep me here - and I hope that holds true for others regardless of specific licenses, brands etc. - we're here to help each other - that's the bottom line.

[porwig]

The Framework branding question was discussed in the March OSM board meeting. The action item from discussion was to try and escalate progress on the choice of a marketing vendor who could give professional guidance on that question.

@Andrew - OSM asked PLT and the Framework team (including you) for feedback about what you all thought about the idea to potentially re-name the Framework, in an email thread that started before OSM made the LGPL decision.