The Joomla! Forum ™

Hi JED Team,

Would you kindly update the Terms of Service (TOS) to reflect any extra rules that you may have listed or not listed elsewhere?
http://extensions.joomla.org/tos

For example, can project sites list or not list non-GPL extensions on their own sites? There's documentation saying it can't (http://docs.joomla.org/JED_Entries_License_Checklist), but that rule doesn't appear on the TOS. Is the documentation outdated or are the TOS?

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Hi Matt,

Let me try and explain what's happening and shed some light to hopefully help you as the leader of the JED Team to resolve this issue.

Based on your comment here:
viewtopic.php?p=2614489#p2614489

and your comment here:
viewtopic.php?p=2322583#p2322583

You feel that developers are allowed to have non-GPL Joomla extensions on their own site which aren't listed on the JED. i.e. The extensions listed on the JED must be GPL, however they can have whatever other extensions they want on their site just as long the ones listed on the JED are GPL. That's how you interpret things.

However, some developers are being unlisted for the opposite reason. The extensions that they have on the JED are GPL, but they have other extensions on their own sites that aren't GPL, which is OK according to you, but some of those developers are being unlisted. So the JED Team members don't agree on the rules amongst themselves. This is causing confusion.

Check out how many different opinions there are:
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-d ... df273e730d

Here are the "rules" in question:

Please see List C1 - General license verification Item 1:
http://docs.joomla.org/JED_Entries_License_Checklist

Futhermore, the last sentence of the following page reads:
http://extensions.joomla.org/index.php? ... tent&id=53

Some JED Team members must be interpreting those "rules" one way and others another way. The ones that differ from you must think that that the rules state the developers can have no non-GPL extensions on their own site (i.e. if they have even one, then all their GPL extensions that are on the JED get delisted). So your team seems to have some internal clearing up to do.

Even more confusing is that those "rules" aren't in the TOS which we as developers agree to.

I hope this can get sorted. It's definitely fixable and I'm willing to help in whatever way I can

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Hopefully this will all get clarified and sorted out quickly and cleanly.

_________________
Troy

I have that hope too Troy but there is some action needed here that hope can't provide. This is a serious issue that seems to be brushed aside for some odd reason and Joomla! suffers because of it.

In my experience, with HikaShop for example, the removal of the extension from the JED almost caused my client to drop Joomla! altogether. I was able to get them to change the entire project we had underway instead but only at my expense - better some money for work your are in the middle of than none I guess. I can't stress enough that removing this extension from the JED while I was using it to integrate into a client site had the effect of making the client have second thoughts about using Joomla! altogether!

It is crucial to have a clear cut set of rules and procedures or you get situations that seem arbitrary and unjust. I did my due diligence on HikaShop prior to recommending it my client and I had no way of determining they were in violation of the TOS since the rule applied to them isn't published in the TOS. How am I supposed to be able to move forward developing with Joomla! until I can be certain that I won't have the same problem again? I suppose it is now my responsibility to go through the site of every developer who I use an extension from and look for violations of the TOS, rules and whatever else?

I think the arbitrary application of the rules coupled to the TOS and the lack of participation on the part of the JED team in this forum shows they have a clear need for a larger team and should make it a priority to accept some help, like from Nick for example.

_________________
Good luck and happy Joomla!ing,
Terry Arthur
http://www.eclecticeasel.com

It definitely seems like there needs to be some clarification on this issue.

For me, in particular, item C1 in the TOS: All extensions, listings and developer sites must comply with the latest version of the Joomla! license.

This statement is ambiguous at best. What does it mean by a 'developer site must comply with the latest version of the Joomla! license'? How does a website comply with the GPL? If it means that all Joomla! extensions listed on a developer site must comply with the GPL, then ok. Problem is that's not what it says.

It really does seem that the JED team need to act and respond on this issue. The TOS itself is unclear. And, according to Nick and others, the JED team themselves don't even seem to be clear on the issue. How can the developer community be expected to follow the rules when the rules themselves aren't clear, and the JED team aren't applying them consistently?

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

joomla should simply have no word on what developers do in their web sites or what service or applications they provide to their customers.

Upon reflection, the wording in my previous post was perhaps a little strong (at least the last paragraph anyway). I do realise the JED team are volunteers, and I didn't mean to sound ungrateful or disrespectful. But there are some important issues here that should be addressed as soon as possible.

As for whether the JED should have this rule at all, while I can appreciate Joomla's intention to provide strong incentive for developers to comply with Joomla's licensing, this does seem a little excessive. Particularly given such a black and white situation as being listed or not listed at all, when combined with some issues as have been mentioned like inconsistent decision making and lack of clarity in communication. There does appear a need for some greater flexibility to deal a little more gracefully with inevitable human failings on both sides of the fence.

Just a suggestion. Perhaps a more suitable compromise would be to allow developers to still list their GPL extensions on the JED, even if they have other non-GPL extensions, but for all developers that do comply with the GPL for ALL their extensions, they get a badge of some kind that appears on their JED extensions listing that says so. Some kind of 'Fully GPL-compliant Developer' badge. Something big bright and obvious, that will attract some customers at least to those developers.

And/or categorise listings according to whether the developer is fully GPL compliant or not. Have the listings for GPL-compliant developers first in line, but still have the listings for other developers accessible for people to access if they so choose. Perhaps when a category is clicked on initially, it only lists extensions for fully-GPL compliant developers, but with a link available that says something like 'Show listings from non-GPL compliant developers'.

Perhaps more moderate measures such as these will still provide an important incentive to developers to be GPL compliant, but without causing as much controversy when developers fall foul of the rules. If mistakes have been made, they can be remedied far more easily, and with much less impact on the developer and the JED.

Just some thoughts. I welcome any feedback.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

joomla is their "toy", they simply don't want us developers and they think we're fully replaceable or plainly useless as they have already more than 8000 extensions.

problem is, USERS use joomla because of our extensions, especially the commercial ones, but once again for joomla if reality doesn't match with their ideology then bye bye to reality.

i say, wake up, wordpress is unstoppable and becoming bigger and bigger, drupal is the one getting high-end projects and making serious money, what about joomla instead ?

if you keep treating us like this we will all jump ship soon and so will the users.

@Chris,
The badge suggestion is a great one!

@dubois,
Even though you have some legitimate concerns, some of it is unwarranted and hearsay (for example, your 1st sentence). I would highly encourage you to stick to substantiated evidence. Also, constructive criticism and suggesting possible solutions has far more of an impact.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Until the JED team decides to fix this issue I am going to have to steer my clients toward Drupal. I can't afford to lose money and reputation on another capricious extension removal. It is obvious to me that the JED team has no interest in this topic or they would have replied by now so I'm not sure how constructive criticism and possible solutions will help if they go unread.

_________________
Good luck and happy Joomla!ing,
Terry Arthur
http://www.eclecticeasel.com

I do not understand why my post moved from this thread to an old Templates forum. Also, if a post is moved, it is helpful to at leave a moderator note so that people can find information and that it doesn't create unnecessary hard feelings.

viewtopic.php?f=466&t=657042&p=2619709#p2619709

I am glad to see the community, and NIck in particular, raise this question about extension licensing off property and on property implications.

In case it wasn't clear, I'll explain how my post was relevant to this discussion.

First, I fully support the Joomla project to adopt whatever rules they feel are consistent with the project's goals and volunteer availability for the Extensions Directory. Those rules do not have to be dictated by the GPL. What I mean by this is I do not object to JED limiting listings to only GPL.

But, I do believe it's a bad idea for the project to examine off-site websites, looking for non-GPL extensions, and then removing GPL extensions from JED if non-GPL work is found.

I heard someone respond to Matt that the TOS already covers the requirement that developers not share non-GPL work on their websites because of the rule that the site must be compliant with Joomla's license.

What my post (link above) shared was a quote from James Vasile, of the Software Freedom Law Center (also a member of OSM), where he explained that it is possible to use a collective license that is not GPL if that package contained elements that do not extend Joomla (ex. JS, CSS, and images), and that doing so is NOT incompliant with Joomla's license.

I also shared a link to Joomla's "Open Source Does Matter" announcement made following the GPL talks where the same was said. We initially took this to mean Templates, but the truth is, there is nothing about Templates that is different than a plugin or module, etc.

The question as to JoomlaWorks extension could very well fit this definition and is not likely violating Joomla's copyright. In general, keeping the PHP elements GPL'ed should ensure compliance according to the information provided by Vasile and the project.

This same problem is faced by WordPress and Drupal, each of whom handle it with different project policy. WordPress allows any GPL-compliant work and Drupal allows only GPL work on property but permits a link off site for the non-GPL pieces.

My overall point is that it is simply not possible to look at the surface of a website, see a non-GPL licensed Joomla extension, and "know" it is a copyright violation. It might be, it might not be. In my opinion, it would be better to report those questions to OSM who oversee the TM, using the copyright, and simply ensure all JED entries meet the TOS, but not explore off-property websites.

I hope that explanation helps make it clear why those important statements from Vasille and the Joomla Project are relevant to this discussion and why the questions Nick and others are raising are indeed important to consider.

Please allow me to also share my thoughts on this topic. Thank you.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

rather than respond to cogent arguments they can simply be moved to oblivion

this issue and the whole response to it is really a deal breaker for me it undermines my confidence in the entire Joomla! project and as a result I am no longer able to recommend Joomla! to my clients.

_________________
Good luck and happy Joomla!ing,
Terry Arthur
http://www.eclecticeasel.com

I suspect the lack of response from the JED team has more to do with them being volunteers short of time, rather than disinterest, or not taking the issue seriously enough (at least, I sincerely hope so). It has been mentioned elsewhere, that the JED team does appear to be under-staffed. I suspect that is the issue more than anything else.

If these channels are proving unfruitful for getting the JED teams attention, perhaps a more formal proposal needs to be developed amongst the developer community. Do the hard work ourselves, if the JED team don't have the time for it. Get as many developers as possible to sign off on it, and then present that in a more formal fashion to not just the JED but the entire Joomla leadership group. Perhaps I'm overstepping my mark here as a new developer on the scene, but my impression is that this isn't a new issue, and it hasn't been dealt with satisfactorily for some time.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

There's an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for."

I believe that it applies here. Here's my reasoning (and a bit of history of how this checklist rule has been applied).

Since the JED went GPL, we (the JED Team) included the rule that listings that link to sites that provide both GPL and non-GPL extensions would not be allowed. I don't believe that anyone can expect the Joomla project to provide free traffic to sites that violate our license. So the rule itself is not baseless. However, it's not explicitly in the terms of service. Why? It's not a rule that we have historically "applied in reverse". Meaning, when the JED went GPL-only, we didn't go back to all the currently-listed developers sites and ensure that they weren't also providing non-GPL extensions.

Ok - so why did that happen and what was the result? At the time of going GPL-only in the JED there were already thousands of listings. It would have been an extreme investment of volunteer time to go back through every site. So the rule was applied to "new submissions". The result was fruitful as well - it created a "bridge to GPL" that has ended with many developers who were very hesitant to go "full GPL" see, firsthand, that they could have a profitable business from being GPL. The exception is those domains that requested entry to the JRD or were using a Joomla TM. From there, all extensions must be GPL on the site.

So where are we now?
Now it's a case of - if we add it to the terms of service, that means we must apply it to all listings (with a 30 day grace period before going into effect). That heavy-handed approach we typically try to avoid as it only frustrates everyone involved and creates huge workloads. So Nick, to be clear, you are asking for this heavy-handed approach and asking that numerous extensions be unpublished. The rule itself won't be removed as no developer should expect the project to provide free traffic to non-GPL extensions, and this rule helps prevent that.

I don't see the issue with the rule being applied as-is. It hasn't been applied unfairly - and the original issue that started you on this (HikaShop) was not even related to this rule. The rule has been applied more strictly to those developers that have decided to intentionally confuse users or routinely violate the other rules of the TOS.

So, my recommendation - Take a step back, let other developers weigh in, and see if the consensus is that you *really* want us (the team) to take this action.

That said, I don't disagree that there need to be more clear definitions to the TOS and guidelines and there is already an initiative underway to help remedy that. But, as with anything in a volunteer community, time is a primary deciding factor of what gets done. The JED has come a long way in the past year in making things more simple and defined, and that continues to be the case. Nothing will every be "completely perfect" - that's the world of technology we live in.

_________________
~Matt Lipscomb
http://www.USAFreelancers.org
Professional Joomla! Services and Web Development based in the USA

Thanks Matt,

I'm glad to finally have an idea of the thought process involved here.

I agree that you can't retroactively force everyone to comply with the rule.

I just need to be able to use my own judgement in evaluating extensions for use in my client's sites and without knowing all the rules it is hard to make good decisions. Are there any other rules you can think of that might be used to exclude an extension that isn't in the TOS?

_________________
Good luck and happy Joomla!ing,
Terry Arthur
http://www.eclecticeasel.com

@WebEditor: The process the team follows for approvals is outlined in the Required Reading (linked as the very first item on the submission form) - http://docs.joomla.org/Publishing_to_JED It outlines the full process. While not every single issue/situation can be covered in the TOS (a generalized document) the checklists give a full idea of what the JED Team looks for in submissions and some basic do's and do not's.

_________________
~Matt Lipscomb
http://www.USAFreelancers.org
Professional Joomla! Services and Web Development based in the USA

Indeed


Makes sense.


Kind of, it has also been applied to *some* old submissions as well. For example, AcyMailing was added 20 November 2009 to the JED while the rule was published to the Joomla Docs in early August of 2010, yet AcyMailing was removed and the reason given was a direct quote of the rule, see image in: viewtopic.php?p=2616686#p2616686 . AcyMailing was republished once ALL their extensions were GPL.


Makes sense


I'm not asking for a heavy handed approach or any specific approach really (other than responding in timely manner ). I just wanted a clarification because it seemed like some were getting preferential treatment and were above the rule.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but it has been applied unfairly, see AcyMailing but not Joomlaworks. For example, AcyMailing was added 20 November 2009 to the JED while the rule was published to the Joomla Docs in early August of 2010, yet AcyMailing was removed and the reason given was a direct quote of the rule, see image in: viewtopic.php?p=2616686#p2616686 . AcyMailing was republished once ALL their extensions were GPL. And as long as it's poorly documented it will continue to cause confusion in the future.

Also, there's a big issue with the rule being applied as it is. As developers we agree to the JED TOS when we enter a listing. The TOS is the JED Team's mutual agreement with us as well. We don't agree to rules we don't know about, aren't notified about (until after we break them), and which aren't properly documented. If we're penalized for rules it should be rules that from are from the JED TOS.

Another big issue is that everything Amy mentioned is valid and that rule doesn't even come close to addressing any of those concerns. OSM concludes (see attached image which is taken from http://opensourcematters.org/index.php? ... icle&id=55 ) that is of their opinion that *most* Joomla extensions must be published GPL not *all*. So when you have a rule like that is:
1) Hidden away,
2) Only applies to certain developers,
3) Is not in keeping OSM's own interpretation,
4) Has never been announced (other than today in this forum post) that it's in effect,
5) Is twice (viewtopic.php?p=2614489#p2614489 and viewtopic.php?p=2322583#p2322583) refuted by the leader of the JED Team (you) without any exceptions stated or clarifications made, even though it occurred *after* the rule was published in the docs
6) Is not in the TOS

...it makes for a very complicated and confusing situation especially for new developers. I hope you can at least see that

As another example, here's a very realistic scenario. Say a new developer comes to Joomla today, reads and agrees to the TOS, and publishes a fully GPL compliant Joomla extension (all aspects of it, javascript, images, flash, etc) to the JED. A year later, they decide to publish a different non-GPL Joomla extension on their site. Since they entered the JED after the rule came about, they fall subject to that rule (even though they don't know about it) and ALL their JED extensions fall prey to it. Which means that they may have to spend 30 days redoing code (sometimes a lot longer), 5 days redoing their site, 1 or 2 days redoing documentation, etc.

I'm currently in a situation where I have to make a decision one way or the another, and this affects the entire business model of the site and is a very big deal. I've always read the TOS extremely carefully and have always sought to follow every single rule outlined in it, however I'm now afraid of being caught in a catch-22 with the Joomla docs.


Agreed! Perhaps allowing more volunteers to help would be a good starting point

Kind regards,
Nick

Below is the attached image:

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

One last thing For the purpose of this discussion it would be best to make sure that we're on the same page in regards to terms because I may have misunderstood part of what you're saying

1) Does the rule that's in the Joomla docs mean that all new listings on the JED must be fully GPL (e.g. javascript, flash, etc, all GPL) as well as any Joomla extensions on the developer's site must be fully GPL (e.g. javascript, flash, etc, all GPL)

2) Or does it mean that all new listings have to have GPL php files as well as any Joomla extensions on the developer's site must have GPL php files?

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Many of these extensions are not violating our license by using a non-GPL license according to both James Vasille and our own statements (see my links above.)

The same thinking that applies to templates also follows for plugins, modules, components, and the like.

Appreciate your response, Matt.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

What is the process if a developer is identified as having other extensions that violate the Joomla license and so are considered for banning? Is it a single reviewer that makes this decision, or is such a significant decision reviewed by others first, before being finalised (which I'd suggest it should be)? Is there an avenue of appeal if they believe they have good grounds to dispute the decision (eg. that a non-GPL extension doesn't violate the Joomla license as it's not a derivative work)?

Yes, I know you might say that no-one has the legal (or other) right to be listed on the JED, which is true and I accept that, but there is a difference between what the JED has the right to do, and what is most beneficial for it to do. People normally, and quite understandably, expect the right to be able to argue their point of view, and have it heard and genuinely considered at least (though not, of course, necessarily change any decision). IMHO, anything less is just the sort of heavy-handedness that causes frustration that you mentioned you were trying to avoid.

And yes, I agree with Nick. Clarification is required for what is precisely meant by non-GPL. We often use that phrase to simplify discussion, but we need to be clear that we all mean the same thing.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

Hi Chris,

I think I can accurately answer some of your questions.

From what I've read from other discussions, usually it's just one person reviewing and if that person has to make a tough judgement call then that person asks advice from the other(s).


According to the TOS only after the 3rd violation (1 year suspension) can there be an appeal in which both the JED Team and OSM review the appeal. But then again I don't know why I'm evening quoting the TOS if it's outdated For example, the TOS say:I've hardly seen the latter part enforced for any extension. Even now you can find a lot of extensions on the JED that are unpublished for violations but the rest of the developer's extensions are still on there.


Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Thanks Nick.

Your willingness to contribute is highly appreciated.

What about potential conflict of interest? I noted after clicking the JED team link next to moderators (assuming they are the same JED team that handle submissions, not just moderate this forum), that some of them at least are simply other developers. How is that going to be handled impartially if the reviewer is dealing with another developer with a competing product? I don't assume the worst, and I'm sure that they are decent people. But even I would question my ability, or the appropriateness of even trying, to deal with that impartially, even with the best of intentions.

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

You're welcome, Chris! Keep the questions coming if you have them. Open up a new topic if it's a change of topic though.

In answer to your question, to me personally that's not much of a concern. Usually what happens in circumstances where there might be a conflict of interest is that it's just passed on to someone else. So let's say there's a dev on the JED Team that has a forms extension (I don't know of anyone like that so hopefully none of them do because I'm not pointing anyone out...it's just a hypothetical ), and if that person were to see a report concerning a potential violation of another forms extension then that person would simply skip that one and go on to the next report.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Thanks again.

And yeah, sorry, I've gone off-topic. No more.

So about that TOS...

_________________
http://www.acuit.com.au

No worries. You're welcome

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

This is from the OSM License FAQ



Just because an Extension is not GPL does not necessarily follow that it is a license violation. It might be. It might not be. In any event, OSM should be notified, even if it's the JED team who identifies the possible license violation.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

Hi Matt or anyone on the JED Team,

Could we get a clarification on the following?
A simple (1) or (2) answer will do.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

Nick -

It is the absolute correct question - and the answer is obviously #2. There is no question that the second response is consistent with the original Open Source Does Matter statement made following the GPL discussions, and with the statements made by Vasille and shared at Wordpress.

Given the announcement today that a Template Directory is coming to Joomla, these quotes and consistent treatment with JED become more important.



Again, I have no objection to the project requiring extensions listed on property be GPL. But, unless Template Providers are also required to GPL all of their Templates, on and off-property, it might be better to remove the site checks - and simply report any extensions (including Templates) that are believed to be violations of the license to OSM, let them check things out and make a decision if banning is necessary if there is indeed a license violation.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

Hi Amy,

I appreciate your reply!

I understood everything you had mentioned earlier and knew that what you mentioned referred to #2 (and I agree with you). I just wanted to make sure that it was also the JED Team's interpretation as well.

Kind regards,
Nick

_________________
To God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever!
---------------
Online Joomla Training at http://www.ostraining.com/online/
Sell your templates at https://www.templatecapitol.com/

comment added without debate:
We are not wordpress (even though they do say that) in your link. which should actualy say

_________________
HU2HY- Poor questions = Poor answer
Un requested Help PM's will be added to the foe list and possibly just deleted
{Community.Connect Administrator }{ Showcase & Security Moderator}