The Joomla! Forum ™





Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:45 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:41 am
Posts: 15753
GPL Questions Continued, Developer related

Two new topics have been opened. They will both be for answering questions surrounding our GPL/Licensing announcement.  The moderators will have normal control over what happens in these threads and the regular rules apply.  No nonsense, just intelligent questions and answers.

It's not allowed to edit your own post so that it conveys another meaning after editing. No bashing, no name calling, none of that.

We would like to keep this clean and productive for everyone.


Old thread: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,163492.0.html

GPL Questions Continued, User related >> http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181172.0.html
GPL Questions Continued, Developer related >> http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.0.html

_________________
Regards Robin

http://www.linkedin.com/in/robinmuilwijk - http://twitter.com/i_robin


Last edited by Robin on Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:48 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:06 am
Posts: 355
Just had a thought about something else, what about flash, flex, silverlight or whatever in that line.

Would those be considered "images" and thus part of the template that has nothing todo with the GPL?

Things like that would be able to pull and push data and use the Joomla API directly if I'm correct.

Could someone tell me where the thin line is for templates and stuff used in templates?

Also, what is the core vision for the 1.5 overrides? (I've heard Andrew about that but no core answer yet I believe, if so, sorry I must have missed it)

Thanks,
Arno

Thanks Robin for splitting the topic up, hope it will be more clear.

_________________
Joomla! professional services http://www.alvaana.com
http://moovum.com - Get Mollom Anti-Spam on your Joomla! website with Moovur
Follow twitter: @me_arno @jfoobar @moovum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:54 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Guru
Joomla! Guru

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:30 pm
Posts: 630
Location: Arnhem
spiderglobe wrote:
Why not? Also extensions are using images, css and other "data" stuff. As read in the previous post that some core membesr are earning money with Templates a lot comes clear to me about this discussion. In my opinion Templates in Joomla cann't exists without the Joomla core functions and should be therefor under the GPL license. If not the same should be applied to commercial extensions. For example a CSS makes uses of the classes defined in Joomla (not?). So a CSS should be part of the GPL as well since it's connected to the elements from Joomla.

Templates can exist without Joomla, just remove the and etc. and you can just place text in there and use it for some static website.

And there lies the big difference between extensions and templates. Extensions can't be used without the calls to the Joomla! API.

_________________
My personal website: http://www.danieltulp.nl
My photo showcade: http://photo.danieltulp.nl


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:59 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 14020
Location: Netherlands/ UK/ S'pore/Jakarta/ North America
since the longest thread in Joomla history was closed and locked and i asked a question and never got an answer I need to repost the question since it is important to us:

Quote:
ok time to ask some questions as well. As most know we run a full-time professional services organisation and have build hundreds of Mambo and Joomla sites.

Now i am still not clear what this mean in liability: Let me give an example. A clients wants us to build a  site and he needs around 15 commercial components/mods. We make a turn-key deal with the client and we purchase within the financial framework of the contract all the needed components and modules. This is daily practice for us....

Now it turns out that the software we buy is considered a derived development from J-core.....Something we don't know....

My current understanding after reading 66 pages of posts is that the developer is in breach of the GPL and is liable since he distributes to me as user (i purchased). However I distribute the software as part of the deal to the end user which would make me liable as well since i could be considered a receiver since i distribute and use illegal software?....

remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"

so where do i stand here?

Not amused at all  :-\

edit: question directed to Joomla-core

Leo


an answer would be appreciated

_________________
-- Joomla Professional Support Services : http://gws-desk.com --
-- Good & Cheap Joomla Sites Ready To Roll : http://gws-deals.today --
-- Joomla Specialized Hosting Solutions : www.gws-host.com --
-- Member Joomla Bug Squad --


Last edited by leolam on Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:34 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Netherlands
Daniel Tulp wrote:
spiderglobe wrote:
Why not? Also extensions are using images, css and other "data" stuff. As read in the previous post that some core membesr are earning money with Templates a lot comes clear to me about this discussion. In my opinion Templates in Joomla cann't exists without the Joomla core functions and should be therefor under the GPL license. If not the same should be applied to commercial extensions. For example a CSS makes uses of the classes defined in Joomla (not?). So a CSS should be part of the GPL as well since it's connected to the elements from Joomla.

Templates can exist without Joomla, just remove the and etc. and you can just place text in there and use it for some static website.

And there lies the big difference between extensions and templates. Extensions can't be used without the calls to the Joomla! API.


hmm if this is the case the same is for extension if they are using their own classes, not?  So make bridges will solve the problem for extensions.

Also notice that what you mention is not the case within all the templates. I've seen a lot of templates which are "joomla" code and classes inside of the code. Beside the functions calls above makes that the template that is sold that way will only function within Joomla and no other CMS. Therefor it's developed for Joomla and should be compliant under the full GPL license.

And about the fact that some core members are selling templates: I find that a conflict of interest. In my opinion these guys should choose: stay in the core team or develop commercial templates. But doing both is not clear as we have seen in the discussion over here. 


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:58 am 
Daniel Tulp wrote:
Templates can exist without Joomla, just remove the and etc. and you can just place text in there and use it for some static website.

And there lies the big difference between extensions and templates. Extensions can't be used without the calls to the Joomla! API.


And that just leads to more confusion. If I save a presentation in OpenOffice, I need the program to run it. Does that mean my presentation is GPL too?

Joomla is a framework and building an extension is like building a template. In both cases, you are using Joomla to output a result. Whether it's a design for your website, or a specific way to show your content.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:59 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Exemplar
Joomla! Exemplar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 7986
Location: New York
Quote:
Two questions for the foundation and/or core team.
One may already have been answered (if so just point me to the link).

Q1: Who are the copyright/license owners of Joomla 1.0.X and 1.5 ?

Q2: Who are the copyright/license owners of 3P extensions that work with Joomla?



Answering Nant's question from the other thread.

Q1: Who are the copyright/license owners of Joomla 1.0.X and 1.5 ?

Open Source Matters has the copyright on the combined entity. The copyright is derivative of the underlying copyrights held by the people who developed the code and is subject to licensing limitations.

Q2: Who are the copyright/license owners of 3P extensions that work with Joomla?
The developers of those extensions.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:05 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:57 am
Posts: 1382
Location: Shrewsbury, Shropshire, United Kingdom
leolam wrote:
Now i am still not clear what this mean in liability: Let me give an example. A clients wants us to build a  site and he needs around 15 commercial components/mods. We make a turn-key deal with the client and we purchase within the financial framework of the contract all the needed components and modules. This is daily practice for us....

Now it turns out that the software we buy is considered a derived development from J-core.....Something we don't know....

My current understanding after reading 66 pages of posts is that the developer is in breach of the GPL and is liable since he distributes to me as user (i purchased). However I distribute the software as part of the deal to the end user which would make me liable as well since i could be considered a receiver since i distribute and use illegal software?....

remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"

so where do i stand here?


I don't know the answer, but you have plenty of time to consult your lawyer, consider their advice, talk to other people in the same situation and most importantly talk to the developers.  Nothing is going to happen quickly, you have time.  Right now I would start by firing off an email to your developers and assure them that you still want to purchase their products and continue your relationship with them after they have switched to GPL (assuming they are not already GPL of course).  That would help them to realise that changing their licence to GPL is not the end of their world and they don't need to leave the GPL ecosphere.

Regards,
Chris.

_________________
Chris Davenport - Joomla Production Leadership Team

Lion Coppice http://www.lioncoppice.org/
Davenport Technology Services http://www.davenporttechnology.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:12 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:27 am
Posts: 1318
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Jick wrote:
Just had a thought about something else, what about flash, flex, silverlight or whatever in that line.


I'll address this, I'm not sure about some of the other ones with respect to Flash. From my understanding of Flex it eventually turns into Flash and Silverlight doesn't interest me as a Linux person. One could consider that Flash can't directly communicate to Joomla! and it needs a service (XML-RPC or similar) to actually provide the data. Lets take a cool example I saw a few years back when I was doing my multimedia course of this site that basically pulled text documents off the server and dumped them into a Flash text box. What is really happening here is that the Flash itself is a standalone entity as such, if I put the appropriate server call backs it won't know what language its in, I could even move it to Java without having to touch the Flash movie itself. Compared with say a component that uses JDatabase, JPagination and a few other things, it would take a reasonable amount of work to port it to another PHP powered system, let alone another language as opposed to the neutral Flash app. Further more, one could consider that the Flash app would be containing many media elements on its own much like a template.

Again, I haven't seen an implementation of this but its my view, consult with a lawyer about a specific case for sound advice, my thoughts would be that there is no direct way to integrate Flash into Joomla! which puts it into the client server model (e.g. I go to a Joomla! website with IE on Windows doesn't mean that Microsoft has to GPL those products).

Sam

_________________
Sam Moffatt
Updater, Installer and Authentication Systems
JoomlaCode Backend Systems
Pie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:19 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Netherlands
Quote:
Again, I haven't seen an implementation of this but its my view, consult with a lawyer about a specific case for sound advice, my thoughts would be that there is no direct way to integrate Flash into Joomla! which puts it into the client server model (e.g. I go to a Joomla! website with IE on Windows doesn't mean that Microsoft has to GPL those products).


Why should we consult every time a lawyer to get advice if this is possible? We have better things to do with our money (lawyers are not cheap) and time.

The core team must make clear what the license restricts to. As mentioned before my vote is that Joomla templates are the same as extensions (although other think different) since they cannot function without the Joomla classes and functions. Thereby they are restricted under the GPL license.

About the core team: My vote is for core team members that have no commercial interests related to Joomla by selling extensions and templates. If so I've my serious doubt about the decision of the Joomla explanation about the GPL license and templates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:36 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Exemplar
Joomla! Exemplar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 7986
Location: New York
leolam wrote:

remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"




3PDs are not thieves. They are people and organizations that have to make decisions about licensing. They have acted in good faith based on what we now know was an incorrect understanding of GPL.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:40 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 14020
Location: Netherlands/ UK/ S'pore/Jakarta/ North America
Chris Davenport wrote:
leolam wrote:
remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"

so where do i stand here?


I don't know the answer, but you have plenty of time to consult your lawyer, consider their advice, talk to other people in the same situation and most importantly talk to the developers.  Nothing is going to happen quickly, you have time.  Right now I would start by firing off an email to your developers and assure them that you still want to purchase their products and continue your relationship with them after they have switched to GPL (assuming they are not already GPL of course).  That would help them to realise that changing their licence to GPL is not the end of their world and they don't need to leave the GPL ecosphere.

Regards,
Chris.
this is no answer Chris and you are well aware....what you state is that because you take a decision which might affect our business as described and I need to make legal costs to safeguard my interest because i might distribute illegal software in the opinion of Joomla-foundation? When you take a decision Chris you weigh all aspects and use not only your own vacuum-cleaner and for the rest "see whatever you do approach" 

I asked a position and if you don't know or more likely  don't want to answer a very valid question we will see. This question is valid for all people who develop sites for others so get a lawyer is easy mate...you don't have to pay! we do so this is simply another ignorance towards the community imho.
Quote:
Tell your developers
........ They are not my developers...so take back that insinuation and placing squares around people.......they (as we are) are community developers/contributors to the growth of Joomla You could use your resources to contribute something positive instead of pointing towards a lawyer....In your statement you suggest that the entire community needs to go to a lawyer.... You have the obligation (yes!) of good citizenship being a core member and this answer does not represents good citizenship. It avoids answer to valid concerns

:-\

Leo

_________________
-- Joomla Professional Support Services : http://gws-desk.com --
-- Good & Cheap Joomla Sites Ready To Roll : http://gws-deals.today --
-- Joomla Specialized Hosting Solutions : www.gws-host.com --
-- Member Joomla Bug Squad --


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:43 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 14020
Location: Netherlands/ UK/ S'pore/Jakarta/ North America
mcsmom wrote:
leolam wrote:
remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"


3PDs are not thieves. They are people and organizations that have to make decisions about licensing. They have acted in good faith based on what we now know was an incorrect understanding of GPL.
Dont take it out of proportion..... I did not say that so don't take it out of its context... seems easy to do.....

Please read the entire piece and don't post the part where you can shoot at

edit for clarity: we are 3PD as well.....

_________________
-- Joomla Professional Support Services : http://gws-desk.com --
-- Good & Cheap Joomla Sites Ready To Roll : http://gws-deals.today --
-- Joomla Specialized Hosting Solutions : www.gws-host.com --
-- Member Joomla Bug Squad --


Last edited by leolam on Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:43 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer

Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:07 am
Posts: 347
Location: UK
spiderglobe wrote:
And about the fact that some core members are selling templates: I find that a conflict of interest. In my opinion these guys should choose: stay in the core team or develop commercial templates. But doing both is not clear as we have seen in the discussion over here. 


Maybe this post by Louis will clarify this point
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg863333


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:47 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:27 am
Posts: 1318
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
spiderglobe wrote:
Daniel Tulp wrote:
spiderglobe wrote:
Why not? Also extensions are using images, css and other "data" stuff. As read in the previous post that some core membesr are earning money with Templates a lot comes clear to me about this discussion. In my opinion Templates in Joomla cann't exists without the Joomla core functions and should be therefor under the GPL license. If not the same should be applied to commercial extensions. For example a CSS makes uses of the classes defined in Joomla (not?). So a CSS should be part of the GPL as well since it's connected to the elements from Joomla.

Templates can exist without Joomla, just remove the and etc. and you can just place text in there and use it for some static website.

And there lies the big difference between extensions and templates. Extensions can't be used without the calls to the Joomla! API.


hmm if this is the case the same is for extension if they are using their own classes, not?  So make bridges will solve the problem for extensions.


If you feel that an individual extension is completely agnostic and uses their own classes and a whole heap of other maybes and conditionals then quite potentially it might be exempt from being required to be part of the GPL, but the only person who knows the answer to that is a lawyer who has the skills to do a code examination and determine if the GPL is applicable to the work. But consider a simple quote component with this simple line from a dummy 1.0 component:
Code:
class Quote extends mosDBTable


That alone invokes the Joomla! mosDBTable class which in turn invokes the Joomla! database class. If we remove these immediately this bit of code stops working. If a component has done everything on their own (e.g. written their own DB access class) and everything that their component needs to run is inside it, then they might be exempt because I could take it out and run it on my own without having to install it on Joomla! (e.g. after I extract the extension and configure it the extension just works), but you're going to have to talk to a lawyer about those things.

spiderglobe wrote:

Also notice that what you mention is not the case within all the templates. I've seen a lot of templates which are "joomla" code and classes inside of the code. Beside the functions calls above makes that the template that is sold that way will only function within Joomla and no other CMS. Therefor it's developed for Joomla and should be compliant under the full GPL license.


I also have a template that has two lines of Joomla! code, I could make it completely agnostic and run a few checks to see if those functions exists and immediately it becomes a static, non Joomla! powered page, or some slight alterations turn it into a Drupal template.

spiderglobe wrote:
And about the fact that some core members are selling templates: I find that a conflict of interest. In my opinion these guys should choose: stay in the core team or develop commercial templates. But doing both is not clear as we have seen in the discussion over here. 


If you are personally willing to pay the salaries of the people who freely write Joomla! then I'm sure they will be happy to stop selling templates to meet your conflict of interest problems. You yourself can also join the development working group (or any number of other working groups such as design) but make sure while you're doing that you aren't doing anything that might conflict with what you do in Joomla!. You know what, this is silly. Its not a conflict of interest because the reason he is there is because he was making templates already and he is good at it. He volunteers his time for free, like everyone else on Core or Working Groups, to make Joomla! better. If he sells commercial templates on the side, or commercial components or commercial anythings to make money so that he can survive to donate his time for free then thats fine by me. Everyone has interests but not every one makes the effort to make Joomla! better and every one has to eat and live somewhere at the end of the day to make Joomla! better. You could call out each one of the Core for having some form of conflict of interest and then you would have no Core team, would you do all the work then?

spiderglobe wrote:
Quote:
Again, I haven't seen an implementation of this but its my view, consult with a lawyer about a specific case for sound advice, my thoughts would be that there is no direct way to integrate Flash into Joomla! which puts it into the client server model (e.g. I go to a Joomla! website with IE on Windows doesn't mean that Microsoft has to GPL those products).


Why should we consult every time a lawyer to get advice if this is possible? We have better things to do with our money (lawyers are not cheap) and time.

The core team must make clear what the license restricts to. As mentioned before my vote is that Joomla templates are the same as extensions (although other think different) since they cannot function without the Joomla classes and functions. Thereby they are restricted under the GPL license.


The Core Team isn't lawyers. The Core Team doesn't know your code. The Core Team can't judge what your extension is or isn't. We asked our lawyers and they said that in general this is how the world works. If you disagree with our lawyers advice because in your specific individual case there is something unique then you need to get legal advice on your specific individual case. We made our position clear, we can't make it any clearer than that: simple rule, make everything GPL and you will have no issue.

Make it GPL and you will have no issue.

Clear?

Now, you pay your lawyer to examine your code. You pay your lawyer to judge in their opinion if your extension has to be put under the GPL or if a non GPL compliant license would be acceptable. We're not in the business of being big bad evil people, we just want to slowly move from a lot of non compliant extensions to all completely compliant extensions. If you feel you do not have enough information to continue your business then you ask someone who does know, and that person is a lawyer. If you have specifics you need to talk everything through with a lawyer. There are tonnes of hypothetical cases for every example but they don't have every little detail that a lawyer would need to know to give you advice. Something may not be possible, and it may, I'm not a lawyer and I most definately know the specifics of your case, thats why you go to your lawyer and ask them about the specifics and what they think. If something is wrong, then that lawyer can defend you if it is required. What I suggest doesn't constitute legal advice which is why I keep saying "talk to a lawyer".

spiderglobe wrote:
About the core team: My vote is for core team members that have no commercial interests related to Joomla by selling extensions and templates. If so I've my serious doubt about the decision of the Joomla explanation about the GPL license and templates.


You can vote all you like. You can even leave if you like. You can have doubts about the information that our lawyers have told us. This isn't a popularity contest, we're not commercial software, and we're happy for you to come and go if you please. We're not going to bow to commercial pressure just because some people don't like it and want the 'toys' thrown back in, we're continuing on the path we have always been. We've been educated by lawyers about the way things should work. If you don't things should work that way, then consult with your lawyer and clarify things. If they disagree in your specific case that things shouldn't work that way then fine, you're welcome to continue down that path. If the Core Team had _no_ commercial interests there would be nobody involved, even on the working group level. Being paid to administer a Joomla! site means that you have a commercial interest in it. The only way to get around not having a commercial interest in the project would be to run a home or charity website. If you run a business website then you have a commercial interest in the project by definition. Having a completely noncommercial team of people work on a product is near on impossible, but why don't you do it? Join the development working group and make sure that you don't make any profit from Joomla! what so ever. That means you don't charge any money to deploy websites, give support, write extensions (incl templates as you specificly lined out) or get paid to maintain a Joomla! instance. If it in any way links with Joomla! you _must_ give it away for free if you are to do it.

If you have specific questions for specific cases ask your lawyer. They know the answer. We have done our best to inform you and if you don't agree then we cannot help it.

Let me repeat again: if people want to know the "what ifs", then ask your lawyer. We don't know the answer.

_________________
Sam Moffatt
Updater, Installer and Authentication Systems
JoomlaCode Backend Systems
Pie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 14020
Location: Netherlands/ UK/ S'pore/Jakarta/ North America
spiderglobe wrote:
About the core team: My vote is for core team members that have no commercial interests related to Joomla by selling extensions and templates. If so I've my serious doubt about the decision of the Joomla explanation about the GPL license and templates.
I completely disagree....If we and others can make a living from either Joomla-support or Joomla-products the core team is allowed as well as long as they are able to consider the conflict of interest factor which imho they did here well... Indeed Louis pointed this out very clearly and i agree with his views and accept completely his explanation on this matter

_________________
-- Joomla Professional Support Services : http://gws-desk.com --
-- Good & Cheap Joomla Sites Ready To Roll : http://gws-deals.today --
-- Joomla Specialized Hosting Solutions : www.gws-host.com --
-- Member Joomla Bug Squad --


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:50 am 
Joomla! Guru
Joomla! Guru

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:51 pm
Posts: 692
Location: Austria
mcsmom wrote:
leolam wrote:

remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"



3PDs are not thieves. They are people and organizations that have to make decisions about licensing. They have acted in good faith based on what we now know was an incorrect understanding of GPL.


To be honest, i do not know much about laws of the 'rest' of the world, but after Austrian Law the buyer of stolen goods is in the same situation as the seller - both are violating existing laws (here in Austria/Europe).
Even if he bought the goods in good faith ....

And to say ' ... i have not known that circumstance .. therefore i am not guilty ... ' is not correct (in the eyes of the law).

_________________
http://www.joomx.com - custom extensions and development
http://www.joomlasupportdesk.com - support, migration, training and consulting
Member of the German Joomla Translation Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:02 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Netherlands
No it does not clarify the issue. Of course the core team backups Andy since he is part of it. And "the advice from the Software Freedom Law Center" is not clear to me, why is this advice not public available since it could be interpreted in different ways and how was the advice asked?

Again to make things clear: I think that core team members may not have commercial interests related to Joomla in selling ad-ons for Joomla. We as the community have question marks about these decisions. We have seen this before within the URL rewriting components and now with templates. Each core team member has to make a choice: stay in the core team with no commercial interests or get out of the core team regardless of their contribution to Joomla in the past or within the near future.

Beside this in regards of Louis post: Joomla is not owned by the core team, the OSM board or any other. It belongs to the community.

I was surprised that the OSM board supported this statement, but is OSM not using rocketheme templates?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:13 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:27 am
Posts: 1318
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
spiderglobe wrote:
No it does not clarify the issue. Of course the core team backups Andy since he is part of it. And "the advice from the Software Freedom Law Center" is not clear to me, why is this advice not public available since it could be interpreted in different ways and how was the advice asked?


I repeat again if you do not agree with the advice you are welcome to seek your own and you will know it yourself. If you do not wish to seek it on your own then you put yourself in a dangerous position. If you do not ask a lawyer and go "well I thought" or "because they said" in front of a judge I doubt he will pay you any notice. If you get it from a lawyer then you have at least that lawyer to defend you.


spiderglobe wrote:
Again to make things clear: I think that core team members may not have commercial interests related to Joomla in selling ad-ons for Joomla. We as the community have question marks about these decisions. We have seen this before within the URL rewriting components and now with templates. Each core team member has to make a choice: stay in the core team with no commercial interests or get out of the core team regardless of their contribution to Joomla in the past or within the near future.

Again to make clear, we don't care what you think. I think that you're really quite outrageous to make demands of people who make a work that you use for free out of their own free time. We have commercial interests because we do not wish to starve. Funnily enough social security does not cover open source development. You are welcome to take the path yourself as I laid out. Alternatively pay us all wages to work on Joomla! and there will also be no conflict of interest. If you do not wish to take either of those paths then please be quiet. If you believe so strongly that this is incompatible with your beliefs then you can leave as well. You can go to other open source projects but I think that you will find that people involved in those have commercial interests. You can go to commercial products like SharePoint if you like as well, but then Microsoft has commercial interests in developing that product too.

spiderglobe wrote:
Beside this in regards of Louis post: Joomla is not owned by the core team, the OSM board or any other. It belongs to the community.


Joomla!'s copyright is as a technicality the property of those who authored it and those they assign it to such as Open Source Matters. Not those who are highly opinionated about it.

_________________
Sam Moffatt
Updater, Installer and Authentication Systems
JoomlaCode Backend Systems
Pie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:14 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Netherlands
Quote:
I also have a template that has two lines of Joomla! code, I could make it completely agnostic and run a few checks to see if those functions exists and immediately it becomes a static, non Joomla! powered page, or some slight alterations turn it into a Drupal template.


Is this not the same as your other statement: :
Code:
class Quote extends mosDBTable


And yes we are contributing in the opensource projects but we make things clear in other of conflicts of interests and therefor we are not in the team but we are supporting it as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:23 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Exemplar
Joomla! Exemplar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 7986
Location: New York
mic wrote:
mcsmom wrote:
leolam wrote:

remember "the receiver is as bad as the thief"



3PDs are not thieves. They are people and organizations that have to make decisions about licensing. They have acted in good faith based on what we now know was an incorrect understanding of GPL.


To be honest, i do not know much about laws of the 'rest' of the world, but after Austrian Law the buyer of stolen goods is in the same situation as the seller - both are violating existing laws (here in Austria/Europe).
Even if he bought the goods in good faith ....

And to say ' ... i have not known that circumstance .. therefore i am not guilty ... ' is not correct (in the eyes of the law).



Non-GPL extensions are not stolen goods.
Licensing disputes are not handled by criminal courts.
3PDs are not criminals.
There is no issue of "guilt" or "innocence" in the legal sense in any of this.

It is hard to comprehend what good motive there is for using such language. Fine, Leo got carried away in his post, we have all done that at one time or another. However, there is no excuse  for continuing it unless your purpose is to misinform or inflame. If that is your purpose, well, I question your ethics or your interest in making it possible for everyone to move forward in whatever way makes sense for them.


This whole process is a topic for discussion, and has been for months. Using overwrought, misinformed language is not helpful in moving forward.

edited to add 3 missing words.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.


Last edited by mcsmom on Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:27 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:27 am
Posts: 1318
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
spiderglobe wrote:
Quote:
I also have a template that has two lines of Joomla! code, I could make it completely agnostic and run a few checks to see if those functions exists and immediately it becomes a static, non Joomla! powered page, or some slight alterations turn it into a Drupal template.


Is this not the same as your other statement: :
Code:
class Quote extends mosDBTable



No, its not. Its been explained and is again not our position but our lawyers advice that it is different. If I take your component out and try to run it does it work? No it doesn't because its derived from Joomla!. There are some that aren't in this box, there are individual cases which need the individual examination from a lawyer. If I take my template out I can run it happily on its own with all of the other works I created (images, css, javascript doodads) not requiring Joomla! at all. Again if you don't agree or are confused about this, talk to your lawyer. If you don't want to talk to your lawyer then the best you can do is guess and hope that nobody sues you, that you didn't guess wrong and that there is a lawyer available to defend you if it comes to that. Consulting the lawyer first can be cheaper. Thats why we keep suggesting it.

spiderglobe wrote:
And yes we are contributing in the opensource projects but we make things clear in other of conflicts of interests and therefor we are not in the team but we are supporting it as well.


What, you're trying to tell me it isn't clear that Andy makes templates? I think its more than clear and its not our positions that templates are fine, but the advice of our lawyers. Again, if you have an issue with what we have said: TALK TO A LAWYER. If you do not want to talk to a lawyer then you can proceed at your own risk and I hope that you don't get caught too late. If you cannot afford a lawyer, get out of business.

How is this not clear? Do you have the common sense to at least have insurance against being litigated against at least? We're not going to go after you, but we can't comment on any one else. Take the safe option and talk to your lawyer or just make your extension GPL and you won't have to worry. Why don't you want to talk to a lawyer?

_________________
Sam Moffatt
Updater, Installer and Authentication Systems
JoomlaCode Backend Systems
Pie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:37 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Netherlands
Again I think we have different thoughts about the Templates issues. I stick to the fact that Templates are the same as Extensions (and yes I will throw this to a lawyer and let you now about this).

About your question: Yes we are developing extensions and software. That is our way to make a living as you mentioned before. Nothing wrong about that since you are a developer by yourself I believe. And yes the code we provide is not encrypted etc... its public availabe. Sso no discussion over here (you can ask money for software under the GPL, we both agree).  We as a company made a decision to separate possible conflicts of interests as you can read in the whole post we are not the only one with question marks...

Your explanation about templates has not convinced me so I will indeed goto a lawyer and post it over here. So what happens if my lawyer says templates are the same as extensions and other lawyers are also confirming this statement. What is then the next step? The Court?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:43 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:27 am
Posts: 1318
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
I can't speak for Joomla! but it serves us no interest to go to court over things. You personally can go to court with individual template developers over things if you wish but litigation isn't our path, education is our aim. Hopefully through education we'll get a big happy GPL compliant commercial development ecosystem. We've taken our legal advice and we can only encourage you to take yours, which I'm happy to hear you are. I look forward to seeing your response.

_________________
Sam Moffatt
Updater, Installer and Authentication Systems
JoomlaCode Backend Systems
Pie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:45 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 14020
Location: Netherlands/ UK/ S'pore/Jakarta/ North America
mcsmom wrote:
However, there is no excuse  for continuing it unless your purpose is to misinform or inflame. If that is your purpose, well, I question your ethics or your interest in making it possible for everyone to move forward in whatever way makes sense for them.
I did not get carried aways at all. First of all you mix up two post one from me and one from somebody else...and you quote them in one sentence. I appreciate you changing that don't mix others post in a quote of my post?

Next I don't inflame: I asked a valid question...... is that wrong? not allowed? where is misformed language? I did not insult you i asked for a reason.... you flame me with this insinuation... Why you doubt my ethics? Where you dare to make a statement like that?

I simply posted a question thats's all and i did not think either answers were appropriate... You need me to bow my head and say amen?  Weird!

Leo

_________________
-- Joomla Professional Support Services : http://gws-desk.com --
-- Good & Cheap Joomla Sites Ready To Roll : http://gws-deals.today --
-- Joomla Specialized Hosting Solutions : www.gws-host.com --
-- Member Joomla Bug Squad --


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:49 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Exemplar
Joomla! Exemplar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 7986
Location: New York
What everyone needs to understand is that there are going to be many questions and many particular situations that are edge cases. These are not going to get quick answers in a forum. They will require research and analysis to answer.

I think Leo's scenario is a good example of this. It's a complicated set of facts and there are other details that need to be clarified to get an answer.

This is why the Core Team/OSM has said that we are committed to a calm  process that focuses on education and voluntary compliance. To quote the statement

Quote:
Joomla! is a unique project with unique needs and unique GPL issues. Solutions won't just come off the shelf.  There are solutions and compromises on these issues that we are still exploring, and we want to keep hearing from the community so we can get it right.

We will provide facts as soon as we have them.  If we seem too silent, it's because we don't want to speak until we can do so clearly and confidently.  And you'll have plenty of notice before any large changes get made.

Here's the plan: first, we clean our own house and bring the Joomla! sites into compliance.  Next, we ask people in the community to voluntarily comply with the license.  At the same time, we try to help people understand what it takes to comply and how they can do it easily.  We believe we're going to get a lot of compliance that way.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:51 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Exemplar
Joomla! Exemplar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 7986
Location: New York
leolam wrote:
mcsmom wrote:
However, there is no excuse  for continuing it unless your purpose is to misinform or inflame. If that is your purpose, well, I question your ethics or your interest in making it possible for everyone to move forward in whatever way makes sense for them.
I did not get carried aways at all. First of all you mix up two post one from me and one from somebody else...and you quote them in one sentence. I appreciate you changing that don't mix others post in a quote of my post?

Next I don't inflame: I asked a valid question...... is that wrong? not allowed? where is misformed language? I did not insult you i asked for a reason.... you flame me with this insinuation... Why you doubt my ethics? Where you dare to make a statement like that?

I simply posted a question thats's all and i did not think either answers were appropriate... You need me to bow my head and say amen?  Weird!

Leo





That post was not in response to yours, it was to mic.

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:56 am 
User avatar
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 14020
Location: Netherlands/ UK/ S'pore/Jakarta/ North America
mcsmom wrote:
That post was not in response to yours, it was to mic.
than don't quote me inside that post so you wont get the reaction you received... I respect you and your work for Joomla too much to get into quarrels

please once again correct your post since you post imho clearly a reference to me...

thank you and i stay corrected for any mistakes....

Leo

_________________
-- Joomla Professional Support Services : http://gws-desk.com --
-- Good & Cheap Joomla Sites Ready To Roll : http://gws-deals.today --
-- Joomla Specialized Hosting Solutions : www.gws-host.com --
-- Member Joomla Bug Squad --


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:17 pm 
User avatar
Joomla! Guru
Joomla! Guru

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:53 pm
Posts: 685
Location: Greece
mcsmom wrote:
Answering Nant's question from the other thread.

Q1: Who are the copyright/license owners of Joomla 1.0.X and 1.5 ?

Open Source Matters has the copyright on the combined entity. The copyright is derivative of the underlying copyrights held by the people who developed the code and is subject to licensing limitations.

Q2: Who are the copyright/license owners of 3P extensions that work with Joomla?
The developers of those extensions.


Thanks for responding...

Now let me continue this - if I may ...

I read that the copyright/license owner (sorry - i always view these as the same - if i should please correct me) is the only entity empowered to enforce (or not) any license issues. So if I create a component - that the Joomla license/copyright owners view as derivative works - then only the Joomla license/copyright owners can go after the component developer (actually the component distributor to be more correct). Is this statement correct?

_________________
Nick (nant)
Member of the Community Builder Team http://www.joomlapolis.com
CBSubs - Most powerful Joomla Paid Subscription System http://www.joomlapolis.com/cb-solutions/cbsubs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:24 pm 
User avatar
Joomla! Exemplar
Joomla! Exemplar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 7986
Location: New York
Leo,

The quote is clearly from mic, where he quotes me, quoting you, then responds to me. 
I'm responding to his response to me.
Clear as mud, right?  ;D

What you need to keep in mind is that in the other thread and elsewhere on the web, the Core Team/OSM has been accused of being anti-developer, thinking that commercial developers are evil etc. It's ironic that you as a 3PD (in a heated moment) said something in an exaggerated way to make a point that the Core Team/OSM has been falsely accused of thinking.

There is a lot of anger/denial/hurt feelings/confusion right now, and it would be great if we would all be more thoughtful than usual in choosing the language we use to present our opinions. 

_________________
So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. MLK 1964.
http://officialjoomlabook.com Get it at http://www.joomla.org/joomla-press-official-books.html Buy a book, support Joomla!.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pioneer_1 and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group