Have i missed something?

[stell]

Just read this clarification Statement:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg873613

Have i missed the point that Joomla DID allow (long after 15th September 2005) non Gpl Licenses?
The so called "Rider" Statement in the "license.php" File stated that:

Linking Joomla! statically or dynamically with other modules is making
a combined work based on Joomla!. Thus, the terms and conditions of
the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of Joomla!
give you permission to combine Joomla! with free software programs or
libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL and with independent
extensions that communicate with Joomla! solely through the Joomla!
extension interface. You may copy and distribute such a system following
the terms of the GNU GPL for Joomla! and the licenses of the extension,
even if you do not include the source code of that extension.

Note that people who make modified versions of Joomla! are not
obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions;
it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License
gives permission to release a modified version without this exception;
this exception also makes it possible to release a modified version
which carries forward this exception.

This Statement was present even in the Beta of Joomla 1.5.
This licence file was, as far as i know, removed by Johan around April 2007 without consulting any other Core Team Members.
Then the Discussion began about encrypted extensions and so on.

So. Are here some big heads around or are we going to solve this "the Joomla Way" by us - the community?


EDIT: what a pity. discussion has just been disabled

[louis.landry]

Just for clarity:  http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg861334

[stell]

Looks like Joomla needs a Communication Workgroup.
All of this could be prevented by better information policy.

[stell]

Interesting Thing. I guess you all know Mitch Pirtle.

Now for clarity:
http://blog.spacemonkeylabs.com/article ... -the-rider

• The attendees to the core summit in London were the impetus for this whole rider thing in the first place, and other core members that couldn't attend were also notified.
• The entire core team was notified of the rider, its creation, and its insertion to the codebase.
• Additionally as there was no official mechanism for approval or disapproval of the rider at that time, it must be logically assumed that, if the rider was illegal due to the lack of a formal process, then the name Joomla was not properly chosen, the name Open Source Matters was not properly chosen, the initial board of OSM was not properly chosen, and the people in charge of the project were not properly chosen.
• The rider was prepared by the SFLC, whom I consider one hell of an authority on this matter.
• The rider was created under the auspices of the OSM board, as one of the founders made the commit.

AND:
Don't try to educate People by letting only Workgroup Members respond in the Lounge.
Please open the Lounge Discussion Threads for ... Discussion!!

[pasamio]

hi stell,

Thanks for your post, I'd just like to add to the bit my piece that I was not at London, I wasn't notified of its insertion and fail to find any email about it. I can find two references to it in my inbox (one of which is noted by Mitch) which occurred after the event. Yes the SFLC did prepare it and an OSM member did commit it. We don't want to target Mitch for this, it was a bad decision that was made by the team, after seeking full legal counsel on the issue we've decided to stick to the GPL. Adding the rider adds a large amount of complications (e.g. no more GPL code from third party sources) so as a group we agreed that leaving it out was the best idea. Its a change of opinion and its not anyones fault. We change our mind in the process of coming to the best decision as we assimilate new information. Its just how things work.