What if the OSM's legal advice changed?

[shull]

What would happen if the J! team's legal advice changed (by their own lawyers, of course)?  What if the lawyers now said that components are NOT derivative works?  Would the policy change?  Would components be excluded from the GPL?

I would like a true response to this, not one that says the decision is final or they aren't going to change.  I want to know how the team will respond. 

Also, what technical precedent was used to determine a derivative work?  Please be specific.

I would actually like to see a response from some on the core team.


Thanks for your time in responding to this and for your efforts with J!

-Stephen

[louis.landry]

What would happen if the J! team's legal advice changed (by their own lawyers, of course)?

We would listen to the advice and make decisions according to the best interests of the project.

What if the lawyers now said that components are NOT derivative works?

Then they would be in fact changing their views and making a blanket statement ... it would likely say something more like, "Most components are not derivative works" ... and even that would be suspect, because how would you know?  At any rate, what if?

Would the policy change?

Which policy?

Would components be excluded from the GPL?

If an extension is not a derivative work then it is not subject to the terms of the Joomla! license -- the GNU GPL.

I would like a true response to this, not one that says the decision is final or they aren't going to change.  I want to know how the team will respond. 

Also, what technical precedent was used to determine a derivative work?  Please be specific.

What do you mean by technical precedent?

This: http://www.linux.com/articles/113252 is a great article on software derivative works and how US courts tend to interpret the term.

I would actually like to see a response from some on the core team.


Thanks for your time in responding to this and for your efforts with J!

-Stephen

You are very welcome

Louis

[shull]

Loius,

Thanks for the reply. 

I have read the link and I can't see how basically an "add-on" to a framework is considered a derivative.  The way I read that article is that it relates to copies, merges, and expression of ideas.  I believe if you read the article and understand the context, it is saying, at least in my opinion, that they are talking about current code that has been modified.  If it does not say that explicitly, it is in the spirit of the GPL.  I don't want to get into a debate about the GPL here, I have always interpreted the GPL to mean that once someone makes something public, if you modify it, you also need to make that public.  If I make a program that outputs "Hello World" and I GPL it, then anyone can modify it.  Now someone could come along and make the program output "Goodbye World".  That code would also have to be released.  That is the spirit of the GPL, from my point of view.

Anyway, I just don't see the derivation coming into effect.  I can't see how some can attorneys interpret the GPL that way.  But then again, I am not a lawyer. 

I think this whole debate boils down to what is and what isn't a derived work.  Who decides that ultimately?  The 3PD's, OSM, FSF, the courts, someone else?  I hope whoever it is, it gets laid down and put to bed so we can move on.  If the current decision is the final decision, then please let everyone know. 

Thanks again for your time.  I really do appreciate all of the hard work you guys (and gals) put into this project.  I don't want to see it fade away.


-Stephen

[louis.landry]

You are welcome.

There will likely be no definitive assertion of what is and what is not a derived work because copyright law doesn't intend there to be.  It is important to note that this is not ambiguity in the license, but in copyright law and its variations in different jurisdictions.  I tend to agree with most of your thoughts on the GNU GPL.  I think the derived work bit in this case is something people are digging too deep into technical details for.  Did you have a good look at the AFC test discussed in that article?  I found it particularly interesting.  My personal view is that we have to look at it as an application as a whole, not just function/method calls.  Each and every person is entitled to their opinions on the matter just as they are on everything, no one is saying otherwise.  We have been asked for our views and we have given them.  We have then been attacked for stating what we have stated.  Kind of silly if you think about it.

From your responses it seems you believe we have set some sort of policy that hasn't been set.

Lets go over what we did do.  We indicated we were going to review licensing options for the 1.5 release.  We did that.  Given our options, we said we would come to a decision on how we want to license Joomla! moving forward.  We did that as well.  We said we would communicate our decisions.  We did that as well.

We also stated our belief that most extensions are derivative works of Joomla!.  We did not set out some grand policy or gather an army or anything of the sort.  We stated what we believe to be true based on our research and discussions.  It is quite OK that you or anyone else disagrees with that belief.  People have asked us what to do if they disagree, and we responded with the best possible answer we could give, consult with an attorney.

Louis

[shull]

But doesn't the Core team have the power to put this whole thing to rest right now?  Can't the core team add an exception to the GPL excluding components from being defined as derivatives?  If the core team does, indeed have the power to make this happen, then why not do it?  If there is no way to legally determine derived works, why create an issue that has alienated many 3PD's and users? 

Thanks again.


-Stephen

[mcsmom]

In short, no. The core team can not make any declaration like that either way.  The core team did not write GNU GPL and the core team does not own the copyrights to the individual works that make up Joomla!.

[shull]

Who does have the authority to add an exception to the GPL license for J!?  What has to happen to add an exception?  If an exception is possible, would the core team ever consider it?

Thanks,

Stephen

[louis.landry]

To modify the license of Joomla! the consent of all copyright holders would have to be attained, which first would include the arduous task of finding all copyright holders.  There is no telling what that list looks like.

As for granting an exception -- we did consider it, we collectively stated and communicated the fact that we intend to stay with the same license we have always had -- the unmodified GNU GPL.  This keeps us GPL compatible which means we can include any GPL'd works we want to into the core code base.  Given the wealth of GNU GPL'd code out there and the vast ecosystem that supports it we believe that it is in the project's best interest to remain in that ecosystem.

Louis