Clarification

[Shamele]

Look, I've noticed that 100% of your posts have been on this issue. Why not try becoming an active member of the broader Joomla! community. Maybe you would find out why we feel so strongly about protecting it. Come on over to the General forum, development,  integration, or templates. It's a great place. 

Actually, I've been an integral part of some large open source projects, mostly CMSes, over the years (some GPL, others not). I was considering moving to Joomla, but I have some grave concerns especially given the way the 3PD are being treated and how the GPL, in my opinion, is being misinterpreted. I needed to seek clarification before putting myself, my time and my business in the wrong place.

[mcsmom]

You mean proprietary 3PDs.
The vast majority of 3PDs do not fit this description.

Like I said, you've been registered since last August, but only active in these threads. If you are looking for a CMS that is great, shop away, but I don't get your engagement on this issue. You won't learn much about Joomla! on these threads however.

[aoirthoir]

MCSMom,

Probably 99.999999999% of my posts have been on this topic:) (Just clarifying)

Shamele,

You have a misunderstanding about copyright law in regards to reverse engineering. Reverse engineering, is the attempt to find out what and how a program does something. Then when you understand what it is doing, you write your own code to reproduce those same effects. Copyright law does not cover reverse engineering attempts. For that you need what is called an EULA, an End User License Agreement. EULAs typically go way beyond what is allowed with copyright law. The idea of a program, or the way in which it accomplishes something, is not covered by copyright. Only an exact work, and only when it has been produced (written, recorded, video taped).

According to what I understand, the 1.5 Joomla! core will still have Mambo Code in it. The exact amount does not matter, because that still makes Joomla! 1.5 a derivative of Mambo and all of the other code that is in it. But for the sake of conversation let us say they eliminated 50% of the Mambo code. This leaves 50% remaining. Then at 2.0 they eliminate the remaining 50% so now there is zero Mambo code existing in Joomla!. At this point Joomla!'s obligation to Mambo end. However, since 1.5 was GNU GPLed due to Mambo being GPLed, 2.0 would also be GPLed. The reason is because the parts that replaced the original 50% mambo in 1.5 Joomla! are still in the 2.0 Joomla!. However, assuming at that point ALL of the copyright holders of Joomla! 2.0 agreed, they could then fork into a Proprietary Joomla! 2.0+. From then on that would be proprietary, but the originally released Joomla! 2.0 (even if released via SVN) would be GNU GPLed and someone could fork it into its own project.

Now, in regards to the copyright holders of Mambo, I have read (not verified) that a number of those copyright holders moved to the Joomla! team. If this is so, they still have a say in the Mambo core. Now, if as someone else stated, they had assigned their copyrights to Mambo, then this is not true and Mambo has full say in *its own code only*.

However, again the use of other code in Mambo does not preclude *those* developers from seeking compliance by Mambo and by extension developers. Even Mambo's own statements say it is up to a copyright holder to enforce its license, not Mambo. They are correct in this statement. But this also means that the enforcement from this third party, can fall right through the Mambo exception, and hit directly on a violating extension distributer. While Mambo might not do anything, *any* additional third parties can.

As stated a couple times already, no one is saying that Joomla! is not a derivative  of Mambo. Joomla! is a derivative of Mambo and all code added since then.

And finally, yes you can rewrite code bit by bit, and yes it would stand up in court. In particular with the license of the GNU GPL, that is exactly allowed. You can modify the program any way you want. If you have eliminated all original code, the original copyright holder no long has any say. In fact this is one way to become compliant, if you violate the GPL, remove all GPLed code from your project, even if you have to do it bit by bit. You cannot of course distribute while you are doing so, unless what you distribute is also GNU GPLed or compliant.

Modified to fix one grammar error and one spelling error.

[Jenny]

Actually, I've been an integral part of some large open source projects, mostly CMSes, over the years (some GPL, others not). I was considering moving to Joomla, but I have some grave concerns especially given the way the 3PD are being treated and how the GPL, in my opinion, is being misinterpreted. I needed to seek clarification before putting myself, my time and my business in the wrong place.

But you haven't been a part of this community, or this project.  If Joomla! isn't right for you that is okay.  No one is forcing you to use Joomla!.  If would be great if you did become a part of the community, everyone is always welcome.  You may feel the GPL is being misinterpreted, but that is YOUR interpretation. You are entitled to your interpretation, and opinion.  Please allow others the same rights to their own interpretation.

[Shamele]

MCSMom,

Probably 99.999999999% of my posts have been on this topic:) (Just clarifying)

Shamele,

You have a misunderstanding about copyright law in regards to reverse engineering.

LOL... But you agree with their interpretation of the GPL, so don't worry -- you are safe!

Eh, I don't have a misunderstanding. I've worked at companies with so many lawyers it's not even funny, but thanks anyway.

[mcsmom]

MCSMom,

Probably 99.999999999% of my posts have been on this topic:) (Just clarifying)

So true.   Get to it! People need to know how to insert images immediately! 

[aoirthoir]

No worries all, this weekend I am attempting my first crack at Joomla!.

Shamele, I think the issue is not that you disagree with the interpretation. There are a lot of folks here who disagree. However, because of your disagreement you've made comments that Joomla! is not a worthy CMS. That opinion also is ok. But they are perplexed because if you have such a low opinion of Joomla, why bother with the community?

Personally, I need feedback of all sorts, even negative feedback. It helps me to do research and learn and thus adjust my stand.

Now my statements about reverse engineering stand.

[Shamele]

No worries all, this weekend I am attempting my first crack at Joomla!.

Shamele, I think the issue is not that you disagree with the interpretation. There are a lot of folks here who disagree. However, because of your disagreement you've made comments that Joomla! is not a worthy CMS. That opinion also is ok. But they are perplexed because if you have such a low opinion of Joomla, why bother with the community?

Personally, I need feedback of all sorts, even negative feedback. It helps me to do research and learn and thus adjust my stand.

LOL... I've never said that I haven't already used the product. Also, you sure put a lot of words in my mouth. I never said anything negative about Joomla, the software. When did I say I had a low opinion of Joomla?  You really should be careful with your accusations.

My disagreement is with the misinterpretation of the GPL only and the subsequent way the 3PDs were treated. One-way forums, lack of answers, disparaging remarks, etc. does not make a good community and that has nothing to do with the software.

[Jenny]

Shamele the decision to use Joomla! is yours and yours alone.  If it isn't right for you then move on. If you don't want to be a part of the community then don't.  The choice is yours.

[mcsmom]

The proprietary 3PDs have not been treated badly in any way. There were three months of open discussion on this issue (which did not come out of thin air), followed by long discussions in the week after the continuing with gnu gpl announcement. A small number of the people who do not like the announcements were not capable of expressing their concerns in a civil way.

Speaking as one who has been called many names--with my real name-- all over the web because of this--and who has spoken privately with almost everyone who did so and is satisfied that they are sorry that they did so--the truth is I find your statement very amusing.  I'm sure MMMedia does as well.

There are maybe 5 people who are doing consistent name calling (not one time calling someone silly or saying something similar that will get them moderated here) and they are not from the core team or OSM. 

But you too, I want you telling people how use the livesite properly.

[aoirthoir]

I think you misunderstood my post. When I said I am attempting my first crack at Joomla! I meant I was. I did not infer that you had never used it. In fact, I could not know whether you have, and so would not make such a claim.

I will rephrase, you made negative comments about the Joomla! community. I will quote:

Pot meet kettle...
Kettle meet pot...

This is clearly a claim of hypocrisy. Had it been based on fact, it would have been ok, however, since the claim was based on your belief that it has been claimed that Joomla! is not a derivative of Mambo, and since that claim has never been made, it is a negative comment.

However, in light of your last post I decided to review your posts, so I will retract my statement that you are negative. I think it appears that you are not a fan of the GNU GPL, but this does not make your statements negative. (That is negative in the sense of being derogatory).

My goal here is not to get you to think a certain way. I truly wish to hear, and understand all viewpoints even those that disagree with mine. Sometimes I will offer counterpoints. My counterpoints generally will have as much confidence from me, as your points and counterpoints have from you. This makes neither of us right, or wrong. We hold opinions. Even when issues end up in the court, we find it is the court's 'opinion'. Which is not precisely a matter of fact, though it does become a matter of law.

So by hearing your opinion, and offering my own, I feel I gain a more solid foundation. In addition, there will be times that yours, and others, statements will cause me to adjust my thinking, (as your last post caused me to carefully review your posts to see if my statement was accurate, it was not, thus I adjust).

If your goal is to create extensions that are proprietary, then in that case Joomla! may not be for you. However if your goal is to use Joomla! on your websites, or those of your clients, then Joomla! may certainly be for you since the GNU GPL is geared more towards users freedoms, than developers.


MCSMom is correct though. Stating an adherence to the GNU GPL is not a matter of treating people badly. The hope would be that, understanding how the Joomla! team feels about this issue, the proprietary developers, would work with the core team to find reasonable solutions. In reality a number are doing this. The moderating of these forums has helped settle things down, while still giving folks a chance to voice their opinion. If posts were being deleted, I would understand the claims of unfairness. But they are not. In fact they are actually being merged with posts that are on the same topic. Very reasonable and it has calmed the name calling.

I hope that clarifies that I meant no ill intent with my statement. Kind regards.

[Shamele]

Pot meet kettle...
Kettle meet pot...

Please do not change the meaning of what I say. This was not an attack on the Joomla community, but about the GPL situation of the original thread. Also, when did I say I was not a fan of the GPL?  Once again, misrepresenting people is only hurting the community.

Let's leave it at that.

[Jenny]

You have no idea what hurts this community.  You have never been a part of this community.  You have demonstrated a significant lack of respect for the decision that the project has taken in determining it's own interpretation of it's own license.  You have misrepresented that 3PDs are being treated badly which you stated as fact, which actually is not fact.  No 3PDs have been or are being treated badly.  They are being asked to comply with the license that Joomla! is released under.  Nothing more, and nothing less.

Let's leave it at that.

[Shamele]

You are right. I don't want to be a part of that type of "community". Feel free to delete my forum account (or let me know how to do it). Thank you.

[aoirthoir]

**I think** it appears that you are not a fan of the GNU GPL, but this does not make your statements negative. (That is negative in the sense of being derogatory).

I am a fan of the GNU GPL, I am more of a fan of the GNU AGPLv3 (not yet released) for my own projects, and others who desire to use them. If you are a fan of the GNU GPL, then my thinking is incorrect. Now being a fan or not is neither a good nor a bad thing. As I said, this does not make your statements negative. That is the being a fan or not. However, stating I think, does not misrepresent you.

And to clarify, since there is some misunderstanding going on, when I state something, unless I am quoting a source, it is most of the time, simply what I think. I think, that extensions are derivatives. Others thing differently. In both cases we are talking opinion. If we were going to talk about proven fact, then we have to clearly, inexplicably define 'derivative'.

As far as your pot and kettle statement, that is clearly a reference to hypocrisy. I stated the case you were referring to and did not misrepresent that either. The Joomla! community is not one group. It is not only the users, or the core team, or the contributers, or the documentation writers, or any other person participating with Joomla!. The community is all of these as a group, and all of these in part. So if you refer to the core team as hypocrites, then you are referring to a part of the community this way. Your statements clearly did not apply to users, nor did I infer that. However, as already stated, your pot and kettle statement is inaccurate, because no one was claiming that Joomla! was not derived from Mambo.

I would also like to address what MMMedia stated.

Stating that extensions are derivatives, that Joomla! is going to get its house in order first, that this will probably take some time, that then gentle compliance will be sought, that lawsuits are to be avoided, that no one is going to be demonized, that extensions are not going to be pulled immediately from the websites, is in no way treating third party developers badly. I have seen some frustration on the part of some team members. But I have yet to see them use some of the vociferous words that have been directed at them.

However, as has been pointed out, many of these were done in a moment of heat. And I can understand that. Those who did so, have apologized. So personally I see no issue with those that did it.

I have found many of the arguments of the proprietary developers to be well thought out. In particular I am a fan of Vimes and Saka. I hope that some method can be achieved which will keep them with the Joomla! community. And I think actually it will happen. I think that it will happen in such a way that they will remain profitable. Soon things will be pretty settled down and then we can get back to business.

But again, stating that they have been treated badly is non-productive, and in this case, non-true.

[Shamele]

As far as your pot and kettle statement, that is clearly a reference to hypocrisy. I stated the case you were referring to and did not misrepresent that either. The Joomla! community is not one group. It is not only the users, or the core team, or the contributers, or the documentation writers, or any other person participating with Joomla!. The community is all of these as a group, and all of these in part. So if you refer to the core team as hypocrites, then you are referring to a part of the community this way. Your statements clearly did not apply to users, nor did I infer that. However, as already stated, your pot and kettle statement is inaccurate, because no one was claiming that Joomla! was not derived from Mambo.

Wrong. I was not talking about people, but the GPL situation only. Not the core team, or any other developer. In fact, my point was about protecting the 3PDs as much as the core team and trying to show the situation from another angle.

I have already clarified in this thread that I have been active in the open source community for years and that it included GPL projects.

BTW, I also did not say the 3PDs were treated "badly" (that was mcsmom that said that), but I did take aim at how they were treated in certain contexts that has exacerbated the situation including this one-way forum.

I think I've said enough. Looking over my posts it shows a pattern of "I say this" and then someone saying "no, you really meant that and you are wrong". That isn't helping the situation and I'd rather be removed from the forum, then be misrepresented each time I post.

[aoirthoir]

Wrong. I was not talking about people, but the GPL situation only. Not the core team, or any other developer. In fact, my point was about protecting the 3PDs as much as the core team and trying to show the situation from another angle.

Um. This stretches the bounds of credibility. The GPL situation is people based. However, so that we can understand better, let me quote your statement in its entirety.

So you are saying that Joomla is being completely rewritten (not reverse engineered) from the ground up, without taking ANY concepts or code from the original Mambo? Otherwise, you will always be a derivative of Mambo.

I find it ironic that when someone points out the Joomla will always be a derivative of Mambo and therefore, under the original copyright(s) and exceptions, that the core team gets defensive and upset with it.

Yet, they also can't believe that 3PDs would be upset with the core team for saying that most of their programs that were built for Joomla (or Mambo and in some cases, both) would be derivatives under Joomla's copyright. Very interesting...

Pot meet kettle...
Kettle meet pot...

So I am hard pressed to understand what pot and what kettle apply to in a 'situational' context, when you are clearly referencing the core team. Now your original quote that led to this quote was this:

2. I do not understand how Joomla thinks it might not be a derivative work of Mambo, but somehow thinks that 3PD extensions are a derivative work of Joomla.

Which statement I have not read a single time except from you. If you wish to post statements from team members that have claimed Joomla! is not derived from Mambo, I am happy to read them, then I will contact the team member to correct this position.

I think I've said enough. Looking over my posts it shows a pattern of "I say this" and then someone saying "no, you really meant that and you are wrong". That isn't helping the situation and I'd rather be removed from the forum, then be misrepresented each time I post.

Alright, I decided upon this to read the entire thread again. The only time I've seen someone say anything near "no you really meant that and you are wrong" is when you have said:

So you are saying that Joomla is being completely rewritten (not reverse engineered) from the ground up, without taking ANY concepts or code from the original Mambo? Otherwise, you will always be a derivative of Mambo.

Which is not exactly what Louis had said, but it is fairly close. Now I am not claiming that you said to Louis "no you really meant that and you are wrong". I only am claiming that is the only statement that could even be considered close.

s/closed/close

[aoirthoir]

Which is not exactly what Louis had said, but it is fairly close. Now I am not claiming that you said to Louis "no you really meant that and you are wrong". I only am claiming that is the only statement that could even be considered close.

Actually I would state it wasnt fairly close, but that it did contain an element of what he said. That is, that Joomla! is going through a rewrite for the 1.5 core.

[Elpie]

Last comment on this. Joomla! has not changed its license. Mambo has not changed its license. Both projects have had extensive legal advice and opinions from their legal counsel. Both projects are legally entitled to enforce their licenses over their own work in the way that they choose, as long as they each comply with the terms of the GPL. Both do.

In many ways, the differences between the Mambo Licensing Guidelines and the Joomla! license FAQ come down to the fundamental differences in interpretation of the GPL. You will find just as many people arguing that the use of function calls does not, in itself, make a work necessarily derivative as you will find others that say all work is derivative.

Everyone can go around in circles debating which position is the correct position to take but the fact is - they both are! And both are doing what is right for their projects.

Mods: I have asked before if debates about the Mambo license could be kept off these forums. I posted a clarification to give balance to the many posts around here where people are making assumptions about Mambo's position in regards to its license. In almost four years, since the Mambo Licensing Guidelines were set in writing, nobody has debated the merits or otherwise - it has just been business as usual.
This is not a contest of "my lawyer vs your lawyer" or "my interpretation is right, ergo yours must be illegal" and continued discussion over the relative merits of either position in relation to enforcement of the GPL is not going to achieve anything.  The Mambo Licensing Guidelines weren't just pulled out of a hat. Nor were the Joomla! FAQ's. And no amount of debate over the relative merits is going to change them.

As I started this thread, I request that you please close it. Thank you.

[aoirthoir]

Elpie,

Thanks kindly for all of the comments on this. I appreciate your clarifications and your last statements as well.

[infograf768]

I guess the original post has been debated under and over and around (French expression  ).
As the original poster is requesting to lock it and I see nothing new or interesting that could come from letting it open, I'll now close it.