SMF bridge issue

[zigzag]

Do NOT upgrade if your system
    * Utilizes any Bridge > check with the developer first!

Could someone from the Joomla team make some coffee and sit down & talk with someone from SMF (they can bring the biscuits) and sort out the GPL issue please, pretty please  :-* - see post here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community ... 2#p1174172

I'm sure that in this day and age this can be sorted out without having to call in the UN  and it leaves a lot of us high & dry unless we swith to M  so come on guys, it's good to talk.

[leolam]

I'm sure that in this day and age this can be sorted out without having to call in the UN  and it leaves a lot of us high & dry unless we swith to M  so come on guys, it's good to talk.

extensive communications between SMF and Joomla have not lead to any changes in position of the Joomla-core team or SMF-team and therefore SMF has no other choice...........

[infograf768]

I am now splitting the 2 last posts which are OT and moving them in the Lounge GPL threads.

[brad]

Have a good read of this: http://www.simplemachines.org/community ... pic=184557

[Danayel]

That's a pretty heavy claim. 

It basically evaporates every bridge to a non GPL item as well as totally 'deriving' every extensions absolutely if they even touch anything Joomla.

Expose gallery anyone.
CB also contains some non GPL code in it. 

Is PHbb GPL? (I think so) looks like it will become the forum of choice, or Fireboard.

[Jenny]

That's a pretty heavy claim. 

It basically evaporates every bridge to a non GPL item as well as totally 'deriving' every extensions absolutely if they even touch anything Joomla.

Expose gallery anyone.
CB also contains some non GPL code in it. 

Is PHbb GPL? (I think so) looks like it will become the forum of choice, or Fireboard.

When you say CB do you mean Community Builder?  Community Builder is licensed GPL.  What non-GPL code is included in Community Builder?

Expose is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 which is very, very similar to GPL, but different none the less. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

[Danayel]

[quote="MMMedia"]When you say CB do you mean Community Builder?  Community Builder is licensed GPL.  What non-GPL code is included in Community Builder?

Expose is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 which is very, very similar to GPL, but different none the less. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/[/quote]

Yup Community Builder. Take a good look at the files and the licenses therein.

I found it quite by accident while working on a plugin.

The funniest thing is the license for Expose is that when you install it it tells you this:

[quote="Expose RC4"]You may not distribute it without the prior consent of the author, nor sell it.[/quote]

Which is completely counter to GPL which is what it is listed as in the JED. If it is in fact the other license you mention, it is still in violation by saying the above I would think.

Joomfish isn't GPL either. 
Nor is JCE pro I don't think. (though the standard is)

If it's accurate then the LGPL layer idea people have been working on is pointless and won't work legally.

I am not sure how reliable it is though. Because it would then mean if I was to make a GPL extension for a non GPL CMS, then the CMS would be infected by the GPL and be in violation simply by me building the extension.

[Jenny]

Are they GPL compatibly licensed?

Yup Community Builder. Take a good look at the files and the licenses therein.

Joomfish isn't GPL either. 
Nor is JCE pro I don't think. (though the standard is)

Edit: added the relevant quote to give my question context.  I know that the Creative Commons license is not a good license for software.

[Asphyx]

From: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,194430.0.html

If it's accurate then the LGPL layer idea people have been working on is pointless and won't work legally.

I think FSF would have a hard time proving that stance in court. But that said. The LGPL Bridge would still work if it was Joomla who made the LGPL part. They couldn't be in violation of their own license. They would however have to remove any borrowed GPL from the GPL portions of the release.

But this is why I often say FSF is more concerned about making more GPL than they are about protecting the author who owns copyright. They simply use the excuse that they are protecting the author to get away with creating more GPL. But nothing about that stance really does anything to protect the original author.

And if it is true that what they feel is the way it is (ie should a court agree) then it is time we start looking at an alternative license for Joomla that gives all the freedom to use Joomla code that GPL does without the midas touch licensing.

[mcsmom]

THere has definitely been a lot of apparent lack on knowledge about licensing issues. For example, the creative commons license is not really appropriate for software.  I have seen some extensions that just say "open source" for their licensing information. This is bad for both users and developers, who are not protecting their interests effectively. That is why the core team/OSM  knows that the developer community, which includes many individuals with just one or two extensions that they have shared as well as the commerical community, need time to do the work needed to come into compliance.

As always, speaking for myself. 

[aoirthoir]

But this is why I often say FSF is more concerned about making more GPL than they are about protecting the author who owns copyright. They simply use the excuse that they are protecting the author to get away with creating more GPL. But nothing about that stance really does anything to protect the original author.

The GPL is actually specifically about users rights. Still, the original copyright holder gives up none of her rights. She could release under fifty different licenses if she wanted. So the GPL doesn't interfere with her rights.

So then some might say that it interferes with the rights of her downstream developers. However, the fact is that the downstream has no rights. Under copyright law, all rights are reserved except those explicitly granted. So the GPL grants certain rights, but not others. In this way it actually increases the rights of a downstream, rather than reducing them.

Where the real caveat comes in, is in a collaborative work. In this case the GPL has restrictions that would prevent any of the parties from modifying the license on their own. But it should be noted, that the majority of software licenses likewise have this restriction. Certainly there are some that offer some flexibility. For instance certain of the various BSD licenses allow the freedom to convert to proprietary use and then do not require distribution of the code along with the binaries. Still, even in this case I think that they restrict you from converting their license otherwise. Does that license  allow a conversion to say the GNU GPL, or LGPL, or the Mozilla license? I doubt it.

Basically, even though it may sound like I am not, I am agreeing with you in many respects. I just happen to think that mostly, this is the case with software licenses in general.

--

As to the topic at hand, this is basically what I was saying on another thread. Since the GNU GPL requires that the whole work be offered under the conditions of the GPL, then this would include the GPL + LGPL + Proprietary mix.

Having said that, as LOBOS quotes:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

I think the key thing here is the statement, when you distribute them as separate works. I realize many folks think this means I distribute A. Your program is B. I create a bridge, C. I am distributing A and C. Therefore they are considered separate works.

But, the inclusion of C in the mix is specifically there to create a combined work out of A+B. Really you get ACB. But this mixture, is an entire work. So if A is distributed with no C, no code, no patches, no libraries of the nature of C, then it is a separate work. But once the distribution of C occurs, you now have a combined work, and it is at this time that the GPL goes into effect. So yes, as long as C is not involved, your A is always free to be distributed in any manner that you wish.

[Rogue4ngel]

The midas touch licensing.  I couldn't help but smile reading that, although I am sure it is a troubling thought for some.

The Joomla team is aware of their own issues, as they have stated on several occasions.  They have made it abundantly clear that the first order of business for them is to clean their own shop.  That alone will take a significant portion of time.

In the end, I believe there will be a much better understanding of what situations necessitate compliance with GPL and Joomla.

When I hear definitive breaks from Joomla by 3PD's that can't make sufficient monies under GPL, I can only think about the fact that Joomla (the very program that they are reliant upon) does the very thing these organizations are completely resistive to! 

If GPL is such a poor model, what makes them think that Joomla would be a good product to develop upon?  If it suffered the same ills they make claim to, wouldn't the Joomla project eventually fail, regardless of their involvement by their own logic?

Conversely, if Joomla had a different license and started charging an inordinate amount of money to be allowed to develop for it, wouldn't that also be completely prohibitive, and drive these same developers away? It would put them right up with the rest of the non GPL CMS systems available.

As far as the SMF issue, it would seem they feel there is no alternative, nor any workaround, even though only one option was presented and commented upon.  Clearly there are other ways to access Joomla without violating the GPL license.  It seems some don't feel that it's worth the effort.  That is truly unfortunate, but not the end of the world, and certainly not the end of Joomla.

[Jenny]

@ aoirthoir

So basically what you are saying is there is no possible way, for any non-GPL compliant licensed software to connect to any GPL software without it violating the GPL license?  Especially now that some statements have been made that even accessing the data that a GPL software creates cannot occur by a GPL non-compliantly licensed software without violating the license.

Where is the line drawn?  At none? 

When is there going to be some clarity on this so that as a community we can come up with solutions? 

[Jenny]

Tim gave me an idea for a question:

@ aoirthoir

Is the issue that one person created A and C and distributes them both (distributes both but distributes them separately (separately as in separate packages) - edit for clarity

Or is it that 2 different people could create A and C and both people could distribute A and C.  Or do both people have to distribute each without distributing the other?

If you have 3 entities and each one creates one of either A, B or C.  As long as each one only distributes one of the softwares does that mean they are not in violation and each software will not be in violation?

[aoirthoir]

MMMedia,

Hopefully to clarify, from my perspective I am just stating what is my opinion. In this case it also matches the FSF opinion. I had a feeling it would but this simply clarifies it.

So basically what you are saying is there is no possible way, for any non-GPL compliant licensed software to connect to any GPL software without it violating the GPL license?

Not exactly. There are ways, but they provide a clear advantage to free developers. This is actually the point of the GPL, and why the FSF encourages free developers to use the GPL rather than the LGPL. The LGPL provides all the advantages to proprietary developers, since they are not required to 'give back' should they distribute their software.

Is the issue that one person created A and C and distributes them both (distributes both but distributes them separately (separately as in separate packages) - edit for clarity

Actually it would not matter who creates C. Using SMF as an example. If SMF creates C for its A, then SMF is in violation. However if Joe McPerson creates C, without SMF's knowledge, participation or support, then Joe is in violation, not SMF. In fact Joe would possibly be in violation of SMF's license. I should note if SMF owns A and B, then SMF may do whatever it likes.

The real key here is, are A B and C in any way meant to work together. Assuming a separate developer of C, without A's or B's involvement (using these terms now to refer to the developer as well as the program), then C is actually prevented from distributing because A and B are required for C to work. Since they cannot distribute A and B, then they are forbidden from distributing C.

Again this is in the case of a bridge that utilizes include/require. There are other methods to create a bridge that would be compliant.

[Jenny]

What are those other ways?

Let's try to stop talking about hypotheticals and come up with some actual real world solutions please.  What are the other ways that a bridge could be created that will allow non-GPL compliant software to interface with Joomla!, where the work to get this accomplished is not put as a burden on the Core Team, but on those that want to utilize it.  We are a community and should share ideas. If you know of ideas for a bridge that would allow this please let the cat out of the bag so we can move forward.

[lobos]

Quote Rogue4ngel:

The midas touch licensing.  I couldn't help but smile reading that, although I am sure it is a troubling thought for some.

i think of it more as Medusa's stare, but anyway...

Quote Rogue4ngel:

When I hear definitive breaks from Joomla by 3PD's that can't make sufficient monies under GPL, I can only think about the fact that Joomla (the very program that they are reliant upon) does the very thing these organizations are completely resistive to!

The very program they are reliant on... hmmmm maybe also, the very program that they helped elevate to it's current status...

Quote Rogue4ngel:

If GPL is such a poor model, what makes them think that Joomla would be a good product to develop upon?  If it suffered the same ills they make claim to, wouldn't the Joomla project eventually fail, regardless of their involvement by their own logic?

All I have ever needed is the userbase because, frankly, Joomla! is not imho a good product to develop on. I have always used my own APIs as they are much more suited to what I need to do. Joomla! is pretty and eye candy always draws the masses, but I can tell you now that Postnuke has offered a far more advanced API system for years now (and even this is not optimum). It is completely disingenous to think that so many developers deploy for Joomla! just becuase of the framework - it's the userbase they are after, well most of them anyway.

-Lobos

[Asphyx]

The GPL is actually specifically about users rights. Still, the original copyright holder gives up none of her rights. She could release under fifty different licenses if she wanted. So the GPL doesn't interfere with her rights.

Actually Aiothor, Use or user isn't covered at all under the GPL...Outside of it's scope...

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

So really the GPL is all about distribution and distributor rights and restrictions.
But that part of the license I quoted actually is a lie!
Because it does talk about use in regards to use in another program. (Contradictory statements lead to contradictory interpretations of the same license.)
If use is not covered as they claim then use by a proprietary component should be out of it's scope as well shouldn't it? If it does not copy or modify and distribute the GPLed code then that use should be outside of the scope if that statement actually was true. It is this part of the GPL that leads proprietary developers to say well I don't copy or distribute your code only mine. you can call it a combined work when run WITH Joomla but I also don't run it WITH Joomla some user does and they have the right to do whatever they want provided they don't distribute which is fine with me as I don't want them to distribute my code anyway! (the Saka Point of view.)

But FSF forgot about that line apparently and then added use restrictions which it didn't mention as under it's scope. They added those restrictions in support of ideology not to protect the Author. No GPL copyright holder is harmed because someone can't distribute a combined work as GPL. The original GPL code is still freely distributable as a seperate package as it was intended. to suggest that they MUST be allowed to be combined and distributed as GPL is actually not in the best interests of the GPL copyright holder if you ask me. Their reputation could be harmed by combining it with a shoddy product and saying the combination is one. So requiring this practice does not protect the original author at all. All it protects is the ideology of GPL and ebforces that more GPL programs will have to be written if you want to add functions to a GPL product.

That has nothing to do with protection of the copyright holder!

Add to it the verbatim distribution rights. Who is that protecting? the user? Sure isn't protecting the Author...I see no reason why it is advantageous to an author that 50 people could be distributing their copyrights. It is bad (IMO) to have 50 distributions of Joomla where 25 of the 50 could be modified in some way that the original author knows nothing about. This part was fine back in the day before the net where you had to physically distribute on disk and it just made things easier...I think it is better for the copyright holder to be the sole source of code until such time as they can not distribute anymore.

Basically, even though it may sound like I am not, I am agreeing with you in many respects. I just happen to think that mostly, this is the case with software licenses in general.

LOL Aiothor...no worries...You also know that I am playing the devils advocate at times to get a singular point across. I fully support GPL, the ideology even and the concept of free ideas. I just don't see why free ideas need free beer with regards to the verbatim distribution, and I think that the GPL is not as well written as it should be largely because it was written more for ideology than it was for actual protection of code. It doesn't do anything to protect GPL from copy and really is written in a way to make as much GPL as possible...I'm fine with that concept but there comes a point in time where the project is more important than the ideology and maybe it is time to move on. Joomla may need a more grown up license. Cause despite the fact that GPL allows anyone to add ideas to a GPL program it also restricts the amount of ideas that can be added.

As to the topic at hand, this is basically what I was saying on another thread. Since the GNU GPL requires that the whole work be offered under the conditions of the GPL, then this would include the GPL + LGPL + Proprietary mix.

But here is the rub with that...
It's not a combined work until it is combined...AND distributed! And who uses what parts is very significant. If the GPL uses the LGPL API then it is the GPL program making the link not the API, GPL can not just use any program it wants to and change it's license. I can't make a GPL boot loader for Windows and make Windows GPL (or force Microsoft to stop distribution of it) just because the GPL program touched by it on it's own action. Windows would have to do the touching or it's nothing more than license hijacking. In the same way if the GPL uses the LGPL API for it's functions then the GPL would be a derivative of the LGPL library not the other way around!
If Joomla released the API as LGPL FSF sure can't say well you combined it with GPL so it must be GPL...FSF can't tell Joomla how to license their own code. FSF may feel that is right but it will never hold up in a court of law. And if by some strange occurrance of events it did then Joomla should make it's own license and let the FSF dictate it's terms to others who are willing to have them dictate what license they should copyright their code under.

So FSF can try to say that is the way it is but they haven't a prayer of ever enforcing that notion. Anyone could hijack licenses willy nilly by simply putting in a midas touch clause and loading any program they want and say I now own it and set the terms of how it can be distributed.

The midas touch licensing.  I couldn't help but smile reading that, although I am sure it is a troubling thought for some.

Well it seemed like a nicer way to say it than Viral! LOL

As to the rest of your post yes I agree...I fully agree that (SOME OF) the P3PDs are being a little silly and childish throwing tantrums and claiming they can't make money...I think it all comes down to being too lazy...they didn't want to put the extra work into making a compliant product before this was brought up and now are too lazy to do the little extra work that the support and subscription model requires...
Many made a program for a client and don't have any plans to add, enhance or put any more effort into it. They are just squeezing the water from the rock so to speak. They can make updates at their own pace and just have some website do all the work, occisionally they will check the forums, so a security patch or some other thing...

The ones who are really interested in developing a product and give good support are the ones I am finding are just dealing with the issue and working around it as best as they can. In a year from now we will be arguing about a missed roadmap deadline again and this will all blow over as some developers see how easy it can be to get around this with a little effort.
At least until a really good method for allowing proprietary extentions comes along.

What we REALLY need right now is a rich programmer (is there such a thing? LOL) that has the money to finally make a challenge to the FSF stance of you touch it I own it in regards to LGPL...If that ever happened I think we would find the GPL would have to change their wording or their interpretation of the wording that exists.

[Jenny]

All I have ever needed is the userbase because, frankly, Joomla! is not imho a good product to develop on. I have always used my own APIs as they are much more suited to what I need to do. Joomla! is pretty and eye candy always draws the masses, but I can tell you now that Postnuke has offered a far more advanced API system for years now (and even this is not optimum). It is completely disingenous to think that so many developers deploy for Joomla! just becuase of the framework - it's the userbase they are after, well most of them anyway.

-Lobos

Hmm.  See this is where I take issue.  The userbase of Joomla! consists of many parts.  A lot of the userbase gives back to the community by volunteering time, money, help, and all sorts of different ways of contributing.  Now your quote above makes me feel like you don't care about Joomla! and you actually don't care about the userbase.  You just want to cash in on the userbase.  To me that makes me think that you don't want to be a part of the community.  You want to just use the community.  No one likes being used Lobos.  I don't know one person that does. 

You might want to rethink that statement (or not if that is what you really mean for it to intend).  If that is what you actually intend to mean, at least you are honest about it.  I feel though that the community has an interest in protecting itself from people that simply want to use/exploit the Joomla! community or "userbase" without respecting why the userbase exists in the first place.

[lobos]

Hmm.  See this is where I take issue.  The userbase of Joomla! consists of many parts.  A lot of the userbase gives back to the community by volunteering time, money, help, and all sorts of different ways of contributing.  Now your quote above makes me feel like you don't care about Joomla! and you actually don't care about the userbase.  You just want to cash in on the userbase.  To me that makes me think that you don't want to be a part of the community.  You want to just use the community.  No one likes being used Lobos.  I don't know one person that does.

You might want to rethink that statement (or not if that is what you really mean for it to intend).  If that is what you actually intend to mean, at least you are honest about it.  I feel though that the community has an interest in protecting itself from people that simply want to use/exploit the Joomla! community or "user base" without respecting why the user base exists in the first place.

Yes I am using the community, I am using them to mass beta test my code, and am also using them to provide funding for my research and development. It is not a parasitic relationship, it is a symbiotic one. The resources provided via a large community allow me to advance my technology and deploy stable, enhanced products that will benefit all. 

I have spent hundreds of hours creating GPL code, and yes I harnessed the power of this community to beta test the system. I also harnessed the resources of this community to provide funding for my GPL software via commercial component sales.

Am I the devil for doing this?

-Lobos

[aoirthoir]

Asphyx:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

Actually the license does cover users. It states the above, that the act of running the program is not restricted. Why is this? Because normally you do not have rights to run a program. The GNU GPL assures that you do.

Regarding the comments by LOBOS,

It is for precisely because of attitudes like that spoken of by LOBOS that the GNU GPL was created and does protect the rights of the copyright holder. You may certainly use my program, but you must abide by my license. As mentioned, I as the copyright holder can release under multiple licenses if I want. Then the downstream is free to choose which license they use. So the GNU GPL does not restrict me in relationship to my code. It only restricts me in relationship to others code. If those others want me to be allowed to use their code and create proprietary licensed software, they are free to release under another license.

I am disheartened by LOBOS' statements. If I found a product to be as poor as he is claiming Joomla! is, I would not develop for it. I find this combination disquieting, you believe Joomla! to be a poor quality program, you are happy to use it freely, and you desire that the copyright holders should allow you to deny privileges to others that Joomla! has granted to you. In all of the reading of these forums I have never felt saddened or really reacted emotionally until this post.

MMMedia, in answer, yes I can think of at least two methods that developers could use to create proprietary software to interact with Joomla!. Unfortunately, I fear statements like the above may not be uncommon. I realize that there are many commercial developers who do not share this attitude, I know many are attempting to come into compliance the simplest route, via licensing their software under the GPL. I also know others wish to be compliant, and prefer to remain proprietary, and are honestly looking for a method of doing so, while still holding an appreciation for the work that was done, which created the tool they are using. But there are enough, that seem to have an attitude bordering on flippant, that I am loathe to propose proprietary loopholes.

[Jenny]

Yes I am using the community, I am using them to mass beta test my code, and am also using them to provide funding for my research and development. It is not a parasitic relationship, it is a symbiotic one. The resources provided via a large community allow me to advance my technology and deploy stable, enhanced products that will benefit all. 

I have spent hundreds of hours creating GPL code, and yes I harnessed the power of this community to beta test the system. I also harnessed the resources of this community to provide funding for my GPL software via commercial component sales.

Am I the devil for doing this?

-Lobos

You stated that you don't care about Joomla! except for the fact that it has a userbase.  Please help me understand how that is a basis for a symbiotic relationship with the Joomla! community? 

[lobos]

You stated that you don't care about Joomla! except for the fact that it has a userbase.  Please help me understand how that is a basis for a symbiotic relationship with the Joomla! community?

That is correct, I don't care about Joomla! I only care about the Joomla! community. I will now quote myself again (in regards to symbiotic), please read carefully.

Yes I am using the community, I am using them to mass beta test my code, and am also using them to provide funding for my research and development. It is not a parasitic relationship, it is a symbiotic one. The resources provided via a large community allow me to advance my technology and deploy stable, enhanced products that will benefit all.

I have spent hundreds of hours creating GPL code, and yes I harnessed the power of this community to beta test the system. I also harnessed the resources of this community to provide funding for my GPL software via commercial component sales.

Am I the devil for doing this?

I am not an evil person, and I would ask that you not implement me as one (either of you). I am simply trying to be the best I can be, to use my skillz to deploy next generation web applications that will benefit all. To do this I need money and beta testers.

-LOBOS 

[Jenny]

If you don't care about Joomla! how can you care about the Joomla! community.  Or is it that you don't care about the community at all, but as you said just the userbase?

How is that symbiotic with the Joomla! community?  If you don't care about Joomla!?  The community is here in support of Joomla! which you obviously are not.  How is that beneficial to the community?  Or is it just beneficial to you and your personal software and the community you hope to build around your own personal software?

I am not vilifying you nor do I think you are the devil.  I just want a clear picture of what you are putting in your messages.

[Danayel]

MMMedia, in answer, yes I can think of at least two methods that developers could use to create proprietary software to interact with Joomla!. Unfortunately, I fear statements like the above may not be uncommon. I realize that there are many commercial developers who do not share this attitude, I know many are attempting to come into compliance the simplest route, via licensing their software under the GPL. I also know others wish to be compliant, and prefer to remain proprietary, and are honestly looking for a method of doing so, while still holding an appreciation for the work that was done, which created the tool they are using. But there are enough, that seem to have an attitude bordering on flippant, that I am loathe to propose proprietary loopholes.

Except that by keeping them to yourself all you are doing is depriving the community of extensions. Regardless of his intent to do so or not Lobos is contributing to the community by making those extensions available. Who is the one damaging the community by keeping solutions hidden while developers are leaving the community and taking their benefits with them? 

The view you are so afraid of is also not common, with the carers being the minority as you seem to imply it is.

Most of the developers aren't proprietary to take and take, they are proprietary to make a living from their code.  The implication that they are conciously using the community says a lot about your feelings for them.

That being said though, if you have spent any time studying psychology you will know that everyone uses everyone,  conciously or unconciously. People do not spend time with people who do not bring them benefits.

What benefits you seek depends on your character. In Lobos case he might seek technical benefits from many people. In Mother Teresas case she sought the benefits of a warm fuzzy feeling of helping people. In both cases both people are using other people for their own gain.

We idolise people who act unselfishly, why? Because they benefit -us- 
We demonise people who act selfishly, why? Because they are a risk to -us- 

Everyone in this community is using the community, just peoples reasons for doing so are different. Some for money, some for friendship, some for feeling like they are contributing, some to see GPL TAKE OVER THE WORLD! *coughs* ahem.

If you need any more proof of this, ask yourself why you are here, why Joomla? And they are what you are using the community to get.

Note: Some reasons are beneficial to the target (in this case the J! community), some are neutral, and some are harmful, but all are still doing it for their own reaosons.

My personal reasons are a mix of enjoying writing code, and feeling like part of a community that is supportive of itself. (and being part of that support).

Anyway that's off topic.

EDIT: rephrased Lobos 'reasons' given his clarification.
P.S. Thanks whoever is merging these. MMMedia I presume.

[lobos]

If you don't care about Joomla! how can you care about the Joomla! community.  Or is it that you don't care about the community at all, but as you said just the userbase?

How is that symbiotic with the Joomla! community?  If you don't care about Joomla!?  The community is here in support of Joomla! which you obviously are not.  How is that beneficial to the community?  Or is it just beneficial to you and your personal software and the community you hope to build around your own personal software?

I am not vilifying you nor do I think you are the devil.  I just want a clear picture of what you are putting in your messages.

I have already explained my position twice. If you don't understand now it is likely that you never will. Interpret what I said as you will, I have no further interest in repeating myself.

-Lobos

[aoirthoir]

Danayel,

Here is more of the quote that I made:

I am disheartened by LOBOS' statements. If I found a product to be as poor as he is claiming Joomla! is, I would not develop for it. I find this combination disquieting, you believe Joomla! to be a poor quality program, you are happy to use it freely, and you desire that the copyright holders should allow you to deny privileges to others that Joomla! has granted to you. In all of the reading of these forums I have never felt saddened or really reacted emotionally until this post.

Also the parts that you quoted:

MMMedia, in answer, yes I can think of at least two methods that developers could use to create proprietary software to interact with Joomla!. Unfortunately, I fear statements like the above may not be uncommon. I realize that there are many commercial developers who do not share this attitude, I know many are attempting to come into compliance the simplest route, via licensing their software under the GPL. I also know others wish to be compliant, and prefer to remain proprietary, and are honestly looking for a method of doing so, while still holding an appreciation for the work that was done, which created the tool they are using. But there are enough, that seem to have an attitude bordering on flippant, that I am loathe to propose proprietary loopholes.

I have highlighted important points that I made. It is not that folks wish to create proprietary software that bothers me. I understand the reasoning behind it, and the money that some can make. Also, as my statements above demonstrate, I am not implying that there a majority, or just who is and is not demonstrating certain attitudes. However, the thing that really takes me aback is the comments by Lobos, and a few others, that Joomla! is a poor quality program. If it is so bad why use it? In addition I have read comments from folks talking about how proprietary software is good quality, and GPL software is poor quality. Again I ask, if it is such poor quality, why are you using it? So the thing that disheartens me with Lobos' statements, are the combination of all of these factors.

Now regarding me withholding something from the community and thereby not benefiting it, that is a matter of ideas, ideals, and fortune telling. Is the community benefited truly by having proprietary extensions? Just who is and is not benefited? A number of users have stated they are glad for this decision. Others have objected. So some might benefit, others might not.

[Jenny]

Most of the developers aren't proprietary to take and take, they are proprietary to make a living from their code.  The implication that they are conciously using the community says a lot about your feelings for them.

Neither I nor aoirthor implied that anyone was consciously using the community.  Lobos outright stated it for himself on his own behalf.  He actually stated on the behalf of "most developers". 

All I have ever needed is the userbase because, frankly, Joomla! is not imho a good product to develop on. I have always used my own APIs as they are much more suited to what I need to do. Joomla! is pretty and eye candy always draws the masses, but I can tell you now that Postnuke has offered a far more advanced API system for years now (and even this is not optimum). It is completely disingenous to think that so many developers deploy for Joomla! just becuase of the framework - it's the userbase they are after, well most of them anyway.
-Lobos

That is correct, I don't care about Joomla!

[zigzag]

extensive communications between SMF and Joomla have not lead to any changes in position of the Joomla-core team or SMF-team and therefore SMF has no other choice...........

Then perhaps even more extensive communications are necessary or even vital, many of us are dependant on using Joomla after having invested in commercial addons & templates etc not to mention the many hours, days or months even we've spent setting up our sites and this decision leaves us stuck between the proverbial rock & the hard place. We seem to be in a position where we either re-invest in another cms or stay with Joomla 1.12 as we're unable to upgrade 

[lobos]

mmmedia,

Please don't quote me out of context, at least use the full sentence.

-Lobos