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.