AmyStephen wrote:I've been careful to link or quote the full text. I don't like to use the approach you used where a few words are quoted.
You might have been careful to link or quote the full text, however your commentary on the quotes misinterpreted the intention/plan. For example, in this reply:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3144113
Now, this is something maybe others can help find, but in this forum is a discussion between Louis and Johan where it was disclosed the intention was to split off the framework (platform) and license it LGPL.
That's not correct. There was no
intention by the project
(or Johan) to split off the framework and
license it LGPL, but simply exploring the possibility. This is clear from Johan's clarification in this thread:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3144247
Note, that it's a reply to a comment (which he quotes) of intention concerning the Framework being under the Joomla Banner, as well as grouping him with the "we would have moved mountains to make the Framework LGPL at that time." Note that it's also after the statement "Discussion where Louis and Johan talk about plans to uncouple the framework and release it LGPL" (on the same page), which is also incorrect for the same reasons.
In short, Johan was stating there was no such intention intended from his comments in 2007. In his own words he stated:
I'm not certain that if a relicense to the LGPL would have been possible we would have done it, or I would have supported it. All I can say that we investigated it. Personally I have always been a proponent of the everything is (inbound == outbound) GPL approach we used for Joomla 1.5. It's simple, clear, allows code to flow between extensions and core and back, without explicit consent and doesn't require any signing of documents.
Even after he wrote that, you still misunderstood the intention and wrote the following comment:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3145290
Which results in a broken telephone and someone giving the statement undue credibility:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3146338
I understand it was a misunderstanding (and that it can be easily misinterpreted) and no foul intended, so please don't mistake this as offensive. I was just hoping to correct it so that people can make an informed decision on the historical context of the testimonies we have.
One example where you quoted "We are trying, we are just not there yet." to suggest it is a concept, not a plan. Johan was discussing the decoupling effort. That's been an important goal of development for years.
That's a very poor example, since the words right before that are "that hopefully for Joomla! 2.0 could be licensed as LGPL.". Context is important. By the way, I agree that the concept is also in reference to the decoupling effort.
You could have used partial quotes to correctly state Louis used the phrase "a statement of intent and vision" and Johan said "goal" for the licensing effort. Curious those phrases are ignored. It really has been a part of the planning effort to get there.
Yes, I could have, but I figured those were self-evident. I was only clarifying the misunderstanding, not trying to do an exegetical thesis on decoupling the framework
In rereading the full thread you shared:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla- ... ewb3j7e_sJ
I believe you mis-characterized both Andrew and Sam's points. Their statements seem consistent with the statements made by Louis and Johan, from my reading.
Andrew's point was that there was intention by some contributors. Sam's point was that it was discussed at the summit at 2007. I don't think I've mis-characterized either of their statements. In fact, they acknowledge (Andrew explicitly/implicitly and Sam implicitly) that it was not the intent of the project, which is what I'm trying to state. By the way, their personal intentions shouldn't translate into project intentions, so please don't confuse the two.
In summary, from the testimonies we have, we can say the project planned to keep it GPL and leave in the potential that some day later it could be LGPL'ed, as Elin stated, "that was included in the JCA to future proof it in case that became important in the future or if for some reason the GPL was thrown out in court".
Hope this helps!
AmyStephen wrote:Thanks for sharing that other thread. It's another good one I would encourage people to read.
Thanks for hearing me out!
masterchief wrote:I don't think we need to labour this point, expect to clarify that it has always been the plan to explore the opportunity should circumstances arise to make it practical to do so ... Circumstances have arisen and the opportunity is now being explored. Can we leave it at that?
Agreed. I think that's best.