Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

This board is for discussions about joomla.org blog posts.
Locked
User avatar
masterchief
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2316
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by masterchief » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:19 am

NivF007 wrote:Let's be clear, because the question isn't so much about what code the PLT can include, but under which license the Framework will be released - and the question, which I have been trying to get a very simple answer to, now for quite some time (I think I've been very polite and respectful - have I not?) is pretty simple.
Yes, you have, and you have not understood my answer in any of those cases :)
NivF007 wrote:Should the community and OSM come to a decision that all future code released in the Framework is done so with a GPL license, will you embrace that decision and continue to develop the 'Joomla! Framework' knowing it will be released under GPL
Is the community and OSM giving me the option of discussing re-branding as an alternative?
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

 
User avatar
NivF007
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by NivF007 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:26 am

Actually, the question I was asking has never been answered, although a lot of other information was provided, so I am doing my best to work with you to get the answer.

So Andrew, let's say worst-case scenario (worst-case b/c you obviously have fought valiantly hard for an LGPL solution (something I have great respect for)): The community and OSM decides that the Joomla! brand will remain, and that anything produced under the Joomla! brand, including the Framework, will be released as GPL. It is decided that no option for re-branding is permitted.

Would you embrace this decision and continue to develop the framework under the GPL?

User avatar
masterchief
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2316
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by masterchief » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:41 am

NivF007 wrote:Would you embrace this decision and continue to develop the framework under the GPL?
You'll have to wait and see :)

Ok, enough nonsense. If anyone has any serious questions or issues they'd like to ask, please do so before the end of the week.
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

User avatar
NivF007
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by NivF007 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:04 am

Andrew,

Thanks for all your responses. Your answers have taught me a lot about you.
lobos wrote:Is it so hard to just trust in the Masterchief?
To be blunt, given your answers, I'm finding it rather difficult. Not that I don't want to, but I pretty much only trust people who talk straight.

You've wasted a lot of my time dodging a very simple but important question.
masterchief wrote:
NivF007 wrote:My request to the devs - whatever side of the LGPL/GPL fence that they are on, would be to

a) continue development in 'good faith;'
b) retract any threats of 'exodus' or 'refusal to contribute;'
c) respect that the decision could be made in 2015 by OSM Directors elected by the community;
d) agree to trust that process; and
e) considering that our motto is 'all together as one' that we all embrace the decision when it comes.
I think I've made it clear at least once per the last four or five pages of replies that that is my position. regardless of the outcome, if the leadership feels a separate brand review is in order, I would not complain. My gut tells me it will either reveal what I already know or suspect, or else something completely unexpected to all involved.
[emphasis mine]

I was at first impressed and grateful. However, the only thing you've made clear is a habit of talking out of both sides of your mouth, while others are perhaps under the impression that any Framework contributor would respect the decision of OSM.

I think I would have had much greater respect if you just stated if that if the decision is GPL, you'd take your ball and go home.

N

User avatar
lobos
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Sao Paulo, Brasil
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by lobos » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:39 am

Masterchief wrote:The FSF also says that the LGPL was written with library level code in mind (but not applications like the Joomla CMS) and sometimes its a better fit than the GPL because it allows more people to use your code. We have to decide if we prefer people to use out code more widely or whether we want to have less people using it and be advocates of the GPL. If the latter, then I would say we need to be more consistent and use only GPL code in the CMS stack as well. If it's good for the Framework, it's good for the CMS.
It is plain to see it is just argument for argument's sake now, it seems some people don't have anything better to do... The framework will, in all likelihood, be licensed to LGPL and anyone unhappy with this should just go and fork off because it is obvious (quote above) that Joomla is not pure GPL enough for you anyway.

Still want to argue... hmmm well there hasn't been a license change as yet to the FW so you should start with (again quote above) the existing, non GPL code in the "CMS stack". Go on I dare you! Start a forum post, knock yourself out...

Could someone please provide a list of the non-GPL libraries, etc in the Joomla CMS stack so that these do-gooders can kick of their campaign? I hear bootstrap is MIT and there are also a few LGPL libraries in the mix as well...
Fish n' Chips

User avatar
piotr_cz
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by piotr_cz » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:37 am

libraries/
  • idna_convert: LGPL
    phppass: BSD
    phpmailer: LGPL
    phputf8: LGPL
    simplepie: BSD
FOF is only one with GPL, includes Lessphp (MIT/ GPL3)


media/jui/
  • Bootstrap 2.3: Apache License v2.0 (TWBS 3.0 is MIT)
    IcoMoon: Royalty Free
    jQuery: MIT
    jquery.chosen: MIT
    jquery.minicolors: MIT
    jquery.simplecolors: MIT

media/system/
  • mootools: MIT
    calendar: LGPL
    jquery.jCrop: MIT
    modal: MIT
    mootree: MIT
    passwordstrength: MIT
    progressbar: MIT
    punycode: MIT
Other javascript libraries are Joomla copyrighted with a GPL license.

templates/
  • respond: MIT/BSD
Besides that we are using lots of other utilities like phpunit (Creative Commpons 3.0), Selenium (Apache 2.0), PHP Conde sniffer (BSD) and others.


When you'll rant on the these libraries (here or outside), please do so under your name. Not everybody in Joomla community thinks they sold their souls to proprietary software by using permissive licenses.

BenTasker
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 8:45 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by BenTasker » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:36 am

masterchief wrote:Defining the API doesn't matter. The key issue if I remember correctly was that the extension code is combined with the Joomla wrapper at runtime to form a single, executable mass and the GPL requirements affect that whole mass. So it doesn't matter whether you are using the API or not. You'd have to actually fork (operating system, not code for those who are wondering) a different process to get around the viral provisions of the GPL.
Sorry but I'm going to have to nitpick here. It's true a Joomla extension needs to be GPL but not for the reasons you state.

That the code is runtime compiled makes no difference (though if you were to compile and distribute it then the GPL would apply to the entire blob). The reason is actually far simpler; Parts of the extension extend core classes that are GPL.

e.g. helloworldViewfoo extends JView

Under copyright law (US and UK, cant speak for anywhere else) they are therefore considered derivative works (which need to be licensed under the GPL).

So, we could actually change the way extensions need to be built so they didn't have to be GPL,and exposing an API so that extensions don't need to extend the classes would be one potential way of doing that. Not sure we'd necessarily want to, but it is possible.

Sorry I know it's a small point, but it's an important distinction to make. Hopefully it's not too vague, I've got a toddler clambering over me so had to keep it short.

Should say - I'm not a lawyer (though I did study law) so anyone in doubt should double check :D


@piotr_cz

The point others have made is that the Joomla Community doesn't contribute to those projects (certain members might, of course). The argument is basically that if we go for a more permissive license, then we (as a community) are potentially contributing to proprietary software. I don't think it's ranting or unreasonable for anyone to hold that view.

As Don Gilbert pointed out earlier, the community could perhaps have paid framework more attention, but I think we have to work on the assumption that they might (in terms of license philosophy).

lobos wrote: The framework will, in all likelihood, be licensed to LGPL and anyone unhappy with this should just go and fork off because it is obvious (quote above) that Joomla is not pure GPL enough for you anyway.
Very constructive, way to raise the debate above argument for arguments sake. As you say though, there hasn't been a license change to the FW yet, whilst the other libraries listed are already under more permissive licenses. For those who feel that way, probably best to try and prevent another becoming more permissive rather than leaving it to do so whilst you attack those that already are, don't you think? Sorry, but it's a rather childish tone to take in what's supposed to be an open debate.
Ben Tasker

Code Monkey & Systems Manager
https://www.bentasker.co.uk

User avatar
piotr_cz
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by piotr_cz » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:02 am

> BenTasker

Proprietary aside, if Framework stays GPL Joomla essentially says: we take other people's libraries, but if you'd like to use our libraries in your non-GPL project, either switch the licence or go look elsewhere.

In my opinion this is not fair, and it doesn't work anyway.

Example: There are no external GPL libraries in Joomla besides FOF.

User avatar
abernyte
Joomla! Virtuoso
Joomla! Virtuoso
Posts: 3883
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Écosse - Scozia - Escocia - Škotija -स्कॉटलैंड

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by abernyte » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:18 am

piotr_cz wrote:> BenTasker

Proprietary aside, if Framework stays GPL Joomla essentially says: we take other people's libraries (where their licence permits such action), but if you'd like to use our libraries in your non-GPL project, either switch the licence or go look elsewhere. (as our licence does not permit that)

In my opinion this is not fair, and it doesn't work anyway.

Example: There are no external GPL libraries in Joomla besides FOF.
My emphasis added. Precisely why is this unfair and what does unfair mean?
I appreciate that developers who contribute to Joomla CMS or Framework need money to buy mince and using their code to do so may be attractive and proper. How this ultimately is to the benefit of the Joomla Community is not yet clear.
Cui bono is still unanswered.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly…Thomas Paine

User avatar
piotr_cz
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by piotr_cz » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:38 am

abernyte>

If we change license to more permissive, probably more poeple will use our libraries. Some will share their experience (bugfixes, blog posts, features) and some won't (the evil ones).

I contributed little to Bootstrap and phpmailer because I know that they will release better versions in future.

BenTasker
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 8:45 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by BenTasker » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:51 am

piotr_cz wrote:>
Proprietary aside, if Framework stays GPL Joomla essentially says: we take other people's libraries, but if you'd like to use our libraries in your non-GPL project, either switch the licence or go look elsewhere.

Ultimately it's a philosophy thing. The GPL undoubtedly put's the rights of users first, but we are all users of software, so in theory we all benefit (apart from when we're being devs perhaps).

This doesn't mean that more permissive licenses are necessarily always less beneficial, sometimes being more permissive can be hugely beneficial to users (the BSD TCP stack comes to mind).

To make a philosophical argument, when we write software, who do we ultimately write it for? Users. So is it unreasonable to have a license that protects their rights?

In my opinion this is not fair, and it doesn't work anyway.
As a dev I have no issue with the GPL, if I want to create something that's not GPL it's fairly simple - don't use other people's GPL code in your project. It's for each project to decide how they want to license their code, and although I might think it unfair it is what it is.

Generally speaking, the GPL does work quite well IMHO. There's a lot of FUD and misunderstanding been spread about it (historically) but it does work reasonably well. Whilst I agree it would be nice to reciprocate and release your code under the most permissive license included within your libraries, the reality is we'd all be releasing MIT.

Side Note: One thing I really disagree with though, is taking something that's MIT licensed, applying some bugfixes (maybe add a feature or two as well) and then releasing that under GPL. That's definitely unfair and not right.
Example: There are no external GPL libraries in Joomla besides FOF.
It doesn't really matter what others are doing (to a point), it's about what's right for the community.

If we change license to more permissive, probably more poeple will use our libraries. Some will share their experience (bugfixes, blog posts, features) and some won't (the evil ones).
I completely agree that that's a potential outcome, and parts of it are quite likely. But, from a philosophical point of view, what will we have forsaken in order to achieve those gains? For a start, we'll have written off the rights of the ultimate end-users (which some care about, others don't).

IMHO essentially what this all boils down to is whether we want to make things easier for devs (in general) or continue to avoid contributing to the creation of proprietary software. It, undoubtedly, is limiting to be a GPL Framework, but if we're more interested in maintaining an ideal then that's the sacrifice that has to be made.
Ben Tasker

Code Monkey & Systems Manager
https://www.bentasker.co.uk

User avatar
abernyte
Joomla! Virtuoso
Joomla! Virtuoso
Posts: 3883
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Écosse - Scozia - Escocia - Škotija -स्कॉटलैंड

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by abernyte » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:01 pm

@ piotr_cz

I understand that.
Your contribution to those projects was empathetic ie by doing so you felt better. The founding principle of Joomla and by extension the GPL is one of alturism, ie by contributing others will feel better.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly…Thomas Paine

User avatar
piotr_cz
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by piotr_cz » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:10 pm

I admit I didn't realize the philosophical aspect of this debate to this extent.

abernyte>
no, my contribution was not emphatetic. I knew that making these libraries better will benefit Joomla CMS and I can serve my customers better, that I'll learn by inspecting the code and sharing my thoughts on github with library creators. Ultimately I'll be able to say that I helped (little) in such projects. This is how it's in practice, but you have to be able to include the library in your project to begin with.
Last edited by piotr_cz on Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wilsonge
Joomla! Intern
Joomla! Intern
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by wilsonge » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:13 pm

BenTasker wrote:Sorry but I'm going to have to nitpick here. It's true a Joomla extension needs to be GPL but not for the reasons you state.

That the code is runtime compiled makes no difference (though if you were to compile and distribute it then the GPL would apply to the entire blob). The reason is actually far simpler; Parts of the extension extend core classes that are GPL.

e.g. helloworldViewfoo extends JView

Under copyright law (US and UK, cant speak for anywhere else) they are therefore considered derivative works (which need to be licensed under the GPL).

So, we could actually change the way extensions need to be built so they didn't have to be GPL,and exposing an API so that extensions don't need to extend the classes would be one potential way of doing that. Not sure we'd necessarily want to, but it is possible.

Sorry I know it's a small point, but it's an important distinction to make. Hopefully it's not too vague, I've got a toddler clambering over me so had to keep it short.

Should say - I'm not a lawyer (though I did study law) so anyone in doubt should double check :D
.
Can OSM find this out then please? Because actually this is a VERY important distinction as the new MVC classes are part of the framework and therefore we will be extending the LPGL classes at some point which could have ramifications.

Clearly for plugins this isn't the case as you always extend JPlugin - but in modules and Components this is a very important distinction to make (as especially with modules you don't extend any class!)

To me this is one of the most important things to find out in this debate actually.

Kind Regards,
George

RedEye
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by RedEye » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:19 pm

wilsonge wrote:Can OSM find this out then please? Because actually this is a VERY important distinction as the new MVC classes are part of the framework and therefore we will be extending the LPGL classes at some point which could have ramifications.

Clearly for plugins this isn't the case as you always extend JPlugin - but in modules and Components this is a very important distinction to make (as especially with modules you don't extend any class!)
That depends on how you use the framework, your statement is true for current Joomla! CMS, but as example for my application, what uses parts of the framework, it's not.
My Plugins don't extend any class, my Components don't use the MVC classes and my Modules do extend a class.

What I want to say is, you don't know how extensions will work in let's say J!4.0, means, you can't discuss this right now. The current CMS is free from this discussion, because it only uses the DI package from the framework, btw the framework does not have a JPlugin or Plugin class atm.

User avatar
piotr_cz
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:27 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by piotr_cz » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:39 pm

Interesting.

Framework/ Platform MVC classes are minimalistic, there's a Pull request in CMS repo that adds CMS-specific functionality on top of these (https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/1989).

User avatar
Webdongle
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 39073
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:58 pm

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by Webdongle » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:58 pm

piotr_cz wrote:...
Proprietary aside, if Framework stays GPL Joomla essentially says: we take other people's libraries, but if you'd like to use our libraries in your non-GPL project, either switch the licence or go look elsewhere....
No it says: 'we take other people's libraries and use them according to the provisions stated in their licence and others can use our libraries provided they extend us the same courtesy(ie by according to the provisions stating the licence we use).

In other words 'We respect your licence please respect ours.'
http://www.weblinksonline.co.uk/
https://www.weblinksonline.co.uk/updating-joomla.html
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results": Albert Einstein.

AmyStephen
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 7056
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by AmyStephen » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:23 pm

wilsonge -

What Andrew said correctly describes the SFLC's position on this. The point the SFLC is making that PHP executes in one address space. If a GPL class is used (ex. Application Class or the Component Helper or Routing, etc.), then an Extension is expected to be GPL.

The reason I suggest a list of Joomla CMS Application API classes is that most human beings are logically going to think about this as an extending or using issue, as BenTasker described.

Your example of the PR is another good reason to document this list. What Elin's PR is doing is adding Joomla CMS Application API classes that would be GPL and those classes extend the Joomla Framework classes which are LGPL. The Extensions are infected by the Application API and must be GPLed.

This is consistent with JPlugin (a Joomla CMS Application API class) extending JEvent (a Joomla Framework class). Extensions use the JPlugin class which is GPL'ed.

Andrew said there was an educational effort planned to clarify some of this, and rightly so.

On the legal side of things, it's important to remember (to the best of my knowledge), there has yet to be a case see the inside of the courtroom (at least in the US -- I think there was a case in Germany.) BusyBox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox was a big "close to court" victory. SFLC is always clear the goal is releasing source code. Typically, compliance ends up being preferred to long, costly legal battles.

Joomla's "line of defense" is listing on JED. Extensions that don't use the GPL certainly aren't going to be listed on JED. JED is a protected ecosystem that all commercial extension developers find valuable so the climate is good for cooperation.

User avatar
NivF007
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by NivF007 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:24 pm

What's wrong with this scenario:

STEP 1: Convert the Joomla! Framework to LGPL. Justify that switch by claiming LGPL is still a valid and accepted open-source license.

STEP 2: The Framework is intended to make it quick and efficient to build a CMS. Now that the Joomla! Framework is 'non-GPL', use it to build a competing 'non-GPL' CMS to Joomla! (call it Newmla!).

STEP 3: Invite existing extension developers to sell 'proprietary' extensions for Newmla! Heck, Joomla! has already done the hard work, which took years, by developing the JED.

Remember, it's the JED that's primarily where the money is for extensions developers (those who 'add-value' to the Joomla! CMS through their efforts) - and it is a robust JED that brings people into the Joomla! world. Many people have decided to use Joomla! because they have found a great extension in the JED that meets their web site needs.

At this point in time, only open-source CMS's provide such cornucopia of extensions - a huge advantage over any other proprietary solutions - and what we've been working to achieve all along. We can streamline the CMS, because we know with Joomla!, we have such a robust extension directory that any Joomla! user can use the JED to get pretty much whatever functionality they want.

Only now, with the rise of the "non-GPL'd" Newmla! extension directory, those same people who would normally contribute to open-source have switched over - we've created the foundational steps for a new competing funnel that supports a 'closed-source' CMS when otherwise they would use our 'open-source' solutions - and we've done it using our own resources.

---

In this scenario, resources are drawn away from a GPL'd Joomla! and poured into a proprietary CMS, one that uses all the same tactics and strategies that have made Joomla! so successful.

We begin seeing 'proprietary' practices which we've successfully kept out, creep back into the 'Newmla!' world - (i.e. per domain licenses, expiring software, no rights to modify and redistribute, etc.)

Extension developers, feeling that they could make more money and compete with Joomla! by producing 'proprietary extensions' for Newmla! will be compelled to do so. We lose extensions developers to a 'proprietary' competitor.

We look back in a few years, and say, "if we only insisted on GPL, we wouldn't have set the ball in motion to give these advantages to proprietary developers while undermining our own efforts," we would be so much better off.

---

Aside from an insistance to remain GPL for the Framework, what's to prevent the Framework from ultimately being used to undermine Joomla!'s open-source efforts (i.e. the reason Joomla! went GPL in the first place)?

In the above scenario, those who want proprietary advantages will just 'take' with out giving back.

---

I just don't see how going LGPL with the Framework doesn't potentially do us more harm than good.

N

AmyStephen
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 7056
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by AmyStephen » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:27 pm

RedEye wrote:
wilsonge wrote:Can OSM find this out then please? Because actually this is a VERY important distinction as the new MVC classes are part of the framework and therefore we will be extending the LPGL classes at some point which could have ramifications.

Clearly for plugins this isn't the case as you always extend JPlugin - but in modules and Components this is a very important distinction to make (as especially with modules you don't extend any class!)
That depends on how you use the framework, your statement is true for current Joomla! CMS, but as example for my application, what uses parts of the framework, it's not.
My Plugins don't extend any class, my Components don't use the MVC classes and my Modules do extend a class.

What I want to say is, you don't know how extensions will work in let's say J!4.0, means, you can't discuss this right now. The current CMS is free from this discussion, because it only uses the DI package from the framework, btw the framework does not have a JPlugin or Plugin class atm.
For clarity, I assume you are describing an application on the Joomla Framework, not a Joomla CMS extension?

AmyStephen
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 7056
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by AmyStephen » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:36 pm

NivF007 wrote:
I just don't see how going LGPL with the Framework doesn't potentially do us more harm than good.

N
Scared me for a minute, Niv, but the domain is still available. http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchre ... x?ci=54814

Anyone willing to go to all that trouble to screw over a community they have faithfully served, some for over 10 years, would have obtained the domain name first.

Keep thinking, though, just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you. This is not as simple as trying to open up the Joomla Framework to the PHP community to bring in more developers to benefit the Joomla community.

These developers canNOT be trusted. You are the man on the job who is most likely to uncover why.

BenTasker
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 8:45 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by BenTasker » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:54 pm

AmyStephen wrote:wilsonge -
What Andrew said correctly describes the SFLC's position on this. The point the SFLC is making that PHP executes in one address space. If a GPL class is used (ex. Application Class or the Component Helper or Routing, etc.), then an Extension is expected to be GPL.
I'm not going to argue with the SFLC, but I've a strong suspicion that's not going to stand up in court in any way. Keep in mind you can make any change to a GPL'd piece of software and not be required to disclose source etc - unless you distribute.

I'd also note the various rulings (in the wider copyright arena) about incidental transient copies (i.e. the compiled version in RAM) and the copyright exceptions given in numerous states (including in the European Copyright Directives). US law is a little less clear, as it kind of flip-flops in that area.

... Just realised I sound like an infringer trying to avoid having to release source :(

AmyStephen wrote: The reason I suggest a list of Joomla CMS Application API classes is that most human beings are logically going to think about this as an extending or using issue, as BenTasker described.
I think the list would be helpful in general, more documentation is rarely a bad thing :D
AmyStephen wrote: On the legal side of things, it's important to remember (to the best of my knowledge), there has yet to be a case see the inside of the courtroom (at least in the US -- I think there was a case in Germany.)
There have been a number of cases in Germany now, but nowhere else in an 'enforcement' point of view. The legality of the GPL was challenged in the US (in Wallace v FSF), but that was Wallace claiming that the GPL constituted a restraint of trade, so although the license was affirmed no-one really counts it.

Similarly there have been other US cases where the GPL has been considered valid, though as far as I know there have been none where the defence has been that the GPL is invalid, it's usually more 'our behaviour doesn't breach the terms'.

The German cases have all been quite widely analysed in the wider context of European law, and most would agree that the same/a similar result would occur in other European states (though this isn't quite the same as tried and tested).

So the GPL has seen the inside of a court a good number of times, but outside of Germany has never been properly tested.

AmyStephen wrote: SFLC is always clear the goal is releasing source code. Typically, compliance ends up being preferred to long, costly legal battles.
The goal is definitely the right one IMHO, it's so easy for companies to come into compliance it's a wonder we've seen any cases at all really. It's a pity the Busybox testcase didn't go ahead though, as it would have provided some much needed clarification.

AmyStephen wrote: Anyone willing to go to all that trouble to screw over a community they have faithfully served, some for over 10 years, would have obtained the domain name first.
Or it's a double bluff and he's going to call it SewMa! (Soo-Ma)
Ben Tasker

Code Monkey & Systems Manager
https://www.bentasker.co.uk

User avatar
NivF007
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by NivF007 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:08 pm

AmyStephen wrote:
NivF007 wrote:
I just don't see how going LGPL with the Framework doesn't potentially do us more harm than good.

N
Scared me for a minute, Niv, but the domain is still available. http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchre ... x?ci=54814

Anyone willing to go to all that trouble to screw over a community they have faithfully served, some for over 10 years, would have obtained the domain name first.

Keep thinking, though, just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you. This is not as simple as trying to open up the Joomla Framework to the PHP community to bring in more developers to benefit the Joomla community.

These developers canNOT be trusted. You are the man on the job who is most likely to uncover why.
Nice try again!

1) Having lock on your front door does not mean one is paranoid. It's just common sense. If you left your front-door wide open for years, and your possessions one day were stolen, you'd be branded an idiot and rightfully so. We are just using common sense.

2) The JED demands that extensions be GPL'd. I don't see you criticizing them as 'paranoid.' For your 'paranoia' argument to hold water, get the JED to drop the GPL requirement on the same basis as your argument above. Good luck!

3) You already have at least one key developer, 'masterchief' who has threatened to 'take his ball and go elsewhere' if we remain GPL. Not exactly helpful in restoring 'trust.'

Sorry, no free drinks for you yet - but nice try...again.

So what exactly have you put forward as any safeguards? Nothing of substance.

You'll have to forgive some of us if we don't want to leave our door wide-open and just blindly trust the neighbourhood.

Common sense in these matters is not equal to paranoia - as you seem to suggest.

N

AmyStephen
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 7056
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by AmyStephen » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:19 pm

Ben -

The thinking goes something like this. The visitor navigates to your site and a request is issued which invokes the index.php file which loads the GPL bootstrap files and invokes the proper Application class. Initialisation and Routing take place before passing control to your Component to take action.

Whether or not your Component extends or has GPLed classes injected into it or instantiates GPL classes before using the methods only adds to use of GPLed benefit you have gained. Yes, those are ways of invoking the viral effect of the GPL. But, so is all of the code that had to be processed before control was passed to you.

Agree on the benefit of documentation -- Andrew mentioned they will be needing help if you are looking to get involved with the effort. It will help clear things up.

The LGPL'ed code (assuming a positive vote) in the Joomla Framework would be extended by the GPL'ed code in the Joomla CMS Application API and used by the Joomla CMS extension.

Helping make that clear to people, legal memory space debate aside, is a good thing.

I realize you are not (quite) pro LGPL, but you are sensible and I suspect you'll get there when you realize there is not a snow ball's chance in hell PHP developers will use the library under that license and there are TONS of other (arguably better at this point) options they can choose from. Even the FSF recommends the LGPL under those conditions.

AmyStephen
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 7056
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by AmyStephen » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:22 pm

NivF007 wrote:
So what exactly have you put forward as any safeguards? Nothing of substance.
I have what I have always had => I can fork the code.

wilsonge
Joomla! Intern
Joomla! Intern
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by wilsonge » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:24 pm

AmyStephen wrote:What Andrew said correctly describes the SFLC's position on this. The point the SFLC is making that PHP executes in one address space. If a GPL class is used (ex. Application Class or the Component Helper or Routing, etc.), then an Extension is expected to be GPL.
OK so that is the SFLC's position rather than Andrew's - I wasn't quite sure??
AmyStephen wrote:This is consistent with JPlugin (a Joomla CMS Application API class) extending JEvent (a Joomla Framework class). Extensions use the JPlugin class which is GPL'ed.
Completely agree with all of this. But say we take a simple example of a module. A module doesn't extend from any class. It's called from JModuleHelper - but this is where the difference above is key. If the legal position is it's run from a GPL class all is ok. It's GPL infected.

But if it's just what is used inside the extension..... the module doesn't call any GPL based class (not inconceivable) - DB classes and DI class to get the db info are all LGPL at this point then suddenly it seems pretty easy to create an extension without any GPL infected classes. Hence why I'm interested to see what the official legal position is.

Again with Elin's classes fine if you want to use them. But it's not hard (we already have tutorials on it) to extend directly from a future LGPL based JModel and ignore the GPL class
AmyStephen wrote:Joomla's "line of defense" is listing on JED. Extensions that don't use the GPL certainly aren't going to be listed on JED. JED is a protected ecosystem that all commercial extension developers find valuable so the climate is good for cooperation.
Completely agree with this :) However I guess as well this is because it's bloody hard to create a non-GPL extension cause of the GPL infection we talked about earlier. I'm just interested to see if it suddenly becomes 2 billion times easier to create non-GPL infected extensions.

Kind Regards,
George

P.S. With components this is probably a mute discussion on second thoughts because of Hannes new JComponentRouter class which is going into 3.3 which would pretty much reinfect all components to have to use a GPL class for their routing. But as I said I'm just interested in any potential implications.

User avatar
NivF007
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by NivF007 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:27 pm

AmyStephen wrote:This is not as simple as trying to open up the Joomla Framework to the PHP community to bring in more developers to benefit the Joomla community.
Let's be clear

Case 1: GPL: Door is open to the PHP community of developers. They are welcome to come the party.

Case 2: LGPL: Opens doors further to include 'proprietary' developers.

Is this really the argument put forward for the switch to LGPL?

In my view, it's a solid argument against it.

wilsonge
Joomla! Intern
Joomla! Intern
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by wilsonge » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:39 pm

NivF007 wrote:
AmyStephen wrote:This is not as simple as trying to open up the Joomla Framework to the PHP community to bring in more developers to benefit the Joomla community.
Let's be clear

Case 1: GPL: Door is open to the PHP community of developers. They are welcome to come the party.

Case 2: LGPL: Opens doors further to include 'proprietary' developers.

Is this really the argument put forward for the switch to LGPL?

In my view, it's a solid argument against it.
Niv in my opinion this isn't about attracting the proprietary developers. It's about opening the door to the PHP community of developers who don't use GPL (but use MIT or similar) - these aren't the proprietary developers but people like us, who, for whatever reason have decided GPL isn't for them.

Kind Regards,
George

BenTasker
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 8:45 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by BenTasker » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:53 pm

Whether or not your Component extends or has GPLed classes injected into it or instantiates GPL classes before using the methods only adds to use of GPLed benefit you have gained. Yes, those are ways of invoking the viral effect of the GPL.
Outside of a US court, I suspect that argument will fail (not that I can't see the logic). As an example (albeit in a different arena). I write a proprietary FTP client for GNU/Linux, when listing the local directory it calls stat, which passes the data back having gone through the appropriate filesystem module.

Now, I've derived benefit from GPL code (actually, technically I think the stat call in Linux might originally have been BSD) - the kernel and the filesystem. So I've derived benefit from GPL licensed code.

It's a bad analogy for quite a number of reasons, but you see what I'm getting at. Assuming anyone was stupid enough to go to court rather than comply, it's the kind of response I'd expect to see to an argument of that nature.
I realize you are not (quite) pro LGPL, but you are sensible and I suspect you'll get there when you realize there is not a snow ball's chance in hell PHP developers will use the library under that license and there are TONS of other (arguably better at this point) options they can choose from.
My stance is more philosophical - a massive proportion of the code I've written won't ever see the light of day (in the OSS sense), and offsetting that is a good thing.

I do agree that LGPL would make the framework more attractive to developers, and it's quite possible we'd see some additional contributions coming back. I just don't know if it's worth dropping an ideal that we as a community have espoused for so long (although LGPL was debated quite a while back, 99% of users will only have ever heard the GPL message).

I do think, though, that communication is absolutely key. There's already uncertainty in the air (which license will we used), added to by the question of whether any devs will walk (I agree with you btw, that's a personal decision for each dev). Whichever way the vote swings, things need to be well communicated.

I've seen a lot of posts on the benefits and drawbacks, but there hasn't been any real sign of forward planning/analysis (from a communication perspective). As an example:

If it goes LGPL, you and I both know that it's likely to take some time for developers to start using Framework, so it's going to take some time to see any contributions coming back. We've got a lot of catching up to do, in mindshare and (to some extent) in functionality, which will only extend the lead time.

Without decent communication, the end result of that is going to be rants about how the license has changed and there's been no benefit.

The biggest risk, at the moment, in my eyes is that of the sense of community being hurt, which is only going to lead to a divide if people start thinking 'told you so'.

The point I'm trying to make is - As someone who's almost constantly in trouble for opening his mouth, for something like this, communication should not be left to developers. Traditionally, good communication (and that doesn't include talking to other devs) is not a strong point, usually leading to hurt sensibilities and a breakdown of communication.

Earlier in the thread, I called out Don Gilbert for the way he'd phrased/stated things. In fairness, it was a bit rich because I quite regularly come across in much the same way (though I'm getting much better :D).

The devs will have their opinions, and I'm not suggesting for a second that they shouldn't be allowed to express them, but the issue of licensing isn't actually a development question (though obviously it does have an impact).

I know you've feel there's a strong case for LGPL, given that this thread is all-but unreadable to the average user, perhaps a blog post espousing the benefits (and analysing the drawbacks) would be a good way to go - it's a pity the debate never happened as it would have helped to the same thing.

wilsonge wrote: Niv in my opinion this isn't about attracting the proprietary developers. It's about opening the door to the PHP community of developers who don't use GPL (but use MIT or similar) - these aren't the proprietary developers but people like us, who, for whatever reason have decided GPL isn't for them.
I agree that the (ideal) target audience is the non-proprietary but no-gpl developers, but the counter argument is that the LGPL route opens the door to both. Only time would/will tell which make the most use
Ben Tasker

Code Monkey & Systems Manager
https://www.bentasker.co.uk

User avatar
NivF007
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license cha

Post by NivF007 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:55 pm

AmyStephen wrote:
NivF007 wrote:
So what exactly have you put forward as any safeguards? Nothing of substance.
I have what I have always had => I can fork the code.
Amy, last time I checked,

1) you can't un-GPL forked code; and

2) you can't enforce GPL on LGPL'd forked code.

So exactly how does your 'well-thought out solution' protect everything Joomla! has worked towards from being undermined if we allow an LGPL framework?

You are invited to provide something of substance that will help protect what the Joomla! community has worked so hard for.

N

 

Locked

Return to “Community Blog Discussions”