Webdongle wrote:If they take it and create a site then add to that site with their own work that is different to me(and many others) than taking part of the full package to do it. The difference may not be obvious to some but to others there is a definite distinction.
Perhaps you can expand on what you see the difference is? The framework packages would be 'complete packages' that we are putting out for developers to use to build applications in the same way that the CMS is a 'complete package' that we are putting out for site builders to use to build applications.
Webdongle wrote:And there in lays the rift ... many non devs(including myself) do not put the the same 'weight' on those reasons as you do. To us (for the reasons already given in various posts) having a cms with a LGPLed framework is wrong.
And many 'non devs' do not see it as wrong. Further, if you are going to be that puritanical about GPL then it seems to be that you have to be puritanical in the same way about the other upstream packages that the CMS is already using that are either LGPL or use other, more liberal software licenses.
How dare you accuse me of that !!!! I have spend hours giving freely of my time to help others and help with bug testing so as to give back some of what I have got out. Altruism may be a strange concept to you but there are those of us to whom it is a very important principle of life. You accusing me of trolling is typical of the attitude that's splitting the community in two.
My apologies. It's just that was the first time in this thread that such a strong moral accusation was made of all those in favour of the LGPL. I have also given countless hours of my time fulfilling various roles within the Joomla project. I was, in fact, likely a small minority within leadership of people who contributed purely as a hobby. Though I have training in electrical engineering and software development, software development was almost strictly a hobby up until the last year or so, my previous employments being quite unrelated to Joomla and there was very little gain in it for me, besides a feeling of satisfaction for developing and producing interesting software and the perverse pleasure obtained from solving difficult problems in elegant ways. The time spent serving in the Joomla community has at times put stress on me personally, on my wife and on my family. My connections within the Joomla community have resulted in a job that I love and enjoy, but it certainly was not the path I was seeking when I started out. I am not stranger to giving of my time and talents to the Joomla project as many in this thread and in the community can attest to.
Even now I have no financial or whatever interest in the future or license of the framework - I am behind this change because I believe it is in the best interest of the framework, of the CMS, and of Open Source Matters.
All this to say, before you make statements about who a person is or what they believe you should be sure you speak truth.
Now you are twisting my words ... by saying 'finished product' I was referring to the Joomla full package which is the end result of the community as a whole. Again ... what people do with websites that are created from the finished product
is up to them. To many of us there is a difference between that and using part of the finished product
. You do not see it perhaps ... but there is.
I really don't understand the argument you are trying to make here - can you try and elaborate on what you see as being the difference?
It has been said that neither the Joomla cms or framework can be only be re-licensed with a licence that has not been approved. Yet you are prepared to SHAFT those who have put hours of their free time (into building the Joomla community and bug testing etc.) believing that GPL would be the only licence that Joomla would use. And you want to SHAFT us by using a technicality i.e. de-coupling the cms and framework then making the framework LGPL.
Nobody is getting shafted. We all contributed our time and effort, some in great effort, some here or there.
Webdongle wrote:Many of us have freely given of our time to build up the Joomla project as a whole. Then you want to split that 'whole' by defining part of it under a licence that was not agreed to by the hundreds of people that helped build the whole project ... and you want to do that on a legal technicality. That's where the 'Legal versus moral' comment stemmed from.
What we want to do with the framework is use a license that allows application developers to do what site builders do with the CMS. Users of the CMS are free to download the CMS, write custom extensions etc etc on top of the CMS and use the end result as they choose. Selecting a license like the AGPL would ensure that users of the software have to make available all additional extensions and changes that they have made. The Joomla project has chosen the GPL instead as it is believed that this is sufficient to protect the freedom of downstream users while still allowing an economy around the project to thrive and people to be successful.
In the same way, licensing the framework as LGPL ensures the freedom of downstream users by ensuring that downstream users are also able to get the source of the framework and the Joomla project maintains credit via copyright notices. Likewise, just as the Joomla project has chosen to allow users of the CMS to build business on top of the platform without making all of their source and changes available to site users, likewise LGPLing the framework would allow users of the framework to build business on top of it without making all of their sources and changes available to users of their application.
Users of applications built on the framework would have guaranteed access to the source *of the framework* as well as modifications that the application developer has made *to the framework*.
As somebody who has contributed, IMO, heavily to the Joomla project I in no way feel 'shafted' by a move to the LGPL and it actually seems to be consistent with the choices that we have made for the CMS in terms of a middle road between a license like the AGPL and proprietary licenses.