Feedback on potential Joomla! Framework LGPL license change

[masterchief]

There will always be a grey area and the fact that they are adding artistic work is not coding doesn't sound 3 bad to me. But you saying "in hindsight, I think we made the wrong call" ... sounds like you are in favour of GPL

For end-of-the-line applications, yes and I've said repeatedly the GPL is a good license. I think the Issue Tracker should be GPL and if we ever build a separate RESTful API server, it should be GPL. If the Joomla Template Directory ever gets off the ground, I'd like to see it use only OSI approved licenses (with the provision that the PHP that gets included in the CMS at runtime is GPL).

But for libraries (/me shrugs) - I think there are good but tenuous arguments to support both sides. The tie-breaking action was that we did the survey, got a positive reaction (then), the SFLC had no issue, and here we are.

[horus_68]

The licence issue is more about what people will give back. And if the reason for a LGPed framework is to attract devs that won't touch GPL then do we really want that mindset ? There is a big enough rift between Devs and non devs as it is without attracting devs that have an anti GPL mind set. That is reason enough to stay well clear of Joomla framework (or cms) being LGPLed.

Plain and simple!
+1

[Webdongle]

...
But for libraries (/me shrugs) - I think there are good but tenuous arguments to support both sides. The tie-breaking action was that we did the survey, got a positive reaction (then), the SFLC had no issue, and here we are.

Now the (devs who voted in that poll) are aware that

1. Requesting for the framework to be LGPLed has caused a bigger rift in the community than already exists.
2. One of the very reasons for them making that request (namely to attract anti-GPL devs to the Joomla project) will increase that rift even more

Would have answered the questions differently ? And how many of them are now regretting (in hindsight) the way they answered the questions.

[piotr_cz]

Would have answered the questions differently ? And how many of them are now regretting (in hindsight) the way they answered the questions.

I didn't participate in the pool, because I didn't understand clearly the difference between GPL and LGPL and that time, I was just wanted to code. I should have voted for LGPL, and I regret I didn't.

[Webdongle]

...
I just want to leave you with one thought in case the license change is approved and the Joomla Framework is allowed to keep its name (which is something I really believe is important to happen): "Don't be discouraged."

In my opinion, if that happens, it's highly likely it would *enhance* the Joomla TM. Nearly every open source project is attempting to decouple their code for flexibility knowing the day of the "monolithic application" is drawing to a close.
....

Decoupling the code
Decoupling the code may well makes sense from a coding point of view. That is not the issue here.


Changing the framework's licence to LGPL without re-branding ... may well "*enhance* the Joomla TM". But at what cost ?
Changing the framework's licence to LGPL (regardless of whether it carries the Joomla brand or is re-branded) will cause a bigger rift in the community than there is now.

And who will that benefit ?

• The Joomla devs and non-devs whose reward is producing a final product that is available to everyone ?
• The professionals who make a living out of using the final product to create/build/maintain websites ?
• The hobbyists who have fun 'playing' with the finished product and experimenting with php/css ?
• Or the devs that want to use the framework(that has been freely written/tested by volunteers) in their proprietary commercial products ?

Legal versus moral
It may be legally correct to have a Non Profit Organisation with a GPL cms that uses a 'de-coupled' LGPLed. But is it morally correct to ask people to give their free time testing/de-bugging the way the the cms and a LGPLed interact.

Distinction
Devs may well make a distinction between the framework and the cms ... but non-devs see the efforts {that are put in by everyone evolved) as a complete finished product. Therefore any proprietary/commercial end product that is created on the back of the framework the cms uses ... is (and always will be) seen as 'tarring' the cms 'with the same brush' by many of the main devs. That is why a LGPLed framework will increase the rift between the devs and non-devs

[Webdongle]

...
I didn't participate in the pool, because I didn't understand clearly the difference between GPL and LGPL and that time, I was just wanted to code. I should have voted for LGPL, and I regret I didn't.

Now the difference between LGPL and GPL is clearer to you and how a LGPLed framework will increase the rift between devs and non-devs has been explained ... you want LGPL ?

Why do you want developers to be able to create a proprietary product from
a framework that has been created/tested/de-bugged by a community as a whole ?


Side note
btw piotr_cz looks like your site has been hacked http://sitecheck2.sucuri.net/results/sm ... tudio.com/

[ianmac]

Why GPL ?
I make a distinction between people making money out of using the finished product and people making money out of using the finished product in a way that excludes others from doing the same. It is my understanding that the GPL prevents the latter. If the framework is LGPLed then CMS will still be GPL and still prevent people making money out of using the finished product in a way that excludes others from doing the same. However ... people will then be able to create proprietary products with the framework.

If that is your stance then I would probably suggest seeking out a product/platform built using the AGPL license. As it stands today, there is a massive economy built around the Joomla project that consists of people making money off the end product and excluding others from doing the same. There is nothing stopping somebody from taking the CMS, building some custom extensions on top of the CMS and using that site to make money, and not having contribute any of it back.

Changing the framework's licence to LGPL (regardless of whether it carries the Joomla brand or is re-branded) will cause a bigger rift in the community than there is now.

The risk of not choosing LGPL for the framework license is alienating the developers who have requested the change. We, as framework developers, have outlined arguments in favour of the LGPL as the license of choice for the framework. I will respect whatever decision OSM makes - they ultimately own the trademark and can decide what it does or does not get attached to. The way this falls out and the way the 'community' reacts will likely impact my future decision to contribute, and likely not in a binary fashion.

And who will that benefit ?

• The Joomla devs and non-devs whose reward is producing a final product that is available to everyone ?
• The professionals who make a living out of using the final product to create/build/maintain websites ?
• The hobbyists who have fun 'playing' with the finished product and experimenting with php/css ?
• Or the devs that want to use the framework(that has been freely written/tested by volunteers) in their proprietary commercial products ?

I believe all of these people will benefit in some way, even the professionals who make a living out of using the CMS to build websites and add features, custom templates and custom extensions without contributing them back.

Legal versus moral
It may be legally correct to have a Non Profit Organisation with a GPL cms that uses a 'de-coupled' LGPLed. But is it morally correct to ask people to give their free time testing/de-bugging the way the the cms and a LGPLed interact.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling with that question so I'm not going to answer it.

Distinction
Devs may well make a distinction between the framework and the cms ... but non-devs see the efforts {that are put in by everyone evolved) as a complete finished product. Therefore any proprietary/commercial end product that is created on the back of the framework the cms uses ... is (and always will be) seen as 'tarring' the cms 'with the same brush' by many of the main devs. That is why a LGPLed framework will increase the rift between the devs and non-devs

[/quote]
The CMS itself is obviously not a complete finished product. A very high percentage of websites built on Joomla use custom templates and custom extensions that have source that does not get distributed or contributed back to the larger community. As much as we are seeing a bit of push back by some people in the community about switching the framework license to LGPL, I suspect that the revolt that you would see if we moved to something like the AGPL would be far far greater yet it would go much further to protected people from building proprietary web sites on the CMS. If your goal is to prevent people from making money off of work they are not contributing back then that is probably the proposal that you want to make.

Though I don't expect that it will gain traction.


Ian

[piotr_cz]

1e3 post!!

[Webdongle]

... As it stands today, there is a massive economy built around the Joomla project that consists of people making money off the end product and excluding others from doing the same. There is nothing stopping somebody from taking the CMS, building some custom extensions on top of the CMS and using that site to make money, and not having contribute any of it back.

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.

The risk of not choosing LGPL for the framework license is alienating the developers who have requested the change. We, as framework developers, have outlined arguments in favour of the LGPL as the license of choice for the framework

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.

Legal versus moral
It may be legally correct to have a Non Profit Organisation with a GPL cms that uses a 'de-coupled' LGPLed. But is it morally correct to ask people to give their free time testing/de-bugging the way the the cms and a LGPLed interact.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling with that question so I'm not going to answer it.

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.

The CMS itself is obviously not a complete finished product. A very high percentage of websites built on Joomla use custom templates and custom extensions that have source that does not get distributed or contributed back to the larger community

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.


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.

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.

[AmyStephen]

Webdongle -

Ian has been a faithful contributor since Mambo. To accuse him of trying to "shaft" the community is way out of line.

This move to LGPL for the library has been in the plans since 2007. http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg874511
All of us who have contributed code and signed the Contributor Agreement have agreed to allow the LGPL. http://developer.joomla.org/9-site/7-jo ... duals.html

No one is being shafted.

Regarding your concern providing support for work that uses a permissive license. Two points.

#1 - The Joomla Framework team provides support for the Joomla Framework in a Google Group https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum ... -framework and on github http://github.com/joomla/joomla-framework

#2 - The Joomla CMS has a great deal of code in it using licenses more permissive than the LGPL. http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3146744 My guess is you have helped with questions on Bootstrap? If so, you are helping a product that uses MIT. That's even *more* permissive than LGPL. At least be consistent with your strong moral stands.

As far as "a divide", I see a couple people strongly opposed who seem to have made it their lives mission this last two weeks to create as much noise as possible in opposition. I don't see a community divided.

I can respect your opposition to the proposal. It's a personal issue. But to accuse others of trying to shaft the community, that's wrong. These are the ones who coded Joomla. They care very much about the project and community, too.

[alikon]

i kindly invite you all to respect the forum rules especially this simple one

Keep all commentary civil, and be courteous at all times. Constructive criticism is welcome, but insults directed towards other users or the site admins will not be tolerated. Coarse/insulting language will not be tolerated.

i love this thread too and i hope that could be constructive for the joomla community,
so please be courteous at all times

thx for attention

[Webdongle]

...
This move to LGPL for the library has been in the plans since 2007. http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg874511
All of us who have contributed code and signed the Contributor Agreement have agreed to allow the LGPL. http://developer.joomla.org/9-site/7-jo ... duals.html

No one is being shafted....

To change the Joomla framework licence to MIT would be wrong unless everybody who signed the JCA was contacted and agreed to it ... yes ? If they were not contacted then they would be shafted because they had not given permission for their code to be used like that ... yes

Now there are people in(and who have now left) the community that have helped build the Joomla project as a whole. Those people did so in the belief of the project as a whole and in the principles of the GPL. Ian has contributed much over the years and can choose (if he so wishes) to allow his code LGPL and no doubt he has done so by signing the JCA.

But those who see the Joomla project as a whole ... and do not want part of something they see as a whole changed to a different licence ... can not stop all the effort they put in to the Joomla project as a whole from being associated(in part) with LGPL. All the devs(not just Ian) who are asking for the change are ... all be it it unintentionally ... asking for those people to be shafted by changing the licence for part of the project. If the licence for any part of the project changes then those ... who have contributed to the project as a whole ... will have been shafted. They will have been shafted in the same way a code Contributor would be shafted if the licence was changed to MIT without his/her permission. Making the framework (or any part of the Joomla project) LGPL may be legally but the morality is in question.

[Nick Savov]

This move to LGPL for the library has been in the plans since 2007. http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg874511
All of us who have contributed code and signed the Contributor Agreement have agreed to allow the LGPL. http://developer.joomla.org/9-site/7-jo ... duals.html

Since this has been brought up numerous times and has not been definitively corrected thus far, but rather accepted as fact which has swayed some opinions, I wanted to point out that it's only been a potential plan. If you look at Johan's comment he uses statements like:

That would indeed be a possible option.

if they would like to do so

that hopefully for Joomla! 2.0 could be licensed as LGPL

The bold emphases added for clarity are mine.

The statement:

We are trying, we are just not there yet.

appears to be in reference to making the possibility of the concept a reality, rather than the concept a reality.

This ties in with what Johan said in this feedback discussion, i.e:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 7#p3144247

During the weeks that followed one of the scenario's that was discussed inside the core team was to license the framework under LGPL to allow extension developers to continue using none GPL licenses for their extensions.

Together with the SFLC this option was seriously considered and investigated.

After weeks of community discussion and after the core team summit in 2007 we released our 'Opensource Does Matter' announcement re-affirming the project's legal position on the GPL http://www.joomla.org/announcements/tea ... atter.html

Ryan, who later became OSM president, was invited by the core team as a community representative to follow the summit discussions on the GPL, he wrote two great posts about the process and outcome on his personal blog.

- http://blog.picnet.net/2007/06/14/jooml ... r-the-gpl/
- http://blog.picnet.net/2007/06/14/jooml ... d-the-gpl/

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.

I can also say that in the period of May - Sept 2007 all communication regarding license issues and GPL from core team members was always the opinion of the team as a whole never of the individual, all of our replies regarding GPL and license questions where double checked with the SFLC to make 100% sure the information was correct.

My reply on the forums on June 23, 2007 (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... ml#p874511) should be placed in this historical context, nothing more.

Again, the bold emphases added for clarity are mine.

His comments line up with other testimonies, such as that of Elin's, Andrew's, and Sam's:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla- ... ewb3j7e_sJ

Note, she says:

It has never been "always intended" that it change, in fact the total opposite is true. LGPL was simply one option 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. The PLT and OSM board at the time of approving the JCA language were very clear that there was a strong preference to preserve a 100% GPL stack, that the CMS would always be GPL, and that relicensing as LGPL would be considered only if it became clear that GPL was a major impediment to adoption of the platform. In fact the situation that we have where the largest users of the platform as platform use it in house only (and do not distribute) and the move to the cloud is probably why it has not been much of an issue.

To which Andrew responded:

My apologies for hyperbolising. "Some of us" that have contributed to the code have had that intention since at least 2009, possibly earlier (my memory is failing me). I shouldt make it clear that I am referring only to the Platform in isolation. I'm not referring about the licensing of the Joomla CMS.

And Sam responded:

Having some portion of the code base as LGPL was discussed at the 2007 summit as was splitting out the libraries to make a re-usable platform that could be used for various projects which would benefit most from being LGPL.

Long story short, it appears to have been a potential plan that was investigated by the LT, but not "in the plans" or "the plan".

Hope this clarification helps everyone to make an informed decision in regards to historical context concerning intentions/plans by the project. Note, I wasn't there at the time, but simply gathered some of the testimonies of people who were there.

Cheers,
Nick

[AmyStephen]

Plans are not always followed thru, that's absolutely correct and it has not been suggested otherwise. Why would there even be a discussion? The point is -- it has been part of the plans. If you are more comfortable saying "potential" plans, fine, but IMO, that's a plan. It's a potential future action.

Good link, though, from that discussion. Of interest is Elin's comment which reinforces what PHP developers are saying and the reason the FSF recommends using the LGPL:

that relicensing as LGPL would be considered only if it became clear that GPL was a major impediment to adoption of the platform.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla- ... ewb3j7e_sJ

Nick - Do you agree licensing is likely a problem with adoption of the Joomla Framework?

[ianmac]

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.

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.

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.

Ian

[Webdongle]

This move to LGPL for the library has been in the plans since 2007. http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg874511
All of us who have contributed code and signed the Contributor Agreement have agreed to allow the LGPL. http://developer.joomla.org/9-site/7-jo ... duals.html

Since this has been brought up numerous times and has not been definitively corrected thus far, but rather accepted as fact which has swayed some opinions, I wanted to point out that it's only been a potential plan. If you look at Johan's comment he uses statements like:...

Thank you for that Nick ... however the fact remains that it was being discussed as a potential plan in 2007 and not just suggested as a plan.

[Webdongle]

..
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.

If the framework is a 'complete package' it is not used with in the Joomla full package ?
If the cms is a 'complete package' it runs without the framework then ?
Are those 2 statements an accurate interpretation of what you are saying ?

[ianmac]

..
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.

If the framework is a 'complete package' it is not used with in the Joomla full package ?
If the cms is a 'complete package' it runs without the framework then ?
Are those 2 statements an accurate interpretation of what you are saying ?

Although both of those statements are true, no, that is not what I was saying.

Each framework package is a package of classes that perform a specific function or task. They obviously aren't stand alone as they require some sort of PHP runtime to execute (be it the one from php.net or HHVM or some other runtime, doesn't matter).

The CMS would continue to be a combination of code that is specific to the CMS together with a bundle of libraries containing functionality that was developed elsewhere under a collection of licenses (be it MIT, BSD, LGPL, whatever each library happens to be).

The CMS uses other packages which are complete in their own right but are also packaged together by others into other products. This would probably more closely approximate the relationship between the CMS and the framework - both are complete in their own right, but the CMS would use parts of the framework that were appropriate and fit within the goals of the CMS development team.

Ian

[Nick Savov]

Plans are not always followed thru, that's absolutely correct and it has not been suggested otherwise. Why would there even be a discussion? The point is -- it has been part of the plans. If you are more comfortable saying "potential" plans, fine, but IMO, that's a plan. It's a potential future action.

Yes, a plan might or might not be followed through, however a plan indicates an intention of what one is going to do. Sticking the term "potential" in front specifies that it's a possible intention, but not necessarily so. As in Elin's quote above, she states that the intention was to keep the platform GPL, i.e. the plan was to keep it GPL (not the opposite). This ties in with what Johan, Andrew, and Sam stated in the above quotes.

Basically, 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".

Good link, though, from that discussion. Of interest is Elin's comment which reinforces what PHP developers are saying and the reason the FSF recommends using the LGPL:

that relicensing as LGPL would be considered only if it became clear that GPL was a major impediment to adoption of the platform.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla- ... ewb3j7e_sJ

Nick - Do you agree licensing is likely a problem with adoption of the Joomla Framework?

Yes, it's one issue of many. I don't think it's one of the major issues holding back adoption at this time, however it does present an additional hurdle.

Kind regards,
Nick

[NivF007]

Since the Joomla! Framework is now in the spotlight, I and others are learning more about it, including

a) What it is (i.e. how is it going to be different then the current platform);

b) What are it's advantages (i.e. why is it better than the current platform or other available solutions currently on the market); and

c) What are the benefits for folks who want to participate in the Framework development

http://framework.joomla.org/

It's a fantastic premise - hat's off to those who have put dedicated work into it. It compels me (and I know others) to get involved, to learn it, and to contribute.

I'm finding myself actually very excited about the Framework and grateful that we've got the talent (and visionaries) within Joomla!

Regardless of the license - I'm interested much more in how we can make it a success and how we can get more people involved.

N

[masterchief]

Since the Joomla! Framework is now in the spotlight, I and others are learning more about it, including

a) What it is (i.e. how is it going to be different then the current platform);

The Joomla Framework is the next-generation code that will eventually power the Joomla CMS and replaces the aging Joomla Platform architecture this is currently shipped with the CMS. The source code can be found on https://github.com/joomla-framework

More than that, the Joomla Framework is also useful for building any type of application, not just the Joomla CMS, such as command line tools, RESTful API servers and bespoke web sites.

b) What are it's advantages (i.e. why is it better than the current platform or other available solutions currently on the market); and

* Aims to help you build any type of application, of any size, not just CMS extensions
* Installed with Composer (per project) vs PEAR (server) vs `git clone` vs `Download from joomla.org by visiting a web page`
* Modular (use want you need) vs monolithic (all-or-nothing)
* Uses PHP 5.3 namespacing (\Joomla\Model\Model) vs Function/Class namespacing (JModel).
* Complies with PSR-0/4 interoperability standards
* Ongoing focus to build loosely coupled packages with as few dependencies as possible
* More agile development - Change is not tied to the "slow" CMS release cycle
* Change it not linked to the question "Is this useful for the CMS?", it just has to be useful for building applications
* Packages can change independently of each other vs monolithic packages all changing at the same time

c) What are the benefits for folks who want to participate in the Framework development

* Smaller community than established frameworks so easier to have your ideas heard and executed.
* Use your existing Joomla CMS knowledge to build other types of applications when called upon to do so (and when building those applications as Joomla extensions just doesn't make sense or is too darn hard).
* Aligned with a brand that is not "just" known to developers as a PHP (or maybe JavaScript in the future) framework
* Gives you more freedom to develop your own patterns that make sense for your application rather than following the "CMS pattern" (think mopeds, vs dirt bike, vs family sedan vs luxury coupe vs Mack track vs mining dump truck).

Some more points might come to mind as we unpack those. Is that what you were after?

[AmyStephen]

Nick - Do you agree licensing is likely a problem with adoption of the Joomla Framework?

Yes, it's one issue of many. I don't think it's one of the major issues holding back adoption at this time, however it does present an additional hurdle.

I am glad you agree. It is a barrier this community could remove, too. It's clear the Joomla Framework has an uphill climb in terms of adoption and involvement. It's helped that they are getting out to the PHP events. Certainly, their code improvements help.

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. 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.

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.

Point is, people should read for themselves.
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg874511

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.

I agree Elin's perception was different but in the end, she gets to the same place in that she agreed the LGPL would be used if adoption was an obstacle.

Again, I don't see anyone disagreeing on that point, certainly no one has proposed any data that would suggest otherwise.

It's not unexpected that we find ourselves in this place asking -- now that the decoupling has taken place, does the GPL represent a barrier for adoption of the Joomla Framework? Meaning - is it time now to follow through on those "potential" plans? Or, to say -- cross those items off the list. It's not part of the "plan."

Thanks for sharing that other thread. It's another good one I would encourage people to read.

[masterchief]

Yes, a plan might or might not be followed through, however a plan indicates an intention of what one is going to do. Sticking the term "potential" in front specifies that it's a possible intention, but not necessarily so.

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 (the point was primarily raised to dismiss Brian's claim that this effort is against our principles). Circumstances have arisen and the opportunity is now being explored. Can we leave it at that?

[Jenny]

Yes, a plan might or might not be followed through, however a plan indicates an intention of what one is going to do. Sticking the term "potential" in front specifies that it's a possible intention, but not necessarily so.

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 (the point was primarily raised to dismiss Brian's claim that this effort is against our principles). Circumstances have arisen and the opportunity is now being explored. Can we leave it at that?

Brian was not incorrect in his statement. To change the license of Joomla directly goes against the principles as historically evidenced. Please stop belaboring that point because there is more than ample historical record regarding this.

[masterchief]

Brian was not incorrect in his statement.

I'll clarify - it goes against the principles on which Brian wanted OSM to be established which is different to the principles upon which is was established I and others have had many a conversation with Brian about what OSM should and shouldn't be, let me assure you.

To change the license of Joomla directly goes against the principles as historically evidenced.

No it doesn't, but we've been over this (the smoking gun is the JCA). And remember, the CMS was not always released under the original GPL.

Please stop belaboring that point because there is more than ample historical record regarding this.

I agree.

[jodofin]

Regardless of the license - I'm interested much more in how we can make it a success and how we can get more people involved.

N

Maybe a 'neutral' column to the unofficial count spreadsheet?

Others might feel like this too...

[Webdongle]

...
The CMS would continue to be a combination of code that is specific to the CMS together with a bundle of libraries containing functionality that was developed elsewhere ...

That means the 2 statements are not true because the framework is is part of the Joomla full package and the cms can not run without it.

Because the cms absorbs the framework like it does with other 'added code' and thus the cms still stays under it's own licence. That is the part where the devs and non devs are at loggerheads. Devs see that being separate to the cms like Tinmce etc and think the non-devs don't understand it. But the non-devs (at least most of us) already know that and many knew a long time ago.

Many of non-devs who have given their time helping build a community for Joomla and help bugtest etc. will feel shafted if the Joomla framework is GPLed. Because they gave their help while Joomla was under the GPL licence. And the action of licensing anything using the Joomla brand(or anything connected with Joomla) is (to many non-devs) akin to changing the licence to one not listed in the JCA. The only difference being that with one ... help etc was given because of the terms/philosophy of the GPL... and the other ... code was given because of the terms/conditions of the listed licences.

Further to that if the the framework is re-branded there are non-devs who will feel that the framework would not come into existence without without Joomla. And therefore to those non-devs a LGPLed re-branded framework would be no different in principal to a LGPLed Joomla framework.

Now do you see ? Everything that Joomla has become, everything that carries the Joomla band(name), everything that evolves from the Joomla project ... has done so as a result of everybody's efforts as a Whole and under the GPL licence. And to make any part of that whole LGPL is ... to a lot of people ... just as wrong as changing the licence of the Whole.

[NivF007]

To change the license of Joomla directly goes against the principles as historically evidenced.

That may be, but the question is, is Joomla! 'change ready'? (i.e. is our community prepared and capable of change?)

There are generally 3 factors that make an organization 'change ready' (I will replace the term 'employee' with 'community') for our purposes:

1) Effective leadership willing to initiate change;

2) A community motivated to change; and

3) An organization accustomed to working collaboratively.

I would consider that we, as an organization/community, would be 'inept' if we did not welcome change if the above 3 criteria were met.

I don't see the utility in pointing to historical conversations and debates if it is a barrier to a) what's desired; and b) what's best for the community.

In other words, my view is, 'that was yesterday, this is today.'

I would politely suggest that we focus instead on a) and b) above.

[NivF007]

Since the Joomla! Framework is now in the spotlight, I and others are learning more about it, including

a) What it is (i.e. how is it going to be different then the current platform);

The Joomla Framework is the next-generation code that will eventually power the Joomla CMS and replaces the aging Joomla Platform architecture this is currently shipped with the CMS. The source code can be found on https://github.com/joomla-framework

More than that, the Joomla Framework is also useful for building any type of application, not just the Joomla CMS, such as command line tools, RESTful API servers and bespoke web sites.

b) What are it's advantages (i.e. why is it better than the current platform or other available solutions currently on the market); and

* Aims to help you build any type of application, of any size, not just CMS extensions
* Installed with Composer (per project) vs PEAR (server) vs `git clone` vs `Download from joomla.org by visiting a web page`
* Modular (use want you need) vs monolithic (all-or-nothing)
* Uses PHP 5.3 namespacing (\Joomla\Model\Model) vs Function/Class namespacing (JModel).
* Complies with PSR-0/4 interoperability standards
* Ongoing focus to build loosely coupled packages with as few dependencies as possible
* More agile development - Change is not tied to the "slow" CMS release cycle
* Change it not linked to the question "Is this useful for the CMS?", it just has to be useful for building applications
* Packages can change independently of each other vs monolithic packages all changing at the same time

c) What are the benefits for folks who want to participate in the Framework development

* Smaller community than established frameworks so easier to have your ideas heard and executed.
* Use your existing Joomla CMS knowledge to build other types of applications when called upon to do so (and when building those applications as Joomla extensions just doesn't make sense or is too darn hard).
* Aligned with a brand that is not "just" known to developers as a PHP (or maybe JavaScript in the future) framework
* Gives you more freedom to develop your own patterns that make sense for your application rather than following the "CMS pattern" (think mopeds, vs dirt bike, vs family sedan vs luxury coupe vs Mack track vs mining dump truck).

Some more points might come to mind as we unpack those. Is that what you were after?

No, not quite - but appreciated, very compelling and informative nonetheless. My point, if I was somewhat clumsy in explaining it, is that people who did not take an interest in the Framework before this debate, are certainly now - it's a good outcome, IMO, regardless of what the final decisions on licensing is.

[masterchief]

No, not quite - but appreciated, very compelling and informative nonetheless.

Okay - what do you feel is missing? I ask in all seriousness because this is marketing information we need to prepare regardless of the license we are using. Thanks in advance.