Can you clarify this Johan? I was under the impression that extensions didn't have to be released with a GPL license. There are many extensions on the extensions site that are not GPL, and so I would have assumed that they would be able to encrypt these extensions.Jinx wrote: 11. Encryption of Joomla! extensions is a violation of the GPL
I don't see any issue with creating commercial extensions which are encrypted, so long as they do not themselves redistribute anything which is covered by a GPL license. Then again I'm no laywer4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
(although I cud pretend :P)
The FAQ's on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html say :ianmac wrote: Can you clarify this Johan? I was under the impression that extensions didn't have to be released with a GPL license. There are many extensions on the extensions site that are not GPL, and so I would have assumed that they would be able to encrypt these extensions.
That's a good question. Based on my current understanding I would say, for the moment not such much unless we (the copyright holders of the Joomla! codebase) decides to enforces the GPL license on them at which point they would need to either change their license or remove their extension for public distribution.ianmac wrote: So what impact does that have on the extensions listed on extensions.joomla.org that are not released under a GPL or GPL compatible license? And why are these extensions listed there?
Not the user but the third party developer (the person who owns the copyrights of the code) violates the GPL by encrypting it, the act of installing an extension (module/component/plugin) is not a violation of the GPL. If the user whishes to distribute the combined work (Joomla! + extensions) he will not be able to this in accoordance with the terms of the GPL license of Joomla! as part of the code is encrypted and cannot be re-distributed. If such a situation happens the user should inform the Joomla! project about this violation as it's only the copyright holders of the Joomla! code base who can enforce the license upon third party developers.jcracknell wrote: So what you are stating is that those components that use ioncube are breaking the GPL. Now does a user break the GPL by installing a component that is encoded by ioncube?
If this is the case, then IMO (and I recognize this is only my opinion - you can do what you will), we should use a different license. Joomla! is dependent on third party extensions. This is our philosophy, in some respects, and why more extensions aren't added into the core.Jinx wrote:That's a good question. Based on my current understanding I would say, for the moment not such much unless we (the copyright holders of the Joomla! codebase) decides to enforces the GPL license on them at which point they would need to either change their license or remove their extension for public distribution.ianmac wrote: So what impact does that have on the extensions listed on extensions.joomla.org that are not released under a GPL or GPL compatible license? And why are these extensions listed there?
I don't think that is enough reason to validate a license change. However it's a very valid remark and question, one i would love to hear more community feedback on.ianmac wrote: If this is the case, then IMO (and I recognize this is only my opinion - you can do what you will), we should use a different license. Joomla! is dependent on third party extensions. This is our philosophy, in some respects, and why more extensions aren't added into the core.
It seems alot of them do, looking at our extension siteIf things work the way they do now only because we aren't enforcing our rights (to enforce the GPL), then that leaves third party developers in a very difficult position. Who would want to develop third party commercial extensions knowing that what they are doing is illegal and at any point in time they could be shut down?
Let's be carefull not to mix the term commercial extensions with extensions released under a none GPL compilant license. The GPL doesn't permit people to charge for GPL licensed code, what the GPL says requires is that you must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to.Further, I think it would be difficult to enforce the GPL license in this manner if we are supporting commercial extensions by listing them in our extensions directory.
This is again a valid argument and one that is open for debate. As I quoted before, the GNU faqs say :I prefer to interpret extensions as 'applications' which run under the Joomla! environment, in the same way that commercial applications run under Linux.
Yes... this is true... but I wonder how many are aware that this is illegal?Jinx wrote:It seems alot of them do, looking at our extension siteIf things work the way they do now only because we aren't enforcing our rights (to enforce the GPL), then that leaves third party developers in a very difficult position. Who would want to develop third party commercial extensions knowing that what they are doing is illegal and at any point in time they could be shut down?
Understood, and I fully recognize that people are free to charge for GPL licensed code. But I doubt that many commercial extension developers would be comfortable with people distributing their extensions to others. There are a number of license options on the extensions site:Let's be carefull not to mix the term commercial extensions with extensions released under a none GPL compilant license. The GPL doesn't permit people to charge for GPL licensed code, what the GPL says is requires is that GPL requires is that you must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to.Further, I think it would be difficult to enforce the GPL license in this manner if we are supporting commercial extensions by listing them in our extensions directory.
Also see : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... CostsMoney
Whatever decision is made, I think this has to be stated and communicated much more explicitly. I've been a member of the forum community (and relatively active) for a year and a half now, and this is the first I have heard of this interpretation of the license. Then again, if I'm the only one who hasn't recognized this, then please, tell me, people. If, as I suspect, this is a relatively unknown situation to many, then we really have to improve communication on this and be explicit about it.This is again a valid argument and one that is open for debate. As I quoted before, the GNU faqs say :I prefer to interpret extensions as 'applications' which run under the Joomla! environment, in the same way that commercial applications run under Linux.
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
Illegal is a very strong word, it's a violation of the license which would be the correct legal term. I agree though that probably many don't realy understand the GPL license which Joomla! is released under.ianmac wrote: Yes... this is true... but I wonder how many are aware that this is illegal?
So far not decisions are made and I would not like to see one being made before we have at least gathered more community feedback. I don't think you are the only one, that's also why I'm want to spend time to answer the questions that are being raised. I agree that communication on this issue needs to be improved and the foundation working group can play a major role in this.Whatever decision is made, I think this has to be stated and communicated much more explicitly. I've been a member of the forum community (and relatively active) for a year and a half now, and this is the first I have heard of this interpretation of the license. Then again, if I'm the only one who hasn't recognized this, then please, tell me, people. If, as I suspect, this is a relatively unknown situation to many, then we really have to improve communication on this and be explicit about it.
I'm happy to leave development to others and discuss this with you as it touches the very foundations of the project and it's community. It's not a black vs white debate and it's definilty a debate where we want to hear the community voice.Johan, I'm really sorry to take time away from 1.5 dev for this, and if there is somebody else that could handle this that isn't busy with code right now, I would be happy to followup with them, but I do think this is important and has significant legal implications for many.
Done.I would also suggest that this discussion be moved to a different thread, as it really doesn't belong here in this one.
It has long bothered me that encrypted solutions are in the JED and used within an open source application, like Joomla!. It's not that I don't understand the reasoning - people are trying to make a living and they are protecting their assets -- their code -- and others have abused this and we haven't really figured out how to deal with these problems. But, we need to be very, very careful here discussing license changes or Joomla! will wind up an Internet device, without any value to anyone, absent encrypted software.Each contributor can look at something someone else has done and not just the pretty paint job, they have access to the schematics, diagrams, and blueprints of how they did it. Then, if they want, they can improve on it to make something better.
My apologies, Amy... I think I jumped to changing the license a bit quickly.AmyStephen wrote: It is interesting the timing of this discussion, given Rob Schley's developer post on Why Open Source Matters.It has long bothered me that encrypted solutions are in the JED and used within an open source application, like Joomla!. It's not that I don't understand the reasoning - people are trying to make a living and they are protecting their assets -- their code -- and others have abused this and we haven't really figured out how to deal with these problems. But, we need to be very, very careful here discussing license changes or Joomla! will wind up an Internet device, without any value to anyone, absent encrypted software.Each contributor can look at something someone else has done and not just the pretty paint job, they have access to the schematics, diagrams, and blueprints of how they did it. Then, if they want, they can improve on it to make something better.
++++
If we move away from the GPL, what do you honestly think will happen to the number of open source developers who entrust the community with their work, making it possible for others to learn and adapt the code, improving on it to make things better for all of us? What will be their motivation to continue? Why should they be the ones to make their code vulnerable when others are protecting their assets?
When you think about it, it is an all or nothing deal. All open source, or eventually, no open source.
The only real protection that an open source developer has is a community who rewards the act of entrusting the community with the code by strictly enforcing the GPL against encrypted solutions and financially supporting the open source solutions. We, as a community, have not beat those drums like we need to! We have not supported our third party developers. They have watched the encrypted code come in. They have watched their products be pirated. And, they had no where else to turn but to encrypt their code.
It's all or nothing. If we move away from the GPL, we will be saying open source doesn't matter and it will be a race to encrypt. The only open source code that will remain will be from newbie developers cutting their teeth. Talented open source developers will go to authentic open source projects who support them and Joomla! will be a useless Internet device, void of encrypted extensions.
++++
What problem are we trying to solve? Let's back up and figure that out.
I have been thinking for awhile that we must figure out revenue issues for the Joomla! project. We need to pay the salaries of our core Joomla! developers and anyone else who is needed to work on this effort full-time. And, we need to start talking about how third party extension providers can be compensated for their work, too.
There are LOTS of open source projects with excellent business models and people are indeed making money. Take Jaspersoft (they use Joomla!, BTW). Anyone can use JasperReports freely as in beer and liberty. Free support is available using the community forums. And, you can get commercial support, too, for a charge. A person on the phone. Someone who will come to your place of business.
Take a look at Ubuntu. They SEND CDs in the mail at their cost. I realize they have one of the world's richest men who seeded the effort, but they also built a self-sufficient operations in Canonical that sustains this group of people and their work, which is fed upstream back to Debian, and other projects they use.
We need to keep the GPL beneath Joomla! if open source matters and we need to get the encryption out. Then, everyone is back on the same playing field - even - and no one is at a disadvantage for being an open source developer.
One last consideration, and this is the harsh comment, please take it as reality - not an attack. Changing the license would be considered by many, myself included, a serious offense and a breach of trust to the community for the volunteer efforts that have been provided since the fork. Many of us participated because we believe the saying "open source matters" and wanted to support the good that open source can provide the world.
++++
Thank you for accepting input on this.
Well, there are lots of problems to solve.AmyStephen wrote: Ian -
What's the problem we are trying to solve?
Amy
Okay... I can accept that... still need to differentiate free components and commercial components, but then both would be open source? But then we really have all GPL, but some are donation ware, is what you are saying, right?AmyStephen wrote: Commercial is the wrong word, too. But, I was trying to avoid a discussion on the nuances of the GPL which people with expertise like Mixed are able to handle, not me!
Simply put:
- We want open source code; we believe it matters.
- We want third party extensions.
Some third party developers are trying to make a living building software for us. That's great! They do not want their code redistributed according to the terms of the GPL because they are unable to make a living on one sale, after which the GPL liberates the source code.
In my mind, either open source doesn't really work or we need to find a better way to compensate our developers.
Maybe, as a community, we agree that even though it's not against the law, we believe it is not right to redistribute commercial extensions. It's our practice as a community to support our commercial developers by voluntarily not exercising our GPL'd right to redistribute. We will purchase a copy if we want it - we will not ask a neighbor to give us theirs. Then, distribution can be charged at download and the revenue stream would be there.
Yes, people could and would break that rule. But, most people want to do the right thing. This concept puts extensions into roughly the same situation that templates clubs are in today. Yes, some people do not follow the guidelines and are ripping off templates. But, by and large, most people comply.
This has been tried in other communities. How well does it work?Maybe developers should be pricing extensions for only one sale by using a bounty program that essentially purchases a single distribution and then liberates the work.
What does this mean?Maybe we try to determine what existing open source projects the community is willing to "purchase" one time to bring it into the fold.
My only problem with this is that at least on some level it encourages systems that are not easy to use. Support and documentation should be as unnecessary as possible. My concern would be that all extension documentation would then become commercial. I don't think that is what we want.Maybe developers should be focusing on documentation and support for income, along with distribution charges.
My main concern at this point, I guess, is that the situation be clear for those involved. From my perspective, if this has been the case all along, then we have mislead extension developers into thinking that they can distribute their extensions under a commercial license.Maybe Web 2.0 / hosted applications are the way to make money. In my mind, embedding remote data and/or applications into a Joomla! website is much more clearly a separate application that is not subject to the GPL. Flickr galleries and [youtube] videos, for example, would not have to be GPL'd to use that little bit of Javascript inside of Joomla! to access remote data and applications. Charge for the hosting of the data and the use of the embedded object.
My point is - instead of simply assuming we can't do this and focus on wiggling around the license (which I believe spells the eventual end of the open source character of Joomla!) why don't we see if we can solve the real problem in a better way consistent with the GPL.
Sure. But I think if the situation is at it seems to be, such that commercial extensions break the GPL license, then we need to remove them from the extension directory, or at the very least inform developers of the situation.I think that our real problem is figuring out the best way to compensate our open source developers.
(and ianmac's post while I was writing this emphasises that point, so developers don't have false expectations) Whether or not non-free extensions should be encouraged by the community, even if they are legal, is a question that only the community can answer (through paying for them or supporting open source alternatives instead).
Whether an extension can be considered to be an "independent and separate work" from Joomla! will depend very much on the way the extension integrates/interacts with Joomla!, how it is distributed and the interpretation of the GNU GPL in your jurisdiction. If the extension cannot work without Joomla! and uses Joomla! libraries that are not licensed under the GNU LGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html then I think it is more likely to be considered NOT to be an "independent and separate work" than would be a separate application that is bridged to Joomla! (although the bridge may or may not be an "independent and separate work")."These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
© 2005 - 2023 Open Source Matters, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
