Topic: Joomla Bridge unavailable? (Read 47287 times)

cferd · « **on:** June 16, 2007, 12:52:28 PM »

**In lieu of the enforcement of the GPL, this component is unavailable until further notice. **

What gives?

Orstio · « **Reply #1 on:** June 16, 2007, 01:06:26 PM »

http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/

Keep in mind that SMF and the bridge are released under the SMF license, which is not GPL-compatible.

prazgod · « **Reply #2 on:** June 16, 2007, 04:18:16 PM »

So what is the future for this bridge - is there no longer going to be one? Are you going to make a public statement about the removal of this.

The Joomla Form editors objected to my hxxp:forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg864425.html#msg864425 [nonactive] - and then seconds after the Joomla Extensions Directory Editors removed your JED Listing hxxp:209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jV5QavGw7iUJ:extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,135/Itemid,35/+smf+bridge&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a [nonactive].

azrulrhm · « **Reply #3 on:** June 16, 2007, 04:19:33 PM »

Can I safely assume that this will not affect Mambo (bridge) where there is no such restriction ?

Orstio · « **Reply #4 on:** June 16, 2007, 05:26:06 PM »

Quote

So what is the future for this bridge - is there no longer going to be one? Are you going to make a public statement about the removal of this.

I'll make a statement when there is an official decision.

Quote

Can I safely assume that this will not affect Mambo (bridge) where there is no such restriction ?

I have been assured that Mambo is not changing anything that will affect the distribution of the bridge.

joomla · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2007, 03:20:01 AM »

Any chance of the bridge being released as GPL?

About Mambo: Mambo is also GPL like Joomla. We (Joomla) have not made any changes to the license.
Mambo choosing to allow non-gpl/encoded etc extensions is skating on thin ice GPL license wise. < - My personal opinion.

Orstio · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2007, 07:17:27 AM »

It doesn't matter if the bridge is released under GPL. SMF will never be released under GPL, and the FSF has that covered:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

Quote

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.

There are definitely shared function calls and data structures between Joomla and SMF via the bridge, and therefore the bridge still violates the GPL by including a non-GPL element in the workflow.

Prometeo21 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2007, 08:19:36 AM »

Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 07:17:27 AM

It doesn't matter if the bridge is released under GPL.  SMF will never be released under GPL, and the FSF has that covered:

hxxp:www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins [nonactive]

Quote
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.

There are definitely shared function calls and data structures between Joomla and SMF via the bridge, and therefore the bridge still violates the GPL by including a non-GPL element in the workflow.

So if you say that the bridge can not be released under GPL because SMF has shared functions with joomla... and that violates the GPL license... and Mambo is also GPL... umm $:-\$

So that means that any of the bridges that interacts with any of the GLP CMS apps at that level are illegal.

Orstio · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2007, 08:32:25 AM »

It is entirely up to the copyright holder of the CMS to decide.

Joomla has chosen to enforce the GPL unambiguously.

Mambo has chosen to continue as is.

In the coming weeks, I will be contacting the teams of other CMS's and carrying out necessary provisions. Chances are that most will continue to allow 3pds the Freedom to choose their own license.

Prometeo21 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2007, 08:50:39 AM »

Well this looks that it will get a lot of debate in the Open Source Comunity cause the licenses are created for some reason. I really like Joomla and I use SMF because its one of the best forums in the Net but I will have to wait to see how this issue get resolved so I will not have to start changing from one system to another everytime the interpretations of the licenses change.

There is something that I cant understand... JOOMLA uses the SMF, I dont know if they use the bridge or something like that but if they are using the bridge they are not following the GPL license. <---- In my humble opinion

Orstio · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:12:16 AM »

The GPL is only concerned with distribution, not with usage. You can use the software all you like, and not be in violation of GPL.

I could personally install the bridge on as many sites as I want, and claim it is labour, and not distribution. The GPL has no way to stop that. The moment that I make the software available to download, however, it falls under distribution.

exrace · « **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:37:41 AM »

Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 09:12:16 AM

I could personally install the bridge on as many sites as I want, and claim it is labour, and not distribution. The GPL has no way to stop that. The moment that I make the software available to download, however, it falls under distribution.

Orstio is going to be a very busy person installing bridges.
Now another scenario is you hire me to install the bridges I get a copy to do the installs.

Orstio · « **Reply #12 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:46:34 AM »

There are a few scenarios that would also require more work to be done from an end user standpoint. The ironic thing about that is it defeats the original intent of the GPL.

I could, for example, release the bridge without an installer, and claim that it is nothing but a useless lump of code that I am distributing under a proprietary license. It then has no way to interface with Joomla on its own -- it would require the end user to install manually.

cferd · « **Reply #13 on:** June 17, 2007, 02:36:34 PM »

Why can't this bridge be re-released under the GNU/GPL license ala Joomlahacks bridge?

Orstio · « **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2007, 03:58:26 PM »

The joomlahacks integration is also in violation of GPL. You can't directly link a non-GPL file from a GPL file at run-time, so they are just as much in violation.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

Quote

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.

In this case, SMF would be considered the "plug-in".

joomla · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2007, 04:24:03 PM »

Quote from: Prometeo21 on June 17, 2007, 08:50:39 AM

here is something that I cant understand... JOOMLA uses the SMF, I dont know if they use the bridge or something like that but if they are using the bridge they are not following the GPL license. <---- In my humble opinion

Our SMF install is NOT bridged. It is standalone.. and.. we love SMF!

cferd · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2007, 06:01:07 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your SMF-Bridge is not part of SMF (or in this case, the "plug-in"). Only the program (Joomla), through it's extension, is making function calls to the plug-in. License-wise, the plug-in does nothing in of itself when bridged. The Joomla extension (SMF-Bridge) makes all the calls to Joomla, so I could see how it's in violation of GNU-GPL currently, but can't see how it would be in violation being released under that license.

I don't know what modifications the Joomlahacks bridge does to either program, so I can't comment on that.

Quote

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.

Orstio · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2007, 06:23:24 PM »

It also (obviously) makes function calls to SMF. It treats the whole of SMF like a plug-in of the bridge, actually. Using SMF in that way in a GPL bridge is violating the GPL, at least interpreted in its purest form.

cferd · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2007, 06:54:26 PM »

Actually, interpreting it in the purest form is what my quote above is trying to convey.

Quote

It also (obviously) makes function calls to SMF

That's what I meant here:

Quote

Only the program (Joomla), through it's extension, is making function calls to the plug-in

The plug-in being SMF. My point is that SMF (plug-in) does not make any calls to the program (Joomla) and thus would not, in my estimation, violate GPL if it were to be released under that license. Both the program AND plug-in, according to my understanding of the GNU-GPL would need to make calls, for a violation to take place.

Orstio · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2007, 06:58:04 PM »

I see what you mean, however, I am certain the FSF would interpret it as all in the same workflow, and therefore all needing to be GPL.

News:

Author Topic: Joomla Bridge unavailable? (Read 47287 times)