[karlbenson]

From that same article

We've also decided that we do not have the authority to publish Joomla! under a version of the GPL that gives exceptions for proprietary extensions. It's difficult to relicense a GPL'd project, and there is no indication that OSM currently has that ability. Our current understanding is that extensions that aren't released under the GPL or compatible licenses are non-compliant, and that view is based on the guidance of both the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center.

Essentially, they can't relicense Joomla to anyone already using it. However any further distribution of Joomla/extensions is done under the (pure) GPL (with no exceptions for proprietary extensions).

For the SAME reason that Joomla believes they can't grant SMF the exception, they can't grant ANY extension of time. (whereas mambo ARE in a position to grant SMF the exception)

And so SMF would violate the GPL if they distributed any upgrades to the bridge or further copies of the bridge itself.

[AmyStephen]

Technically, SMF is in violation distributing any bridge that connects to any GPL'ed environment. That was explained clearly in the SMF and FSF email. Joomla! was not discussed at all - bridging GPL and non-GPL compliant software was discussed.

The difference is Mambo is saying they won't enforce compliance. But, it is still a GPL violation.

Joomla! is saying the same thing. They are working towards compliance, but they will allow time for compliance to be built in.

Both are allowing violation of the GPL. The difference is only one plans to eventually require compliance.

Does that make sense?

This is Joomla!'s position on time for compliance:

From Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

Joomla! has not asked SMF to discontinue distribution of the bridge. Not even once! There *is* time to come to sensible solutions.

Really!
Amy

[karlbenson]

Joomla = says they have NO authority to distribute under GPL with exceptions
Mambo = say they have authority to distribute under GPL and grant exceptions
It is not a violation if they are granted an exception.

I mean no disrespect, but you can quote that same sentence from Joomla until the cows come home.

Either way, if Joomla doesnt have total authority to grant the exception - they don't have the authority to grant any time extension or promise not to sue anybody. Ignoring non-compliance therefore won't work, as the persons/entities which share authority have not indicated the same that they will allow time and they won't sue.
(If I was affiliated with Joomla, I would tell them that they are exceeding their authority, but I am not)


And finally a 'theoretical' example, I should not have to wait until kindly asked by the RIAA to remove my mp3 collection from p2p before I do so.

SMF should NOT walk the legal tightrope of technically being in violation of anything or anyone for ANY period of time.

[Jeff Lewis]

Amy, have you also pursued this at Joomla on their forums to make a statement saying they explicitly allow a bridge to be supported for that version?

[Thantos]

The very last discussion with Joomla! was between Orstio and Johan on June 17

And you know this was the very last communication between Orstio and Joomla how?

Personally I don't see why we should waste the time to continuing developing a bridge that we won't be able to distrobute in the near future.  I would rather that time/energy be spent to develop bridges for other CMS that realize that the GPL reduces freedom instead of promote it.

[Motoko-chan]

Technically, SMF is in violation distributing any bridge that connects to any GPL'ed environment. That was explained clearly in the SMF and FSF email. Joomla! was not discussed at all - bridging GPL and non-GPL compliant software was discussed.

The difference is Mambo is saying they won't enforce compliance. But, it is still a GPL violation.

Well, that isn't really the difference. The copyright holder can determine how they interpret the GPL and if they will grant exceptions. The Mambo Foundation specifically gave an exception when they officially said that non-GPL modules/components were okay.

The Joomla! team say they cannot make any exceptions because they aren't holding the copyright on the software. This also means they can't promise any type of safe transition period because one of these copyright holders can sue at any time then (which has been mentioned in passing).

If there is possibility for such a transition period, a statement should be made by an official core Joomla! team member. Pleading from well-meaning individuals can't take the place of an official promise.

[Orstio]

OK, so we're faced with a claim that we have a grace period of six months.  I think that needs to be substantiated.

In order to do that, I suggest the Joomla team draw up a statement of exception to the GPL for the SMF bridge for the stated period of six calendar months.  This statement should be electronically signed by each and every Joomla copyright holder.  I am certain that if each copyright holder was to send an email of agreement of the statement to info at simplemachines, with some information so we can identify each of them individually to ensure
 
1) no copyright holders have been excluded,
2) no copyright holders find objection,
3) all copyright holders are in unanimous agreement,
4) the verification of the identity of each and every copyright holder,

then we might be able to proceed for the indicated period of six calendar months following legal advice on the validity of the exception.

I would strongly suggest seeking legal counsel before and during the preparation of such a statement.

This post contains no legal advice.

[Orstio]

There is a solution to all the license compatibility issues.
SimpleMachines should develop it's own CMS. No, I am not saying that the developers of the "Simple Machines Forum" software should start to write a CMS. Start it as a new project, with it's own developers and support staff.
If I understand correctly then none of the team members get paid, so the only issues are to find the time and the resources to run the project. The resources are: people (free), hardware and software to run an official website and time.

Who says that Simple Machines LLC can have only one software product?

Anyway, it must be the hot my computer produces that makes me hallucinate.

Now there's a solution I think we could all agree on.   

[joomla]

Orstio,

Why oh why don't you want to talk to the Joomla Core Team about these issues? Don't you think that would be the wise course of action? At least initially. All of this hype and misinformation could then be avoided.. don't you think?

We, Joomla, value our users, and have always made sure we are available to any of the SMF team. I am sadly disappointed that you don't want to talk to us.. reminds me of the 1.5 "not possible to bridge with SMF" fiasco...

[Praedator]

All of this hype and misinformation could then be avoided.. don't you think?

What kind of hype and misinformation you are talking about?

Due to the FSF's opinion combined with OSM/Joomla's hard-core GPL interpretation the safe path for SMF is to withdraw their bridge.  And had the Joomla! Coreteam ever really discussed their decisions with any 3PD? No. The decisions where made long before a fake discussion started at the Joomla! Forum and most criticizing where censored and deleted.

So Open Source means for the Joomla! Team not Open Speech.

btw check this out http://www.toonla.com/ 

[joomla]

What kind of hype and misinformation you are talking about?

The bit about SMF having discussed this with the Joomla Core Team....

[Trekkie101]

Amy,

The SMF team (I believe I speak for all of us) would love to continue with Joomla, the day we saw them using SMF as their forum made us all smile, the fact they still do, is a compliment to the professional way they are acting.

Personally and as some of our team use joomla, would like to see things continue with them, its about biding time and finding new approaches.

I don't want to see bitter arguments, as there seems to be, legally, the bridge in its current state breaks the joomla license, therefore it was removed.

As for the mambo and other bridges that are online under GPL, we have searched there sites, forums, contacted people for many of the systems, and they seem happy with what we are doing, yes in the "Free Software Foundations" eyes we may be as illegal as movie pirates, however the fact remains, the FSF could shout and scream, and moan and whinge, but can't start a legal case against us, as it is not there software.

It's the same with us here Amy, we explicitly state we don't allow redistribution, however we make formal exceptions to certain people like Fantastico and a few other control panels, to allow them to use our software.

[Orstio]

Orstio,

Why oh why don't you want to talk to the Joomla Core Team about these issues? Don't you think that would be the wise course of action? At least initially. All of this hype and misinformation could then be avoided.. don't you think?

We, Joomla, value our users, and have always made sure we are available to any of the SMF team. I am sadly disappointed that you don't want to talk to us.. reminds me of the 1.5 "not possible to bridge with SMF" fiasco...

Brad, do you think any amount of negotation is going to change Joomla's interpretation of their license?  I don't think it will.  It has already been shown by the FSF email that any method short of exec() or attempting to pass all variables via HTTP request (if you were an actual coder, you would understand why neither of those is viable) constitute a combined work.  I don't think any amount of negotation is going to change that fact either.

From the information we have gathered over the past weeks, it seems that the only way to solve this license issue is to alter one of the licenses of either Joomla or SMF.  I don't think any amount of negotation is going to change that either.

Joomla's position has been made clear.  During the raging debate at the Joomla forum, it was also made clear that third party developers should seek advice from people who deal with the legalities of licensing, which is what we did.  Based on that advice, we have now made our position clear.

[joomla]

Thats fine, just don't claim that your decision was developed in consultation with the Joomla Core Team. When/if you are ready to talk, let us know, as we have plenty of information to share with you.

[Dannii]

The hacking of the code to get the software to work in my installation, in the most basic and literal interpretation, creates a "derivative" or "combined" work (my site's content and programming, combined with the "J***** codebase.  When someone clicks on a link that uses this combination, now I am "distributing" the code to an end-user.

Viewing a product of software, whatever it is, including the HTML produced by SMF+Joomla, is not the same as receiving a distribution of it. You're not distributing it unless you offered your PHP code for download.

[GravuTrad]

i think it's a little a just roll-back of smf choice of not authorizing smf code using in others codes too (smf licence)....

[ormuz]

Thats fine, just don't claim that your decision was developed in consultation with the Joomla Core Team. When/if you are ready to talk, let us know, as we have plenty of information to share with you.

Nice to know that! Don't forget that we users are the people who don't take anything positive from all this cheat!

PS: we already shout down the forum in cms-pt.com, we are thinking to moove away both smf amd joomla, if u can work together we can work with u two!

[Kindred]

Thats fine, just don't claim that your decision was developed in consultation with the Joomla Core Team. When/if you are ready to talk, let us know, as we have plenty of information to share with you.

Brad,

We have discussed this. I have actually worked my way through the posts over on Joomla regarding the license interpretation (despite the fact that each of the posts seems to be locked and forked over to a new post every time it gets "hot").   The basic answer that always comes out is "in order to distribute for joomla, you must release under GPL" (oh, and don't forget the frequent "we're not trying to be difficult here, you obviously don't understand...." posts).

The point is: distributing the SMF bridge is a violation of the GPL, according to the current joomla license.

IF you and the joomla team have some information on this matter, we would be glad to hear it. Please, share! Rather than making cryptic remarks which, unfortunately, boil down to the same poison-people complaints that amystephen is making ("This is all your fault. You are unreasonable.")
We do not BLAME joomla for their position. We do regret the decision and we will do our best to comply with their position/interpretation of the joomla license.

I think Orstio hit it on the head:

OK, so we're faced with a claim that we have a grace period of six months.  I think that needs to be substantiated.

Or, if Joomla has some other position that will allow us to continue distributing and developing the bridge, PLEASE let us know.

In order to do that, I suggest the Joomla team draw up a statement of exception to the GPL for the SMF bridge for the stated period of six calendar months.  This statement should be electronically signed by each and every Joomla copyright holder.  I am certain that if each copyright holder was to send an email of agreement of the statement to info at simplemachines, with some information so we can identify each of them individually to ensure
 
1) no copyright holders have been excluded,
2) no copyright holders find objection,
3) all copyright holders are in unanimous agreement,
4) the verification of the identity of each and every copyright holder,

then we might be able to proceed for the indicated period of six calendar months following legal advice on the validity of the exception.

[Aravot]

btw check this out http://www.toonla.com/ 

I love those cartoons, they are so True.

[Praedator]

btw check this out http://www.toonla.com/ 

I love those cartoons, they are so True.

completly agree