Read the blogs!
Started by 青山 素子, July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM
QuoteWe'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.
QuoteFrom 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.
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 26, 2007, 10:31:06 PMThe very last discussion with Joomla! was between Orstio and Johan on June 17
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 26, 2007, 10:51:51 PMTechnically, 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.
Quote from: Rudolf on July 26, 2007, 06:22:44 PMThere 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.
Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 01:40:05 AMAll of this hype and misinformation could then be avoided.. don't you think?
Quote from: Praedator on July 27, 2007, 04:59:42 AMWhat kind of hype and misinformation you are talking about?
Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 01:40:05 AMOrstio,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...
Quote from: Route 66 RamblerThe 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.
Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 06:16:25 AMThats 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.
QuoteOK, so we're faced with a claim that we have a grace period of six months. I think that needs to be substantiated.
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Praedator on July 27, 2007, 04:59:42 AMbtw check this out http://www.toonla.com/
Quote from: Aravot on July 27, 2007, 12:09:26 PMQuote from: Praedator on July 27, 2007, 04:59:42 AMbtw check this out http://www.toonla.com/ I love those cartoons, they are so True.