I've been kinda confused lately with all these sad announcements about the Joomla! bridge, and all this talk about legal mumbojumbo that I can't be bothered to set myself into. I agree that it's very sad that Orstio's bridge can no longer be used, as he put a whole lot of work into it, not to mention there was always good support to get. Still, all this talk is making it sound like there will be no more bridges in development for Joomla!, while at the same time I'm looking at one right here (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/), which is supposedly highly functional.
I haven't gotten around to testing it myself yet however.
So well, why haven't this bridge been mentioned?..
That bridge has been mentioned a few times .... but it's not written by the SMF team which is the point ;)
I'm not up with all the legalese whether this bridge is complying to the licencing or not.
Not having seen it (and not intending to see it), I can't say whether or not it is legal under the license that you got Joomla under. Therefore the risk is yours. Just like error messages, licenses have meaning and are important regardless of whether you personally think they are just mumbo-jumbo or not.
There are several ideas floating about to ensure the availability of a legal integration, but none of these are going to come to fruition just yet.
I believe that the JoomlaHacks bridge is technically violating the GPL because it uses encrypted code to force a copyright message to appear unless you pay.
In addition to that, it is in violation of the GPL for the same reason that the bridge supported here is in violation. Just licensing the bridge under the GPL is not the answer.
By the way, check the announcements. No more Joomla bridge period. :-(
Quote from: DizzyTech on August 17, 2007, 10:14:26 PM
By the way, check the announcements. No more Joomla bridge period. :-(
Just to clarify: Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge. Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge ;)
Quote from: Thantos on August 18, 2007, 02:19:50 AM
Quote from: DizzyTech on August 17, 2007, 10:14:26 PM
By the way, check the announcements. No more Joomla bridge period. :-(
Just to clarify: Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge. Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge ;)
- Ye thanks for that, that's what confused me :)
Quote from: Thantos on August 18, 2007, 02:19:50 AM
Quote from: DizzyTech on August 17, 2007, 10:14:26 PM
By the way, check the announcements. No more Joomla bridge period. :-(
Just to clarify: Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge. Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge ;)
I understand that, but an "official" bridge is really the only one that feels safe, especially since SMF produces first-party bridges.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 17, 2007, 09:05:46 PM
I believe that the JoomlaHacks bridge is technically violating the GPL because it uses encrypted code to force a copyright message to appear unless you pay.
I have asked them to provide me with unencrypted code and they did, so this is not a violation imho. (you CAN encrypt your code as long as you provide it unencrypted as well).
However in terms of simplicity and comparing the bugs and how good it works, Ostrio's bridge is much better.
Quote from: afonic on August 18, 2007, 02:45:12 PM
I have asked them to provide me with unencrypted code and they did, so this is not a violation imho. (you CAN encrypt your code as long as you provide it unencrypted as well).
Thanks for the information. It is good to know that.
Quote from: Thantos on August 18, 2007, 02:19:50 AMOr maybe Joomla! will create a bridge ;)
Erm, uhhh...hope? :)
Quote from: Thantos on August 18, 2007, 02:19:50 AM
Just to clarify: Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge. Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge ;)
Is that based on personal knowledge, something you've heard or read, or is it just speculation?
I don't want to jump ship just yet if there's still work being done somewhere on SMF-Joomla.
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,203164.0.html
Thanks for the link, but that only brings me back here.
I am sorry if I caused confusion. To my knowledge the Joomla! team doesn't have any plans to create a bridge. I was only trying to imply that another group could do it if they wanted to spend the time and energy. For us to do it how we want to do it would be too costly for us. Another group might find that to be an acceptable cost and go forward with it.
I apologize if my comment made it seem that the Joomla! team indicated that they were going to work on a bridge.
Thanks for clarifying the clarification ;D
Back to moving forward.
/me makes a mental note not to try to inject humor into clarifications :P
Yup, thanks for clarification. :)
Quote from: Sadr on August 17, 2007, 08:25:30 PM
Still, all this talk is making it sound like there will be no more bridges in development for Joomla!, while at the same time I'm looking at one right here (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/), which is supposedly highly functional.
Sadr - You are correct. The JoomlaHacks bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/) is a good choice right now if you want to stay with Joomla!.
Eventually, that bridge will have to become compliant - or you could move to a GPL compliant forum, like phpBB3, or you could move to another CMS. Whether or not the distribution of JoomlaHacks bridge violates Joomla!'s license is not SMF's concern because it's not their bridge. End users do *
not* violate the GPL by using software. Only those who distribute it, violate the license.
Thanks for raising this valid point!
Amy :)
Quote from: AmyStephen on August 19, 2007, 01:45:56 AM
Whether or not the distribution of JoomlaHacks bridge violates Joomla!'s license is not SMF's concern because it's not their bridge.
While you are free to speak your mind on things, please be respectful. If we want to make an observation, we have just as much right as you to post it.
Frankly, you aren't part of the SMF or Joomla! teams, so your words can be just as much applied to yourself, in that the issues between SMF and Joomla! aren't your concern.
Now, lets go back on topic please.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 19, 2007, 03:21:13 AM
While you are free to speak your mind on things, please be respectful. If we want to make an observation, we have just as much right as you to post it.
Motoko-chan - my comment was not intended to be disrespectful, it was just truthful. The question was asked why people don't just use the JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/). You and Orstio immediately commented that the JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/) violates Joomla's GPL. That response did not answer the poster's question. It was the type of response that might cause others to believe it's not okay to use the JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/) because official SMF people mentioned license infringement.
I wanted to clarify for them - the JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/) is not SMF's concern.
I could care less about Joomla! and SMF relationships, so no worries there. It's *people* who use software - those who are in a lurch right now - that I was hoping to clarify the fact that the JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/) is, indeed, a valid choice. Since that was the original question in the first post - I think it was on topic.
Sorry for the confusion and I very much appreciate the opportunity to be able to clarify this. In time, this will all work out. The best thing we can all do is be clear and truthful and specific with our comments. If we do that, we provide people with valid information and trust them to make the right choice for their needs.
Amy :)
Why should it be a valid choice if it violates Joomla's GPL as well?
Quote from: AmyStephen on August 19, 2007, 10:37:27 AM
I wanted to clarify for them - the JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/) is not SMF's concern.
Yes and no. We certainly aren't going to lose any sleep over the joomlahacks bridge being compliant or not. At the same time we aren't going to point our users to something that (in its current form) might become unavailable. That really doesn't solve anyone's long term problems.
Quote
I could care less about Joomla! and SMF relationships
I'm happy to hear that you care about our relationships.
QuoteI wanted to clarify for them - the JoomlaHacks Bridge is not SMF's concern.
It might be. It is a fork of my earlier (GPL) work. I may still own copyright on some of the code.
Let me see something here.... How many times did you link to the JB in the quoted text below?
Quote from: AmyStephen on August 19, 2007, 10:37:27 AM
JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/)
JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/)
JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/)
JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/)
JoomlaHacks Bridge (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,132/Itemid,35/)
Wow, five times. Once was MORE than enough. No need to spam the link here.
Second of all, as was pointed out several times, you are NOT an
OFFICIAL member of either team. Joomla has a rep here, and a nice one at that. Since YOU are not a member of the Joomla team, please stop representing yourself as such.
Onward...
QuoteThat response did not answer the poster's question. It was the type of response that might cause others to believe it's not okay to use the JoomlaHacks Bridge because official SMF people mentioned license infringement.
Actually, this was explained from an official SMF standpoint in the News & Announcements forum. Any further concerns to that should be directed to the OFFICIAL points of contact. The issue isn't up for debate. Period.
QuoteI wanted to clarify for them - the JoomlaHacks Bridge is not SMF's concern.
There you go, trying to sound like an official rep. You're not. Back down, lady.
QuoteI could care less about Joomla! and SMF relationships
Then why the heck are you over HERE trying to stir up trouble? The final decision is in, stop stirring the pot already.
QuoteSorry for the confusion and I very much appreciate the opportunity to be able to clarify this.
It is not
YOUR responsibility to clear the air here...
QuoteThe best thing we can all do is be clear and truthful and specific with our comments.
I disagree. The best thing that we can do is have you stop responding and stirring the pot with this. This has NOTHING to do with you, as evidenced in your replies, both on here, and on the Joomla site.
There's a word that's been coined on these here intarwabs, especially when requested that you stop reporesenting yourself like you're a member of either team and trying to hand out edicts: troll.
Brad, I'm sorry, you know I got a lot of respect for ya, but this person seriously needs to be reigned in. Granted, you can't control what people say, but she's doing nothing but stirring the pot on both sites, which isn't helping the situation any.
Put it to rest, AmyStephen. You've already said you don't give two sh*ts about Joomla and SMF's relationship. That means you have no dog in this fight. Back off before you bury yourself any further, please.
Quote from: Orstio on August 19, 2007, 12:27:43 PM
QuoteI wanted to clarify for them - the JoomlaHacks Bridge is not SMF's concern.
It might be. It is a fork of my earlier (GPL) work. I may still own copyright on some of the code.
I'm certain you do own copyright on some of that code, Orstio. Are you suggesting JoomlaHack is working outside of the rights defined by the GPL? If so, that is absolutely your right to pursue. But, the GPL did afford them the right to fork the code and I do not believe they have violated your rights. I hope you will say so if I am wrong on that point. Your initial comments in this thread, and therefore, my response was about Joomla!'s rights and license.
Thantos - you and Motoko-chan get together and decide - am I supposed to care about that relationship, like you suggest? Or, is it none of my business, like Motoko-chan indicated? Again, I just don't see the relationship between the project teams as being "the issue." I see the end users as being the ones we should all focus on.
Both Joomla! and SMF made decisions. That is the right of both project teams. Now, that those decisions are behind us, can we *please* make valid options available to people? Then, people can make the best choices possible for their needs. That is what the original poster asked, and yes, the JoomlaHacks bridge is the choice at this point, especially for those who want to upgrade to Joomla! v 1.0.13 and stay with SMF.
Please relax. This doesn't have to be a fight and I have no interest in stirring up trouble. We can find the way if we focus on the people impacted by this situation.
Amy
Edit: Removed the link. You already linked it multiple times in your previous post, I'm sure people can find it if they look. Spamming links is not appreciated. - Motoko
QuoteThantos - you and Motoko-chan get together and decide - am I supposed to care about that relationship, like you suggest?
Actually I was pointing out your total mangling of the saying. "I could care less" indicates a level of caring. "I couldn't care less" indicates that you care so little that it'd be impossible for you to care less.
Sorry, this is pretty off-topic but it's kind of funny that the "could care less" / "couldn't care less" debate comes up on this board. I'm a native German speaker and was VERY confused back then in Vancouver when people kept saying "could care less" but actually meant "couldn't care less" - it seems to have the very same meaning over there. I remember asking my language teacher about it (he was a very intelligent and classy fellow) and he just laughed and said:
"Well, you know...I guess we just cannot but be a little oddish at times!" (http://www.dachboden-wg.de/portal/smf/Smileys/dachboden-wg/icon_lol.gif)
(http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/9662/caringje3.png)
(sorry for the off-topic guys) o.O
Oh, and btw, his bug has already been reported (http://weblogs.asp.net/infinitiesloop/archive/2007/01/30/bug-i-couldn-t-care-less.aspx). ;)
rofl! Thanks for that flame baiter. I loved the page and the graph.
Quote from: Douglas on August 19, 2007, 01:27:56 PM
Let me see something here.... How many times did you link to the JB in the quoted text below?
Second of all, as was pointed out several times, you are NOT an OFFICIAL member of either team. Joomla has a rep here, and a nice one at that. Since YOU are not a member of the Joomla team, please stop representing yourself as such.
Onward...
QuoteThat response did not answer the poster's question. It was the type of response that might cause others to believe it's not okay to use the JoomlaHacks Bridge because official SMF people mentioned license infringement.
Actually, this was explained from an official SMF standpoint in the News & Announcements forum. Any further concerns to that should be directed to the OFFICIAL points of contact. The issue isn't up for debate. Period.
QuoteI wanted to clarify for them - the JoomlaHacks Bridge is not SMF's concern.
There you go, trying to sound like an official rep. You're not. Back down, lady.
QuoteI could care less about Joomla! and SMF relationships
Then why the heck are you over HERE trying to stir up trouble? The final decision is in, stop stirring the pot already.
QuoteSorry for the confusion and I very much appreciate the opportunity to be able to clarify this.
It is not YOUR responsibility to clear the air here...
QuoteThe best thing we can all do is be clear and truthful and specific with our comments.
I disagree. The best thing that we can do is have you stop responding and stirring the pot with this. This has NOTHING to do with you, as evidenced in your replies, both on here, and on the Joomla site.
There's a word that's been coined on these here intarwabs, especially when requested that you stop reporesenting yourself like you're a member of either team and trying to hand out edicts: troll.
Brad, I'm sorry, you know I got a lot of respect for ya, but this person seriously needs to be reigned in. Granted, you can't control what people say, but she's doing nothing but stirring the pot on both sites, which isn't helping the situation any.
Put it to rest, AmyStephen. You've already said you don't give two sh*ts about Joomla and SMF's relationship. That means you have no dog in this fight. Back off before you bury yourself any further, please.
TRUE!
Quote from: AmyStephen on August 19, 2007, 03:48:29 PM
...I see the end users as being the ones we should all focus on.
Edit: Removed the link. You already linked it multiple times in your previous post, I'm sure people can find it if they look. Spamming links is not appreciated. - Motoko
I consider myself an END USER, Amy Stephenson and I certainly do not wish YOU focusing on me and I certainly do not need YOUR input. Your site in your profile does not appear to be a Joomla site and I am not able to find the SMF forum there.
Even though I am just an END USER does not mean that I am stupid and need to be spoon fed by you or anyone else some philosophical/political/legal crap...
So thank you Amy for caring about me, an end user of both Joomla and SMF, but please be assured that I receive here a very good, professional support by people whose opinion I respect and trust...
Of course, I don't represent any other end users and this is just my personal opinion.
Anna
Edit: spelling error
As to the original question, I'm still wading through various CMSs including Mambo, Elxir and Typo3. I'm definitely staying with SMF and I definitely need my site integrated/bridged
I got another domain just to experiment with various systems before I commit myself to one. It's a long and frustrating road.
The limited number of extensions of Mambo is a drawback, Elxir has some colorful group of committed people but it's hard to know where they are heading. Typo3 seems like an awesome system with thousands of extensions but it took me a month just to install it... and now six weeks later I'm only beginning to grasp the concepts...
No, I do not intend to stay with Joomla, I do not intend to support that system. The way the latest 'cracking' of their sites was handled by them sealed my decision to move.
I'm not going to rush, maybe still look at some other options... looking at other websites, there is a whole world of choices out there... ;)
Anna
Anna, check your PMs, please.
Quote from: Thantos on August 19, 2007, 05:06:22 PM
QuoteThantos - you and Motoko-chan get together and decide - am I supposed to care about that relationship, like you suggest?
Actually I was pointing out your total mangling of the saying. "I could care less" indicates a level of caring. "I couldn't care less" indicates that you care so little that it'd be impossible for you to care less.
You are right. That was a poor word choice and I apologize for the inconsiderate remark. It truly was not intended as it sounded.
Like others I'm stuck as a; I can't afford to loose my url's & b; I've bought commercial components that are essential and there are no other workable/working alternatives to them.
With the whole in MHO ridiculously silly Joomla GPL issue some of these component developers are not going to continue with Joomla and instead only produce for Mambo but even though the two are very similar some of my vital Joomla components don't work with Mambo and unfortunately all require a login which at present is a single one thanks to Orstio's bridge.
So personally I couldn't care less about GPL and I couldn't care even less about Joomla at this point, I just want a working, supported bridge whether i'ts - GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, GNU FDL, commercial or whatever :o
P.S. The code for the angry smiley is broken.
Quote from: zigzag on August 20, 2007, 02:16:36 PM
Like others I'm stuck as a; I can't afford to loose my url's & b; I've bought commercial components that are essential and there are no other workable/working alternatives to them.
Why not ask the authors if they plan to support other systems? Some of them are probably looking at doing that given non-GPL components are considered illegal now.
Quote from: zigzag on August 20, 2007, 02:16:36 PM
P.S. The code for the angry smiley is broken.
The proper code is:
>:(
Quote from: zigzag on August 20, 2007, 02:16:36 PMWith the whole in MHO ridiculously silly Joomla GPL issue...
Yeah, so much for enforcing the GPL is all about freedom.
The fascist GPL interpretation of the Joomla! guys takes away the freedom I had before to use whatever Joomla! components I wanted to, be it proprietary, open-source or something in between.
It also takes away the freedom of developers to make new Joomla! components and publish them under whatever license they choose.
GPL and freedom? LOL, gimme a break...
Quote from: zigzag on August 20, 2007, 02:16:36 PM
Like others I'm stuck as a; I can't afford to loose my url's
Well, I don't know about your commercial components, but the URLs for a mambo installation would be the same as for Joomla...
I also rely on the Sobi2 component, as yet there is no alternative that will take paid listings - commercial or free, then there's the problem with commercial templates that
may work now but probably won't later. >:(
QuoteThe proper code is...
When you click the smiley it produces this:
>:(
Are you using the WYSIWYG editor?
Quote from: zigzag on August 20, 2007, 04:46:50 PM
I also rely on the Sobi2 component, as yet there is no alternative that will take paid listings - commercial or free, then there's the problem with commercial templates that may work now but probably won't later. >:(
QuoteThe proper code is...
When you click the smiley it produces this: >:(
The developer of SOBI2 has also moved to Mambo:
http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/showthread.php?t=6758&highlight=sobi2
I'll wait a few months still, then decide what to do.
I might just move to Joomlahack's bridge. I just have to make sure that my forum's URL will not change. I hope he uses com_smf option.
Other than that, i HAVE been experiencing some problems with Orstio's bridge. Some users do not get added to the ACL database (i have a custom-made script which syncs the users every day), and others are only logged in to SMF and not Joomla (i haven't been able to resolve this issue). Maybe it's my configuration, since i'm one of the very few that run Joomla + SMF on a Windows enviroment, and even worse for a 1Tb/month website.
However, Orstio's support has been absolutely incredible and i'm totally willing to help, beta test, and whatever it needs to get his bridge going.
I just hope the license issue get's resolved at some point.
Quote from: al0000 on August 20, 2007, 09:55:10 PM
I'll wait a few months still, then decide what to do.
I might just move to Joomlahack's bridge. I just have to make sure that my forum's URL will not change. I hope he uses com_smf option.
Other than that, i HAVE been experiencing some problems with Orstio's bridge. Some users do not get added to the ACL database (i have a custom-made script which syncs the users every day), and others are only logged in to SMF and not Joomla (i haven't been able to resolve this issue). Maybe it's my configuration, since i'm one of the very few that run Joomla + SMF on a Windows enviroment, and even worse for a 1Tb/month website.
However, Orstio's support has been absolutely incredible and i'm totally willing to help, beta test, and whatever it needs to get his bridge going.
I just hope the license issue get's resolved at some point.
The license issue HAS been resolved.although the outcome has not been perhaps what you or I may like, it is not unexpected.
The resolution is, NO bridge (from the SMF side).
Just to be clear, there is NO chance of legal compliance with the "Joomla stance/version" of GPL, NONE.
Even IF there were to be a complete REWRITE (throwing away all the institutional knowledge painfully developed over the last two years and eschewing reasonable performance and tight integration), NOTHING would work.
Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)
Furthermore, their 'current at this particular moment' stance on prosecuting their rights under the GPL license claims no permanence and indeed can be withdrawn at anytime, presumably, after they have finished "cleaning house"
Programming and development resources are neither infinite nor cheap. Neither is the prospect of possible legal claims by an organization that seems to be run by mavericks and zealots - i.e. not guaranteed to act in their own self-interest, OUR THE CONSIDERED INTEREST OF THEIR USER COMMUNITY.
In my humble opinion, it makes no sense to squander the finite development resources, aiming at a capricious target that can shift the goal posts, the playing field and alter the rules of the game. (which they had set) :(
For the aforementioned (and other unmentioned/unmentionable) reasons, development on the bridge has ended.
Other than the foregoing, what does that mean for you and your present problems?
You will currently be able to use the current bridge you DO have and the current versions of Joomla - currently 1.013 (with modifications).
be advised however, that they are actively looking for ways to introduce incompatibilities with Mambo and older bridges and components making it harder for you to 'bridge the gap' as it were ( you may lok @ the pun if you wish)
Quote
Other than that, i HAVE been experiencing some problems with Orstio's bridge. Some users do not get added to the ACL database
Which users have been giving problems?
Can you detect anything in common? (characters in username,time of day database load?
etc?)
what type of registration model are you using?
Mambo, Bridge, CB?
personally, I have the same configuration with none of the problems you describe so maybe its an installation (did you read the docs? :P) problem!
As I posted over at the Joomla Forums (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,193953.msg955390.html#msg955390):
Back on topic, here are the basic choices right now:
- Keep the current version of the "official" bridge and Joomla! you have, while manually patching for any security issues that come up. (Difficult, not a likely long-term solution)
- Use the JH bridge and hope it doesn't get pulled if the developers can't find a way to make it legal or it drops in functionality to satisfy the license issues. (Not all that difficult, works for now)
- Drop the bridging in total. (Depends on how your site works, some can get by better without it than others)
- Move to a different forum system that will pass the legality issue. (A pain, but doable)
- Move to a different CMS. (A pain if you have a lot of content and custom stuff)
Right now, the least painful solutions are the first and second. Until some major security fixes come along (and I don't think changing the password hashing mechanism in the middle of a branch is a good idea - as it does break all bridges for no fix of an existing weakness), holding steady will work fine. If you want to, move to the JH bridge for now. At the least, you can get a bit of time to investigate what you want to do.
Most certainly you picked both Joomla! and SMF after careful examination of choices. You should do the same at this point. The worst thing to do in a case like this is to panic and act on emotions. Any of the bottom three choices are likely to be painful, don't jump at them until you are certain that is the proper path for you.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 02:23:49 PM
- Move to a different CMS. (A pain if you have a lot of content and custom stuff)
Of course, your pain very much depending on which CMS you switch to. Switching to Mambo will be less painful then switching to most other CMSes.
Quote
Right now, the least painful solutions are the first and second. Until some major security fixes come along (and I don't think changing the password hashing mechanism in the middle of a branch is a good idea - as it does break all bridges for no fix of an existing weakness), holding steady will work fine. If you want to, move to the JH bridge for now. At the least, you can get a bit of time to investigate what you want to do.
Either of the first two are good for the short term, but they are not good long term solutions. That is if my understanding that JH was going to drop development of their bridge is correct.
Quote
Most certainly you picked both Joomla! and SMF after careful examination of choices. You should do the same at this point. The worst thing to do in a case like this is to panic and act on emotions. Any of the bottom three choices are likely to be painful, don't jump at them until you are certain that is the proper path for you.
When I started working on the convention's website, the previous webmaster had already installed Joomla! So, when I went looking for a new forum, I looked for one that best combined with Joomla! Our old forum was a preview copy of IPB v2 before they went commercial and we need of moving to a more secure forum package after using IPB for 3 years with no updates. phpBB v2 did not provide the control we needed without serious modifications and phpBB v3 was still a long ways off. It also didn't help that I couldn't find a bridge between the two. SMF v1.1 was already in RC stage and had the features and control we need and had a bridge to Joomla!, so it became our best option at the time. I also picked Orstio's bridge over JH's bridge because Orstio's bridge did not altering any files on either side.
Right now, I'm looking to move over to Mambo after the current convention season is over after the first weekend in October. Two of our existing components are working, but one (a newsletter component) we never really used. The other is Gallery 2, which I want embedded into Mambo and not into SMF.
Quote from: elfishtroll on August 21, 2007, 01:41:03 PM
The license issue HAS been resolved.
although the outcome has not been perhaps what you or I may like, it is not unexpected.
The resolution is, NO bridge (from the SMF side).
Just to be clear, there is NO chance of legal compliance with the "Joomla stance/version" of GPL, NONE.
Even IF there were to be a complete REWRITE (throwing away all the institutional knowledge painfully developed over the last two years and eschewing reasonable performance and tight integration), NOTHING would work.
So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.
How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?
Quote from: elfishtroll on August 21, 2007, 01:41:03 PM
Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)
Here we go again :)
How is this different from Mambo's stance on GPL?
(if possible keeping a logical debate ;))
Quote from: Farix on August 21, 2007, 05:12:54 PM
Quote
Right now, the least painful solutions are the first and second. Until some major security fixes come along (and I don't think changing the password hashing mechanism in the middle of a branch is a good idea - as it does break all bridges for no fix of an existing weakness), holding steady will work fine. If you want to, move to the JH bridge for now. At the least, you can get a bit of time to investigate what you want to do.
Either of the first two are good for the short term, but they are not good long term solutions. That is if my understanding that JH was going to drop development of their bridge is correct.
Correct. The first two solutions will buy you time to do a proper study of what is the best move for you. The point is to not jump to some solution without evaluating its impact on your site.
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.
Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?
Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.
I don't believe we checked if there would be a problem with the SMF license at that point.
Quote from: Farix on August 21, 2007, 05:12:54 PM
Quote from: elfishtroll on August 21, 2007, 01:41:03 PM
Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)
Here we go again :)
How is this different from Mambo's stance on GPL?
(if possible keeping a logical debate ;))
The Mambo Foundation owns all the code in their core software (and most of the rest is LGPL licensed). They have stated that non-GPL extensions are okay with their software. Of course, there isn't a formal notice in the license itself, but we are considering their public statements to act as such at this time.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.
Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?
Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.
So, if (if) the bridge was GPLed and was using smf_api.php and if (if) smf_api.php were GPLed too. It would be ok to be used by the Joomla terms, right?
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Farix on August 21, 2007, 05:12:54 PM
Quote from: elfishtroll on August 21, 2007, 01:41:03 PM
Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)
Here we go again :)
How is this different from Mambo's stance on GPL?
(if possible keeping a logical debate ;))
The Mambo Foundation owns all the code in their core software (and most of the rest is LGPL licensed).
As I pointed before, they dont.
Just to illustrated my point in the 4.6.2 source:
includes/magpierss/*
includes/phpInputFilter/class.inputfilter.php
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 05:46:31 PM
They have stated that non-GPL extensions are okay with their software. Of course, there isn't a formal notice in the license itself, but we are considering their public statements to act as such at this time.
Yes, but how is that different from Joomla ?
QuoteYes, but how is that different from Joomla ?
Joomla has said that it is a violation. With Mambo we only have their word but we are willing to accept that.
Raul let me put it in very plain speech: Mambo has said that the non-GPL extensions are not a violation of their contract. We believe them. We are not going to go digging for possible issues through other people's code. We'll ask them if the bridge is ok and if we get the thumbsup then we'll proceed. End of story.
If I've understood both sides correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between what Mambo says and what Joomla says is:
Mambo and the MF, as holders of all the core copyrights, speak as one. So what they say is true for all it's copyright holders.
Joomla and OSM, not being owners of all their code, cannot speak for all their copyright holders.
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.
Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?
Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.
So, if (if) the bridge was GPLed and was using smf_api.php and if (if) smf_api.php were GPLed too. It would be ok to be used by the Joomla terms, right?
No it wouldn't, to my understanding. You'd still be accessing internal SMF data in that situation (the SMF context array), which you can't do.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 07:30:16 PM
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: Motoko-chan on August 21, 2007, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.
Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.
Quote from: Raul Dias on August 21, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?
Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.
So, if (if) the bridge was GPLed and was using smf_api.php and if (if) smf_api.php were GPLed too. It would be ok to be used by the Joomla terms, right?
No it wouldn't, to my understanding. You'd still be accessing internal SMF data in that situation (the SMF context array), which you can't do.
I see.
So, is anyone willing to document/describe how SMF works regarding:
* User authentication
* User sessions
* User Creation
* User Groups/memberships
* Group Creation
* User/Group ACLs
This regarding:
* database usage
* cookies (if any) usage
Without describing the code behind this?
Quote from: cferd on August 21, 2007, 07:04:29 PM
If I've understood both sides correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between what Mambo says and what Joomla says is:
---snip---
Joomla and OSM, not being owners of all their code, cannot speak for all their copyright holders.
That's right.
So what they are saying is:
"We don't mind distributing NGPLCC (NonGPLCompatibleCode) code for Joomla, but as we dont own 100% of its code, we can't respond for those not part of the Joomla Team. Because of that, if you are distributing code NGPLCC you should be aware of that."Quote from: cferd on August 21, 2007, 07:04:29 PM
--snip--
Mambo and the MF, as holders of all the core copyrights, speak as one. So what they say is true for all it's copyright holders.
--snip--
Almost that.
(again I am not trying to raise the SMF issue anymore as Thantos made clear above thats end of story)Mambo/MF is the copyright holder of all Mambo core code written by Mambo team and contributions.
And the point I made before is that this
does not cover 100% of Mambo.
Mambo uses external (in the sense of not developed by Mambo developers) libraries. As this libraries are not contribution for Mambo, but used by Mambo (see the difference?) the copyright holders of this libraries is not the Mambo/MF, but the libraries authors.
This libraries are basically licensed as:
* BSD
* MIT
* PHP License
* LGPL
* GPL
So this
GPL libraries copyright holders have the right to "sue" as the Mambo/MF have, because their work is being violated too.
This is the missed point regarding Mambo.
The same is true for LGPL work too.
Most people knows that LGPL can be linked to other licenses without a problem.
What most people doesn't know is that a
LGPL work becomes GPL when linked to a GPL code.
This means that what I said above regarding the GPL is valid for LGPL libraries too.
This chart explains this matter:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility)
So, when Mambo/MF says that there is no problem with NGPLCC.
This is not 100% true. There is a problem as I showed above.
Joomla did the same stating that they "dont care" about it, but made the point clear that they are not the only copyright holders of all code that comes with Joomla.