**In lieu of the enforcement of the GPL, this component is unavailable until further notice. **
What gives?
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.
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 Forum post (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg864425.html#msg864425) - and then seconds after the Joomla Extensions Directory Editors removed your JED Listing Google Cache (http://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).
Can I safely assume that this will not affect Mambo (bridge) where there is no such restriction ?
QuoteSo 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.
QuoteCan 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.
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.
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
QuoteIf 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.
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:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
QuoteIf 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. ??? ??? ???
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.
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
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.
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. :)
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman) 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.
Why can't this bridge be re-released under the GNU/GPL license ala Joomlahacks bridge?
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
QuoteIf 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".
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! :D
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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Actually, interpreting it in the purest form is what my quote above is trying to convey.
QuoteIt also (obviously) makes function calls to SMF
That's what I meant here:
QuoteOnly 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.
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.
Ugh, the crap that this software has to go through with Joomla.
I wonder how many other plugins have just been deemed "non compatible" because of this.
Just so that people rest easy for now -- we may have a solution with a go-between file licensed under LGPL. This would essentially allow the linking of the bridge to the LGPL file, and the linking of the LGPL to Joomla.
I have yet to restructure and package it, but I have tested the concept, and it functions as expected.
Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 08:36:48 PM
Just so that people rest easy for now -- we may have a solution with a go-between file licensed under LGPL. This would essentially allow the linking of the bridge to the LGPL file, and the linking of the LGPL to Joomla.
I have yet to restructure and package it, but I have tested the concept, and it functions as expected.
This sounds like an ideal solution to me... I became an instant convert to the value of SMF after having tried other web forum products. What's more, I see the combination of Joomla and SMF to be an ideal solution for nonprofit 'community' kind of organizations. That is, they can hold 'virtual' meetings, conduct polls, and so forth thru SMF in addition to discussion with others. Their 'long-term' content for their site can be provided thru Joomla. The critical aspect of simplicity, in that only one set of user records exists AND access rights can easily be defined is needed in such situations. Stand-alone installs, in those instances, would only create confusion and detract from usefulness.
Thanks Orstio, and everyone else at SMF, for looking for a solution to this issue! :)
Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 09:46:34 AM
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.
Can you do this?
I have no issues with installing by hand, I do have issues with having no bridge...
Quote from: davidsev on June 20, 2007, 08:29:03 PM
Can you do this?
I have no issues with installing by hand, I do have issues with having no bridge...
Same here...
Oh lordy I sure hope this gets worked out quickly - I postponed an upgrade to Joomla, and now I can't until I can get a bridge for smf - son of a *&^@#-
Thanks for all the work being done on it though! =)
So this is the reason why I can't see the downloadable bridge to Joomla in the downloads section? I had been using the bridge here for almost 2 years and just a question when will it be available again?
I am forced to use the SMF integration from JoomlaHacks.
Don't you have a copy of the bridge in HDD
Quote from: Orstio 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.
Why not just ask the Free Software Foundation?
I mean the "boss" of the FSF seems to be a very cool guy from what ive heard and he has the same "ideas" as we do, love great pieces of software for FREE!
I still don't get what this is all about, maybe because im german and my english is not very perfect, so there may be some understanding issues....
I mean no matter if it is joomla or ist SMF, they all have the same thoughts: providing a great pice of software for Free, so why we are fcking around with that damn licences?
Just go to a simple level, why can't "Free" and "Free" match together? Or what are the differences between "Free" and "Free" ? I cant get that into my head - sorry and very confused......
Regards, Christian
although SMF is Free (as in, it costs no money), the license restriction that SMF requires the copyright to remain unaltered means that it is not "free software" as in GPL.
The way Joomla is interpreting the GPL license, they claim that any utility that uses Joomla function calls must also fall under the broadest GPL lisence, which means that the bridge (which uses SMF's license requirements) can not do so, if it is to call joomla functions (and it basically needs to do so, in order to be a bridge)
IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Having read the license model they are working from, I can honestly say that it is distinctly unclear what they actually mean. Maybe if I had 20 years of legal terminology behind me, I might... but to even the above average reader, that piece of legalese is the same as vietnamese (which I don't speak).
Quote from: Kindred on June 26, 2007, 02:53:11 PM
although SMF is Free (as in, it costs no money), the license restriction that SMF requires the copyright to remain unaltered means that it is not "free software" as in GPL.
The way Joomla is interpreting the GPL license, they claim that any utility that uses Joomla function calls must also fall under the broadest GPL lisence, which means that the bridge (which uses SMF's license requirements) can not do so, if it is to call joomla functions (and it basically needs to do so, in order to be a bridge)
IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Having read the license model they are working from, I can honestly say that it is distinctly unclear what they actually mean. Maybe if I had 20 years of legal terminology behind me, I might... but to even the above average reader, that piece of legalese is the same as vietnamese (which I don't speak).
this is quite the funny post!
Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 08:36:48 PM
Just so that people rest easy for now -- we may have a solution with a go-between file licensed under LGPL. This would essentially allow the linking of the bridge to the LGPL file, and the linking of the LGPL to Joomla.
I have yet to restructure and package it, but I have tested the concept, and it functions as expected.
Not to nag...but do you have an ETA on when you think this will be public? I was playing with the Joomlahacks bridge (I'd thought there were two Bridges, only found one...then found this thread.) The joomlahacks one seems OK, a bit convoluted - wanted to try this one as well.
As far as GPL stuff...I see Joomla's move here as stupid. Plenty of open source software interfaces with non-GPL software. Correct me if I am wrong, but by Joomla's standards, using open source software with Windows is wrong...since the software might call a Windows function to create a new thread, get shared memory and a semaphore for it...etc, no?
Quote from: Kindred on June 26, 2007, 02:53:11 PM
IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
This sums up the way I see it. Maybe I'm missing something though. Personally, I'm not NUTS about open source. Its good, yes - but I also see a bloody good use in pay software - for example, show me an IDE and debugger that is open source and can compete with Visual Studio - KDevelop and GDB don't count - they can't compete. Hell, GDB can't even do a step out!
This interpretation is stupid, on the part of the folks who made the decision to have the bridge removed. The whole function of a bridge is to do just what it name implies: to mediate between two different platforms or systems. While I understand that the bridge is licensed just as SMF is, but that can be changed, while SMF can not.
There is a question I must ask. Take this situation hypothetically. What if SMF (and its bridge) were under GPL and Joomla was under the hybrid, custom license?
The bridge is distributed by SMF. It links a non GPL software to the GPL, joomla. This is the problem, according to Joomla's interpretation. Because the bridge calls joomla functions, it must be GPL. Because the bridge also calls SMF functions, SMF must be GPL...
it's a vicious circle...
If SMF were GPL (and it's not), then it would be up to the SMF legal team to determine their interpretation of the license.
All this talk may be moot, depending on what it is that Orstio is trying to accomplish with the LGPL, but anyway, because the bridge is technically part of Joomla once installed, I agree that it should be GPL. But unless I'm missing something in the licence when reading the bit "EACH OTHER" which would signify something mutual, SMF would not need to be under the GPL. SMF does nothing on it's own in relation to Joomla. It makes no function calls to either J! or the bridge. So IMHO, as the plug-in, SMF should not be considered to be one with Joomla (a single program).
QuoteWhile I understand that the bridge is licensed just as SMF is, but that can be changed, while SMF can not.
For those who have been around a few years, they will recall that earlier bridges were GPL. That's a mistake I won't be making again.
QuoteIt makes no function calls to either J! or the bridge.
Yes, in fact it does, which is part of the problem. SMF's integration hooks are function calls to the bridge.
Quote from: Orstio on June 27, 2007, 05:47:53 PM
For those who have been around a few years, they will recall that earlier bridges were GPL. That's a mistake I won't be making again.
What went wrong? Lots of us haven't been here that long....
Quote from: davidsev on June 28, 2007, 02:34:33 PM
What went wrong? Lots of us haven't been here that long....
I bet someone stole his code...changed 2 lines, and redistributed it without giving credit to Orstio...just a guess.
Anyway, any idea on when the bridge might be available again? Thanks!
RA
Quote from: RampantAndroid on June 29, 2007, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: davidsev on June 28, 2007, 02:34:33 PM
What went wrong? Lots of us haven\'t been here that long....
I bet someone stole his code...changed 2 lines, and redistributed it without giving credit to Orstio...just a guess.
Yes and maybe the guys from Joomlahacks? just a guess also from me...
I would instead think that the problem is that using releasing the bridge GPL means that SMF would also need to be made GPL, which is the problem that Orstio wants to avoid.
I can understand not wanting to release SMF under the GPL, such that the copyright attribution must remain on the page ... so that is where we are.
The LGPL for part of the bridge and the SMF license for the other part should make this work OK ... SMF only calls the SMF part and Joomla only calls the LPGL part .. that would seem to be doable.
of course, that complicates the bridge to another level.
Personally, with all of the developers leaving the joomla-ship, I would suggest mambo.
Quote from: Kindred on July 03, 2007, 10:32:04 AM
Personally, with all of the developers leaving the joomla-ship, I would suggest mambo.
I'm unsure what you mean here - are you referring to mod devs leaving Joomla and working for Mambo only, or do you mean that some of the devs for Joomla itself are leaving (and creating YAC, Yet Another Cms)?
a bunch of joomla devs quit...
many of the 3rd party component developers are not going to do any more development because thye don't want their products released under GPL.
It seems a fitting end for Joomla...yet Mambo keeps going. Hah!
Sorry, I'm VERY amused.
I am sure a lot of the debate surrounding the Joomla license comes from the many commercial components and extensions that can be purchased or indeed "need" to be purchased in order to actually install and use.
It certainly creates confusion for users this is for sure.
Quote from: redone on July 03, 2007, 03:25:29 PM
I am sure a lot of the debate surrounding the Joomla license comes from the many commercial components and extensions that can be purchased or indeed "need" to be purchased in order to actually install and use.
It certainly creates confusion for users this is for sure.
Maybe its because I have done plenty of PHP Dev work myself, and been around software development for a while as well, I'm not at all confused...I understand quite well that some software is open source and free, some is free and not open source, and so on...IMO, it isn't hard to understand it; there are a plethora of Wikipedia articles, blog posts, forum posts and FAQs available for the average user to read up on types of software. As far as I see it, if someone is looking to install a website of their own and customize it, then they have some foreknowledge of the field - if they lack this foreknowledge, then they should stick to using free sites such as blogspot, or be ready to do plenty of reading (maybe visit a friendly IRC Channel or forum.)
I don't see "It confuses people" as a reason to cripple or limit software...Photoshop can confuse people, but you don't see anyone running to make it so simple its next to useless...
Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 06:06:58 PM
I don't see "It confuses people" as a reason to cripple or limit software...Photoshop can confuse people, but you don't see anyone running to make it so simple its next to useless...
Speaking for myself, I believe the confusion is coming more from how to interpret the licenses involved so you can figure out what you can or can't do in a given situation. Gotta keep in mind site needs in determining what you're going to setup and/or use after all. At least, that's where my confusion point is at. Should add that I just finished up one of the 'business legal issues' courses I'm taking as part of my MBA program and asked my instructor - a lawyer - for some comment. She works in dealing with intellectual property law primarily, so I thought she'd have some knowledge. In a nutshell, she says she's confused over the wording and ramifications. So, if a lawyer with that kind of background can't make sense of it easily, it is no wonder it confuses us ordinary folk!
That, in a nutshell is what I'd like to see. Clear ideas of what I can do, or can't do, with open source products. At least with SMF, I've got a very clear picture!
I
Quote from: ComputerLady on July 03, 2007, 07:37:04 PM
Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 06:06:58 PM
I don't see "It confuses people" as a reason to cripple or limit software...Photoshop can confuse people, but you don't see anyone running to make it so simple its next to useless...
Speaking for myself, I believe the confusion is coming more from how to interpret the licenses involved so you can figure out what you can or can't do in a given situation. Gotta keep in mind site needs in determining what you're going to setup and/or use after all. At least, that's where my confusion point is at. Should add that I just finished up one of the 'business legal issues' courses I'm taking as part of my MBA program and asked my instructor - a lawyer - for some comment. She works in dealing with intellectual property law primarily, so I thought she'd have some knowledge. In a nutshell, she says she's confused over the wording and ramifications. So, if a lawyer with that kind of background can't make sense of it easily, it is no wonder it confuses us ordinary folk!
That, in a nutshell is what I'd like to see. Clear ideas of what I can do, or can't do, with open source products. At least with SMF, I've got a very clear picture!
I used to view SMF with contempt because of its copyright and such, but I never researched it on my own, I relied on a friend who is more into open source software, who descrubed SMF as being more....assinine. Now that I'd seen for myself how good SMF is, and WHY it is copyrighted...I think I prefer the method used by SMF. I honestly think SMF rivals vBulletin, though some parts are a little more streamlined (but hell, its free, so I'm not complaining! Its better than PHPBB2 for sure, PHPBB3 has its own issues that I think kill it. One major issue is the lack of a module management area...you have to mess with code. I have no issues with changing code, I know PHP well, but it makes upgrades....interesting.
Anyway....if GPL truly meant to say copyrighted software cannot call or be called by GPL software, then why do I see open source software for Windows...I mean, calling a function to create a new thread is using Windows! Gasp!
Joomla can stick it IMO. I was dead set on using Joomla until now. I think I'll look for a Drupal bridge to SMF again, then default to Mambo if I have to.
Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 09:55:58 PM
I used to view SMF with contempt because of its copyright and such, but I never researched it on my own, I relied on a friend who is more into open source software, who descrubed SMF as being more....assinine. Now that I'd seen for myself how good SMF is, and WHY it is copyrighted...I think I prefer the method used by SMF. I honestly think SMF rivals vBulletin, though some parts are a little more streamlined (but hell, its free, so I'm not complaining! Its better than PHPBB2 for sure, PHPBB3 has its own issues that I think kill it. One major issue is the lack of a module management area...you have to mess with code. I have no issues with changing code, I know PHP well, but it makes upgrades....interesting.
Anyway....if GPL truly meant to say copyrighted software cannot call or be called by GPL software, then why do I see open source software for Windows...I mean, calling a function to create a new thread is using Windows! Gasp!
Joomla can stick it IMO. I was dead set on using Joomla until now. I think I'll look for a Drupal bridge to SMF again, then default to Mambo if I have to.
Should add, to explain about the background for the lawyer for that course, that she specializes in the entertainment business involving movies, videos, songs, etc. She's admitted she plans to broaden her understanding on this topic after studying it as these factors could have an impact on the clients she represents. (Song artists, record studios, movie production companies, etc.) After all, many of these entities do have - or want to have - websites as part of their marketing plans.
I agree in so far as SMF's license is concerned too. Fairly easy to understand with the do's and the don'ts for developers very evident. The model for SMF, as I see it, balances quite nicely the concerns over product protection and developer contributions against the desire that it be open source. I've not spent as much time reading over the GPL license, which is something I'm going to need to do.
Should also add that I've tried other web forum products myself, and keep coming back to SMF. Had a suggestion to a combination of Joomla, Community Builder, and Fireboard. http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,2134/Itemid,35/
(New forum product designed specifically for Joomla in beta testing.)
While I know I should probably look at the combo from the back-end before making comments, I've reservations about the idea in advance. First, there's the fact I wasn't overly impressed with Community Builder itself in previous tests. After all, the permission and access rights you give to groups of people within the forum will often differ substantially from those given to those same parties in Joomla. Content inside SMF is usually considered transient and not more permanent in nature such as that stored in Joomla. Being able to define different policies is a must.
Then there's the fact this is a
beta product... Need I really say more about the risks involved in using beta software on active sites? :o
Quote from: Kindred on June 26, 2007, 02:53:11 PM
although SMF is Free (as in, it costs no money), the license restriction that SMF requires the copyright to remain unaltered means that it is not "free software" as in GPL.
The way Joomla is interpreting the GPL license, they claim that any utility that uses Joomla function calls must also fall under the broadest GPL lisence, which means that the bridge (which uses SMF's license requirements) can not do so, if it is to call joomla functions (and it basically needs to do so, in order to be a bridge)
IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Having read the license model they are working from, I can honestly say that it is distinctly unclear what they actually mean. Maybe if I had 20 years of legal terminology behind me, I might... but to even the above average reader, that piece of legalese is the same as vietnamese (which I don't speak).
Kindred -
Does SMF offer bridges to WordPress, Typo3, Drupal or Plone? I suspect not as each of those subscribe to the same GPL position.
Also, I wonder about the Mambo "position?" I am certainly *not* a lawyer, but I believe I have heard it said many times that each individual copyright holder can enforce the GPL. So, I am not certain *who* can make blanket statements about any GPL'ed software. I believe each of the individual copyright holders can enforce the license. If I am not mistaken, most of the Joomla! folks are also Mambo copyright holders. Again, I really don't know, this is what I've read around the blogs and various forums.
There's always FireBoard (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,2134/Itemid,35/), for those who require integration. It's GPL'ed, like Joomla!. Also, integration can take place within the template -- just like Joomla.org does now. Visitors really do not notice a difference.
Or, better still, maybe SMF would consider the GPL? :) That would be
sweet and could certainly open up all kinds of opportunities for using SMF.
Anyway, just a few thoughts as we brainstorm adaptations needed to continue forward.
Amy :)
Quote from: Kindred on July 03, 2007, 01:54:43 PM
a bunch of joomla devs quit...
many of the 3rd party component developers are not going to do any more development because thye don't want their products released under GPL.
Kindred - one Joomla! developer quit.
Amy you are mistaken, few quit.
Is there some sort of official announcement about devs quitting?... or where are you getting this info from?.
What's so important about being strictly GPL anyways... don't think its worth loosing a bunch of users/devs.
From Orstio, as a person:
QuoteDoes SMF offer bridges to WordPress, Typo3, Drupal or Plone? I suspect not as each of those subscribe to the same GPL position.
No, it doesn't. Not necessarily because of their GPL position. Drupal, for instance, has several function and variable name collisions that make a true bridge impossible. I found Typo3 impossible to install in a sub-directory without reconfiguring the server, which I found unprofessional/unacceptable. If Joomla wishes to follow in those footsteps, so be it. I haven't gotten around to WordPress yet, but thanks for the heads-up: I won't bother.
QuoteAlso, I wonder about the Mambo "position?" I am certainly *not* a lawyer, but I believe I have heard it said many times that each individual copyright holder can enforce the GPL. So, I am not certain *who* can make blanket statements about any GPL'ed software. I believe each of the individual copyright holders can enforce the license. If I am not mistaken, most of the Joomla! folks are also Mambo copyright holders. Again, I really don't know, this is what I've read around the blogs and various forums.
That would be an incorrect and uneducated statement. Miro signed over full copyright of all Mambo code (and other things) to the Mambo Foundation in December of 2005, several months after the Joomla fork. Miro no longer exists, so there would be nobody left to be sued, were it the case. IOW, Miro signed off the copyright that anyone at Joomla had prior. Miro can't be sued for this action, because it doesn't exist anymore, and the opportunity to sue has long passed. (read: People who worked for Mambo/Miro before December 2005 might still have copyright on Joomla code because it was forked before the sign-over, but not on current Mambo code. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing to be owned by a corporate entity after all?)
There are only two libraries left in Mambo 4.6 that are not either owned by the Mambo Foundation, nor under LGPL, and there is no chance that those two libraries are used directly by any third party developers, so absolutely no worries there. The Mambo Foundation has made their position (http://mambo-foundation.org/content/view/12/8/) clear, and the code, other than those two libraries which will never be used by third parties, is either LGPL, or owned solely by the Mambo Foundation.
As I have said before, (and is explicitly stated by the FSF) it is up to each copyright holder to decide how they will enforce their license. Joomla has made their decision, and the Mambo Foundation has also made their own. It should also be noted that the president of OSM refuses to comment (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187145.0.html) on whether or not Joomla has had any notice given about GPL compliance from any of these invisible copyright holders (whether they be Darth Vader or the devil himself -- they seem quite mysterious, perhaps we should call Scooby and the Gang). Perhaps the president of OSM should be notified that the FSF is not a copyright holder (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187419.msg888728.html#msg888728), and therefore can't "go after" anyone? ;) Let's keep in mind as well that it is up to each copyright holder to decide how they will enforce their license.
That also means it is not the responsibility of any copyright holder to act as a ward for any other copyright holder. It is not Joomla/OSM's responsibility to enforce the GPL by any other copyright holder's interpretation. This negates any argument that there is a Darth Vader lurking in the background. No third party developer has been contacted by anyone, except for the public statement by OSM. No invisible copyright holder has contacted any other third party developer about license violation of Joomla extensions (and yes, I can, and do know this for certain). I am also aware of several Joomla copyright holders who were not contacted by Joomla/OSM in regards to this matter, so nobody has any precedent to imply any former copyright holder has made any statement on the licensing of third party Joomla extensions whatsoever. Please do not attempt to misdirect people's attention to the imaginary enforcement of invisible copyright holders who may or may not exist. I think it is extremely cowardly to combine a statement as OSM has made, and the attempt to imply that there may be unknown copyright holders that are the main pressure (or any pressure for that matter) behind the move. I think it's even worse to make an attempt to imply that this is also the case of other (competing) softwares like Mambo. If one makes such a bold statement, one should also have the backbone to own it. Let's come out of the closet on the fact that this is Joomla/OSM's decision, and nobody else's.
From Orstio, as a developer:
QuoteOr, better still, maybe SMF would consider the GPL? That would be sweet and could certainly open up all kinds of opportunities for using SMF.
SMF will NEVER consider GPL. SMF's predecessor, YaBBSE, was GPL. The creators of SMF had several good reasons for choosing a non-GPL compatible license for their new product. While the GPL opens up all kinds of opportunities for the use of SMF, it also opens up all kinds of opportunities for the abuse of SMF. Remember that a license has absolutely no jurisdiction over the intention of its users (abusers). The third freedom (the freedom to modify and redistribute) is actually a detriment to the end user, as a developer can (and historically has proven) that they can release a substandard product claiming to the unwitting end user that it is superior, which actually serves nothing but to sever a community and create havoc and confusion. ( a former boss of mine used to say "The road to Hell is paved in good intentions.")
SMF's current stance on Joomla is to remain hands-off, at least until Joomla/OSM can make
a clear statement on the enforcement of their interpretation of their license.
Because SMF is an independent project, we have continued development of all bridges to other CMS softwares, including Mambo, e107, Xoops, and iGamingCMS. If one wishes to use the power of SMF alongside an appropriate CMS, I suggest testing out those options.
I have also recently been looking at the feasability of bridging with ExV2 and Exponent. As per my contact with them, the developers of those two CMS softwares seem open to third party development of any kind/license.
Orstio -
Thanks for your response. I was really responding to Kindred's comment "IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face."
Joomla! did not change their license. They have been and continue to use the GPL. But they did announce (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/74/) they are committed to compliance with the GNU/GPL license. I mainly want to point out that this is not a "stupid" or unusual "interpretation." It is the same stance that WordPress, Drupal, Plone and Typo3 have.
If SMF tries to bridge to any GPL-compliant CMS these challenges will be faced. You had a possible workaround (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865852.html#msg865852) - a bridge for a bridge - but have found that unacceptable and probably a bit silly, I suppose. Maybe, in the end, it will be reconsidered, I don't know. Clearly that is your right to choose which way, if any, you want to proceed.
It's perfectly fine if SMF does not want to consider the GPL and no one should criticize this project for it's decision. In the same way, let's also show respect to the Joomla! copyright holders for their licensing decisions, too.
Regarding Elin's comment, it is hardly unusual that legal issues, if such issues exist, are not discussed openly. Certainly you understand that is the stance any organization would take.
Here is the discussion on Mambo (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187910.0.html). Like I said, I am not an expert or even well informed on these matters, but clearly there is a difference of opinion from people in the know on the copyright holder question and individual rights.
SMF is entitled to it's position and it is good to communicate openly with end users so that they can make plans. There are other options for CMSes that work with SMF and there are other options for forums that work with Joomla!. And, it will continue to be possible to use both SMF and Joomla! and integrate at the template - just like Joomla! org does very successfully now. These are not life altering choices here and nothing for anyone to get too worked up about. These are two good projects *hopefully* trying to figure out how to make things work.
Look - Orstio - you and I have always enjoyed a friendly relationship and I am not trying to stir things up. Just trying to clarify a few facts that I believe were "cloudy."
Thanks,
Amy :)
@Aravot - maybe I am not understanding the specifics of what people are talking about? There was only one J! core member who resigned. Now that I think about it, though, I do not believe he was even in the developer group. I believe he was actually in the Forum Administration group. Other than that, no one from Joomla! core or OSM quit - at least not that I know of. Please correct me if I am wrong, though! Thanks!
Amy,
I never said that joomla changed its license, I said they changed their interpretation. If this had been their interpretation of the GPL from day 1, the majority of the 3rd party developers probably would never have jumped onto the joomla bandwagon.
They annoucned that they were committed to compliance... but they re-evaluated what that compliance actually meant.... and IN MY OPINION, that was rather stupid and short-sighted of them. IMO, it's a poor decision/interpretation because, after having read the GPL, I can just as clearly support the other side of the argument (i.e. it's not at all clear)...
(oh, and Orstio, I believe there actually is some sort of bridge (or at least some sort of integration) for SMF -> Wordpress, and I swear I saw someone do a Drupal linkage...)
Thanks for your response, Kindred. I am sorry if it sounded like I suggested you said they changed their license. I didn't mean to suggest that. And, you are entitled to your opinion! lol! I'd consider less inflammatory words, but, hey, that's okay, too!
Dries Buytaert has posted in the Joomla! forums that all extensions to Drupal must be GPL-compliant and he indicated that opinion was supported by the FSF. If there is a bridge to Drupal it *must be* GPL to be listed on the Drupal.org site. That, I am confident of. Same is true for WordPress.
Of course, that doesn't mean people are always abiding by the copyright holders instructions and certainly could be offering non-compliant modules, etc., outside of official support sites. But the official stance regarding the GPL is strict.
Thanks, again, for your response. I am certain it will all work out in the end.
Amy :)
QuoteLook - Orstio - you and I have always enjoyed a friendly relationship and I am not trying to stir things up. Just trying to clarify a few facts that I believe were "cloudy."
I agree, so let's clarify some facts a little further.
QuoteJoomla! did not change their license. They have been and continue to use the GPL.
That is factually correct.
QuoteBut they did announce they are committed to compliance with the GNU/GPL license.
That is not factually correct, and should read:
"But they did announce they are committed to compliance with the FSF's interpretation of the GNU/GPL license."
Keep in mind it is not the only interpretation of the GPL, and, as the FSF has stated, it is up to each copyright holder to choose how they will enforce the license. In this case, it is not up to anyone but Joomla/OSM. That needs to remain clear. (Please don't imply Darth Vader again, I've already dispelled that myth above. :P )
QuoteIf SMF tries to bridge to any GPL-compliant CMS these challenges will be faced.
Not true. If SMF tries to bridge to any CMS that interprets the GPL in the same way that Joomla (and, as you have pointed out, Drupal, Typo3, and Wordpress) have interpreted it, then that is the case. But, again, it is up to each copyright holder to choose how it will enforce the license. For example, both e107 and Mambo are GPL, but choose to allow third party extensions that are not GPL-compatible. As the copyright holders, that is their choice; not Joomla's, nor Drupal's, nor Typo3's, nor FSF's.
The choice of how to enforce the license is made by people, not by the license. Joomla is not forced to enforce the license in this way by the GPL itself. It is their choice to interpret it in this way. Yes, other CMS developers also interpret it in the same way, but that does not mean that all CMS developers need to interpret it in this way.
As a consequential result of Joomla's decision, I now contact each CMS to ensure their stance on the GPL before doing any bridge work whatsoever. There is no point in wasting my time as I have with Joomla, and there is no point in disappointing future users of SMF by discontinuing a product due to a changing of the interpretation of a license.
Quote(oh, and Orstio, I believe there actually is some sort of bridge (or at least some sort of integration) for SMF -> Wordpress, and I swear I saw someone do a Drupal linkage...)
Yes, there are attempts at it, but nothing distributed from here. There is some concern about the licensing/distribution of the smf_api.php for Drupal, however. It was apparently intended to be released under the BSD license, but was never legally assigned, so falls under the SMF license. Drupal is currently violating both their interpretation of the GPL and the SMF license with distributing that.
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 06, 2007, 10:59:57 PM
it will continue to be possible to use both SMF and Joomla! and integrate at the template - just like Joomla! org does very successfully now.
This is not practical for most of us, as we need to sync users and not to maintain two user bases.
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 06, 2007, 10:59:57 PM
@Aravot - maybe I am not understanding the specifics of what people are talking about? There was only one J! core member who resigned. Now that I think about it, though, I do not believe he was even in the developer group. I believe he was actually in the Forum Administration group. Other than that, no one from Joomla! core or OSM quit - at least not that I know of. Please correct me if I am wrong, though! Thanks!
The list is missing David Gal
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/board,371.0.html
Aravot -
Yes, David Gal took personal leave awhile ago and resigned his position prior to the retreat. Certainly, his leaving was not related to the licensing issue, if that is what is suggested.
And, yes, there were a number of options I listed...I'm certainly not here to debate. I just believe this will all work out and the choices are numerous.
HTH,
Amy :)
Orstio -
Look - I am *not* here to defend or explain or convert anyone. If you don't like the GPL or the FSF, fine. That's okay with me! But, please don't bother to "dispel myths" for me, either. I support the Joomla! copyright holders right to establish their own licensing guidelines, just as I support SMF's rights to license as they choose.
Quote from: Orstio on July 07, 2007, 12:16:23 AM
For example, both e107 and Mambo are GPL, but choose to allow third party extensions that are not GPL-compatible. As the copyright holders, that is their choice; not Joomla's, nor Drupal's, nor Typo3's, nor FSF's.
Orstio, it is the right of each
individual copyright holder to enforce the license. Even just one of them. Regardless of Joomla's or Drupal's "official" position - it only requires one individual copyright holder to act. It doesn't take the entire group to agree. Joomla!'s announcement can be viewed as a courtesy. Truly, it didn't change a thing. Even the developers for a 3rd party library included in core could act to enforce the GPL. A developer who contributed code years ago can enforce the GPL. Anyone who is a copyright holder for the software can enforce the GPL.
That is true for any GPL'ed software - doesn't really matter what is posted in a forum FAQ. People are skating on thin ice if they think otherwise.
++++
Now, to point: an SMF bridge is doable in a GPL environment. You have already demonstrated how and Johan concurred. (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865852.html#msg865852) That approach will work with any GPL environment - be it Drupal or WordPress or Joomla! or Mambo.
Why not move forward since there appears to be an agreement that your proposed SMF bridge will work with the Joomla! license? What is stopping this? Licensing issues are
not in your way. So, what is?
Amy :)
QuoteLook - I am *not* here to defend or explain or convert anyone. If you don't like the GPL or the FSF, fine. That's okay with me! But, please don't bother to "dispel myths" for me, either.
I don't dispell the myth of the unknown copyright holders for you, Amy. I am well aware that you have both the knowledge and intelligence to understand the FUD of the unknown copyright holders (That sounds like the title of a bad pulp fiction novel, doesn't it? ;D). I am also certain that you understand the legal obligations of those copyright holders, if any do in fact exist. Please don't misread my posts as disrespect towards you on a personal level. I think you know that is not the case. We definitely do not agree on our views of software licensing and what that means for the protection of end users, but I do respect your opinion on the matter.
I dispell the myth for the unwitting readers of this topic, who may actually believe that there are unknown copyright holders.
QuoteOrstio, it is the right of each individual copyright holder to enforce the license. Even just one of them. Regardless of Joomla's or Drupal's "official" position - it only requires one individual copyright holder to act. It doesn't take the entire group to agree. Joomla!'s announcement can be viewed as a courtesy. Truly, it didn't change a thing. Even the developers for a 3rd party library included in core could act to enforce the GPL. A developer who contributed code years ago can enforce the GPL. Anyone who is a copyright holder for the software can enforce the GPL.
That is true for any GPL'ed software - doesn't really matter what is posted in a forum FAQ. People are skating on thin ice if they think otherwise.
Right, and as I pointed out two posts ago, it is not Joomla/OSM's responsibility to enforce the license for those people who may not even exist. Again, not a single third party developer has been contacted by any copyright holder, other than OSM's announcement. All this talk of copyright holders who are not a part of Joomla/OSM is ridiculous, and true FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt). If a copyright holder wishes to exercise rights in regards to the license, that copyright holder will need to come forward and make that claim -- that is their individual legal obligation, and OSMs announcement does not cover that for them. I really hate repeating myself, especially to the same person, time and again, so please don't bring up the unknown copyright holders (Darth Vader) again. That myth is put to rest here. There is no Darth Vader lurking in the Joomla shadows, nor in the shadows of any other CMS. There is absolutely no need for fear of any unknown copyright holder.
Joomla's announcement can be viewed as a courtesy: You are absolutely correct there. It definitely gave third party developers a lot of time to consider whether they should continue working with Joomla 1.5 before its release, or move on to other CMSs and work with their clients to migrate.
QuoteNow, to point: an SMF bridge is doable in a GPL environment. You have already demonstrated how and Johan concurred. That approach will work with any GPL environment - be it Drupal or WordPress or Joomla! or Mambo.
Why not move forward since there appears to be an agreement that your proposed SMF bridge will work with the Joomla! license? What is stopping this? Licensing issues are not in your way. So, what is?
I'll point out that the date on my posts (and Johan's) there precedes the date of the core team talking about how templates, and even the use of things as essential as $mainframe and $database would render work "derivitive". This would mean using $mainframe in the LGPL file would be unacceptable, as it would make the LGPL file a GPL release (viral nature of the GPL), and that GPL release would link directly to the bridge (read: violation). So, I'd be left with a simplest solution of not one, but two layers of libraries, one GPL, one LGPL, and then the bridge.
This is unacceptable from a performance standpoint. There are bridged sites much larger than the forum at joomla.org that would simply choke on the extra code and RAM required. There are a small group who complain about the extra load time now -- well it would get far worse with the added layers of communication between redundant files. It also adds several times more complexity to the entire system. More complexity without more functionality just means that there is more to go wrong.
So, you're right, it is doable in most cases, but impractical in all cases. It adds two layers of pure bloat, that cost the end user. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the Free Software movement? I always thought it was supposed to make things better for the end user, not worse.
It is more responsible to suggest to these users that they test other CMSs than to tell them they can use a bridge that contains redundant code that will slow down their website and use more system resources to dodge the issue of an interpretation of a license.
So, to answer your question, I have been moving forward, with other CMSs.
Again, I am going to suggest to those who want the power of SMF alongside a CMS, please check out Mambo, e107, Xoops, and iGaming. I will continue to work with other CMSs as well, to ensure that we have a broad range of CMS options from which to choose. I will also be working diligently to ensure that at least some of these options will be available for the release of SMF 2.0, which will add some terrific template layer options to ease visual integration and W3C compliance even better, something for which I'm certain many have been looking forward.
Thanks much, Orstio.
The Joomla! copyright holders - the Joomla! core team and OSM Board - the ones who are writing the core Joomla! code and running the Joomla! project - are in 100% complete agreement - to comply with the GPL. This is also the recommendation provided them by their legal counsel - Eben Moglen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen) and others at the Software Freedom Law Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center). I am completely lost on the "unknown copyright holders" issue! I have honestly not heard that discussed nor have I tried to raise the issue. I will tell you - "unknown copyright holders" are not driving this! The Joomla! copyright holders decided.
Theirs is not an unusual stance. It is the normal stance - it is the same position that Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, and Plone take. If you think Joomla! is interpreting the GPL is some wacky way - ask yourself this - why would there be a presumed need to have an FAQ diminishing the impact of the GPL like Mambo has? Or, why would there be a desire for a rider to weaken the GPL?
Those familiar with the GPL understand Joomla! is simply bringing it's environment into compliance.
As far as third party developers go, Orstio, check out Andrew Eddie (http://opensourcecommunity.org/2007/07/07/joomla-andrew-eddie-new-life-it-commercial-gpl-business). In the past, he has released proprietary licensed extensions and is now adapting his business to be GPL compliant. It can be done and still money can be made. There are many 3PDs in Drupal who make lots of money. In fact, just yesterday Dries Buytaert wrote another blog (http://buytaert.net/on-hiring-drupal-talent) about how there are not ENOUGH Drupal developers to meet demand.
OK. Thanks very much for recognizing that you and I respect one another. That means a lot to me and I know it's true from my end. I try not to overstate or under represent or spread FUD or add confusion. I believe this can work and I know after this transition period passes, it will be okay.
You did discover a way to bridge to Joomla! (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865852.html#msg865852) and still meet the license requirements of both SMF and Joomla!. We don't know for certain what performance differences there will be because we haven't tested it yet. I strongly suspect any differences will be negligible and/or capable of fine tuning.
HOWEVER, it's your choice to proceed or not proceed. But, please do me one favor - if you choose not to bridge, I got your back, Orstio. That is your choice and no one can or should try to force you to do anything against your will! But, please do not represent this decision as a licensing issue. We honestly know the license is not in the way.
All right, you know where to reach me! ;) All the best, Orstio,
Amy :)
I would honestly love to see a Joomla Bridge either way. I heartily agree with Oristo's complaints about layers on top of layers - furthermore, I think GPL is screwed up for this specific requirement...in many respects, it degrades my views of open source....
But even so, haven't mucked about in PHP for a good 1.5 years, I've taken code written by others that is literall 10x longer than need be, with 15-20x more variables and function calls than needed, and still seen no serious improvement from simplifying it; I'm willing to bet the addition of the LGPL layer will show some slowdown, but not a serious one - most people will probably not notice.
As I compare Mambo current to Joomla Current, I don't see many differences - perhaps if I dug down into security issues I might..but when I compare Joomla 1.5 to Mambo, I think that Joomla looks more promising.
What I'm finding ridiculous about all this to the point of being downright hilarious is how seemingly, in the eyes of the license holders, Open Source by any other name is NOT Open Source.
Adding only the LGPL layer as I first suggested is still acceptable as far as performance is concerned. It is not in terms of full compliance with the Joomla interpretation of the GPL, however.
The issue comes with the use of the Joomla API. That can't be done in a LGPL environment. It must be GPL according to the latest I've read from Joomla.
So, it is not just a LGPL layer. It first needs to be a GPL layer that essentially copies Joomla's $mainframe, $database, $my, etc. into new objects that can be used in the LGPL environment. This would still technically violate the Joomla interpretation of the GPL, but the file (and API variables) would be created by me, and therefore copyright by me, and I seriously doubt I would ever take legal action against myself for it. ;)
Then, there is something else that hasn't been discussed a whole lot, because most people haven't been able to get through the thought process this far yet: That is, the installer. Using Joomla's component installer could theoretically render the work derivitive as well, as it would require the Joomla installation structure in order to work. So, I would also need to produce some sort of GUI installer for the bridge that would not use the Joomla component installer, and a bridge admin panel that would not use the Joomla admin panel.
If you read my previous post, this is doable in most situations, but impractical in all situations. If you look at sites like these, for example:
http://www.40konline.com/mos/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=861
http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=88888914
http://www.cmcrossroads.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,180/
There is a good chance they would not be able to handle the doubling up of the Joomla API on top of what is already done there without significant loss of performance.
QuoteAs I compare Mambo current to Joomla Current, I don't see many differences
Then you should do more reading:
http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/showthread.php?t=6239
Mambo 4.6.2 is already a nice step ahead of the Mambo 4.5.x family, and 4.7 is coming up soon. The SMF bridge for Mambo 4.6.2 already uses the power of the Mambo authenticator mambots, and when Mambo 4.7 becomes public, I plan to use every bit of added power that will bring as well.
Quote from: Orstio on July 08, 2007, 10:45:55 PM
Adding only the LGPL layer as I first suggested is still acceptable as far as performance is concerned. It is not in terms of full compliance with the Joomla interpretation of the GPL, however.
The issue comes with the use of the Joomla API. That can't be done in a LGPL environment. It must be GPL according to the latest I've read from Joomla.
But, isn't that exactly the solution you proposed to Johan and that he agree with (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865852.html#msg865852)?
How about posting this question and getting some focus back on this, Orstio? Like we tried to do before when you got agreement. Let's at least see if we can at least nail down what the technical issue is, if any. Use the GPL Questions - Developer Related Forum. (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/board,424.0.html)
Back to Mambo From what I am reading, the individual copyright holders for Mambo are many of the same people who are also individual copyright holders for Joomla!. It is certainly claimed that their rights exist in Mambo
in the same fashion as their rights exist in Joomla!. Here is that discussion, again. (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187910.msg890865.html#msg890865)
As you have stated, SMF is very concerned about complying with licensing requirements. So much so, that the existing bridge was removed from Joomla!'s JED. But, if you are
really concerned about violating licensing, we are going to have to overcome the
same hurdles for Joomla! as are needed for Mambo. Individuals own copyright. No one can simply take away their rights because of a fork.
Like it or not, Joomla! and Mambo are like parents in a divorce, forever tied together because of the children. ;)
But, I'm not worried, Orstio - I am confident a bridge from SMF to a GPL'ed environment is doable. This challenge could end up opening lots of doors for SMF into many GPL worlds - like Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, etc.
Again, let's hold judgement on performance issues for actual testing. You are pretty dang good at what you do!
Amy :)
I don't fully agree with the behavior Joomla! is having about licensing, on their side.
But, whatever they say, the FSF states very clearly which licenses comply with the viral copyleft requirement of the GPL, and the LGPL is one of them. I think there's no room for discussion on that point. If the Joomla! license is the literal GNU GPL, then it does NOT forbid you to write the module/component files (as limited as you wish them to be) under LGPL, and the rest under the SMF license.
Read:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/)
From a more technically view, "how much" would the performance-drop be, lets say in percent, if you using a "bridge for the bridge"?
More than 25%? If yes i will change everything immediatly to Mambo.
Joomla! or better the "holders" could than go to hell IMO - what they have done is so bad:
Changing the interpretation of the license and removed the rider <- self-kill attempt
Regards, Christian
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 09, 2007, 11:57:53 AM
Like it or not, Joomla! and Mambo are like parents in a divorce, forever tied together because of the children. ;)
But, I'm not worried, Orstio - I am confident a bridge from SMF to a GPL'ed environment is doable. This challenge could end up opening lots of doors for SMF into many GPL worlds - like Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, etc.
Again, let's hold judgement on performance issues for actual testing. You are pretty dang good at what you do!
While I agree that I'd love to leave the final verdict up to a test...a complete test is hard, AFAIK: While a single person would be able to run the code in multiple tests and time it and compare the results...the problem really arises not with 10 users hitting the bridge, but with 50+ - as the number of calls on the server climb, so will the load times. Essentially, it's something like trying to run a 3D DirectX game inside of Linux using WINE...both the bridge and WINE translate function calls, added extra (unnecessary) complexity and inflating load times.
I would still love to see a proper bridge that made use of the Joomla admin panel...but at what cost is it still worth it? Perhaps someone should write up a post/guide detailing how to make your SMF template look similar to your Joomla! site so you can put the forums at yoursite.tld\forums...
Regarding Jooma vs. Mambo: How do the changes for Joomla 1.5 stack up against Mambo 4.7, other than moving the code further apart from eachother - I see Mambo 4.7 promises some admin CP changes...removal of Javascript (as in the drop down menus?) I don't think I truly see what the overall path each Joomla and Mambo have - not how they are different now, but how will they differ in a year and beyond?
QuoteBack to Mambo From what I am reading, the individual copyright holders for Mambo are many of the same people who are also individual copyright holders for Joomla!. It is certainly claimed that their rights exist in Mambo in the same fashion as their rights exist in Joomla!. Here is that discussion, again.
As you have stated, SMF is very concerned about complying with licensing requirements. So much so, that the existing bridge was removed from Joomla!'s JED. But, if you are really concerned about violating licensing, we are going to have to overcome the same hurdles for Joomla! as are needed for Mambo. Individuals own copyright. No one can simply take away their rights because of a fork.
I really hate repeating myself, so I'm just going to quote it:
Quote from: OrstioThat would be an incorrect and uneducated statement. Miro signed over full copyright of all Mambo code (and other things) to the Mambo Foundation in December of 2005, several months after the Joomla fork. Miro no longer exists, so there would be nobody left to be sued, were it the case. IOW, Miro signed off the copyright that anyone at Joomla had prior. Miro can't be sued for this action, because it doesn't exist anymore, and the opportunity to sue has long passed. (read: People who worked for Mambo/Miro before December 2005 might still have copyright on Joomla code because it was forked before the sign-over, but not on current Mambo code. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing to be owned by a corporate entity after all?)
There are only two libraries left in Mambo 4.6 that are not either owned by the Mambo Foundation, nor under LGPL, and there is no chance that those two libraries are used directly by any third party developers, so absolutely no worries there. The Mambo Foundation has made their position clear, and the code, other than those two libraries which will never be used by third parties, is either LGPL, or owned solely by the Mambo Foundation.
So, no, they do not have the same copyright holders, and no, the same issues do not apply. Other than statements made by Elpie, who is probably the only person left there that actually knows anything about Mambo, anything said about Mambo at joomla.org is pure unsubstantiated FUD.
QuoteLike it or not, Joomla! and Mambo are like parents in a divorce, forever tied together because of the children.
I see that quite differently. I would say that Miro is the dead parent of both Mambo and Joomla. One took what it could and left before Miro kicked the bucket, and the other stuck around to earn the inheritance.
QuoteBut, I'm not worried, Orstio - I am confident a bridge from SMF to a GPL'ed environment is doable. This challenge could end up opening lots of doors for SMF into many GPL worlds - like Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, etc.
There are already many GPL worlds open, without the need to add multiple layers of redundant code.
Have you read what they said about the issue at e107? (http://e107.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?115778) It is also a GPL product.
And of course, there are those CMSs so disgusted by the whole situation, they are relicensing their products under a more Free license (http://www.kzoo6forums.com/showthread.php?t=647) and discontinuing anything related to Joomla.
QuoteAgain, let's hold judgement on performance issues for actual testing. You are pretty dang good at what you do!
Yes, I am. And I'll continue doing it with CMSs that interpret their license in such a way that gives developers the Freedom to choose their own license, and the Freedom to code without multiple redundant layers.
Quote from: OrstioThat would be an incorrect and uneducated statement. Miro signed over full copyright of all Mambo code (and other things) to the Mambo Foundation in December of 2005, several months after the Joomla fork.
Well, Orstio, lol, no matter how many times you repeat that, some don't feel that is true (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187910.msg890865.html#msg890865). Neither of us are copyright holders - neither of us know - but, we can at least admit we are hearing some conflicting reports here. I would not want to accuse anyone of FUD because I don't like to falsely accuse people of things of which I am not certain.
A bridge between these two products is possible, your proposal was reviewed and approved by Joomla!. (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865852.html#msg865852) You are *free* to use the license you use for SMF. Joomla!'s license is *not* in the way.
OK. If you have questions and you want to re-confirm your prior plan to bridge SMF to Joomla!, use the GPL Questions - Developer Related Questions (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/board,424.0.html) thread. I am certain you can get this resolved quickly.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion. I am certain the right things will happen and that all will lead healthy and productive lives. If there is something I can help with, please contact me. You know how to do so.
All the best, Orstio,
Amy :)
QuoteWell, Orstio, lol, no matter how many times you repeat that, some don't feel that is true (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187910.msg890865.html#msg890865).
Yes, and that is rebutted only two posts later (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187910.msg891069.html#msg891069) by Elpie.
I'll take the freedom of quoting on the matter for those reading here:
Quote from: ElpieI do, however, know that those who contributed to the Mambo code signed a copyright agreement with Miro International Pty Ltd. This was legally assigned to the Mambo Foundation, Inc, who holds the copyright in Mambo from 2000 on. The signed copies are on file.
While you are correct in saying there are other copyright holders to some Mambo code (perhaps not as many as you may think) the fact remains that the Licensing Guidelines were approved by the team members who were part of Mambo in 2004 when it was introduced and each and every person who has contributed since has implicitly accepted the Licensing Guidelines. Strangely, I am unaware of any who have disagreed with the Guidelines. Those who did not want to accept the way in which license in the Mambo code is enforced would, I assume, have just not contributed. Nobody forced them to accept the Licensing Guidelines but, having done so, nobody has the right to change their minds about them further down the track.
QuoteI see that quite differently. I would say that Miro is the dead parent of both Mambo and Joomla. One took what it could and left before Miro kicked the bucket, and the other stuck around to earn the inheritance.
I've read that Miro merely changed its name to Rice Studios.
I can't help but wonder, since they're still involved with Mambo, how much of the Joomla code are they still holding a copyright to, and have they in any way had a say on the matter at hand.
Wow, I go away for a while and come back to stuff still hitting the fan. In the end, this will cost Joomla a ton of support both open source and proprietary.
This whole thing is the reason why Mozilla adopted multiple licenses instead of latching on to just GPL.
Quote from: Orstio on July 09, 2007, 07:36:41 PM
Yes, and that is rebutted only two posts later (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,187910.msg891069.html#msg891069) by Elpie.
Ortsio -
People who write code have copyright. You know that to be true.
The agreement the Mambo developers signed gave Miro
joint copyright. But, the authors, themselves, also
kept copyright and still
hold copyright. Miro turned over copyright to the Mambo Foundation. That "transfer" did
not include the author's copyrights, just Miro's.
For some reason, you seem unwilling to believe anyone but Elpie. That's okay. Now, reread Elpie's post closely. You will not see her denying what I just said. Ask her if you don't believe me!
Then, once you find Elpie isn't denying the authors their rightful copyright, reread the entire thread. Try to do so without hoping for a certain message to "win." Just try to understand.
Then, listen to me. I've always been upfront and honest with you. I know you and the SMF group care very much about following licensing guidelines. You found a way to bridge to Joomla! and be compliant with the GPL. That same process will be required to be compliant with the GPL for Mambo, as well. But, you shouldn't fret or worry because
you know how to do it.Many people are overreacting to this licensing situation. But, one piece of software at a time, if we set emotion aside, we can find our way through.
Amy
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 07, 2007, 05:33:28 PM
As far as third party developers go, Orstio, check out Andrew Eddie (http://opensourcecommunity.org/2007/07/07/joomla-andrew-eddie-new-life-it-commercial-gpl-business). In the past, he has released proprietary licensed extensions and is now adapting his business to be GPL compliant. It can be done and still money can be made. There are many 3PDs in Drupal who make lots of money. In fact, just yesterday Dries Buytaert wrote another blog (http://buytaert.net/on-hiring-drupal-talent) about how there are not ENOUGH Drupal developers to meet demand.
Hi Amy, I just had to register and log in for a second to rebutt something here.
That quote is not regarding extension developers one iota, it is regarding large companies with a site based on Drupal who are looking for people to work on their site in house.
It is also not people
making money off open source. It is about companies who's primary business is
something else saving money by using an open source CMS.
What you are in effect suggesting is that 3pds should give up their businesses and go work for an company unrelated to joomla at all and spend their time managing their website.
huh? That is not a a solid business solution while using open source at all. You are in effect advocating indenturing yourself to a company instead of working for yourself. 90% of the 'making money with os' solutions I have seen you post were exactly this. Go work for a company that makes their money elsewhere and get paid for fixing/supporting their website.
In effect every time you post a link like the one above you are reinforcing the statement that the GPL inhibits developers earning money independently, not supporting it.
Andrew is going into business with Andy, and Andy let it slip that initially he planned to release the extensions under non GPL licenses. They are going to go GPL not through choice it seems. (though I could be wrong)
QuoteA bridge between these two products is possible, your proposal was reviewed and approved by Joomla!. You are *free* to use the license you use for SMF. Joomla!'s license is *not* in the way.
Except that as Joomla/OSM seems to keep repeating they are not the sole copyright holders and thus the second copyright holder on the grassy knoll which they claim to be protecting us from, can in theory step in and claim that the lgpl bridge is in fact in violation of their code and sue SMF.
If Joomla/OSM is as powerless as they claim, then they can't very well selectively immunize people against GPL virus prosecution without being able to offer that same protection to everyone.
Quote from: cferd on July 09, 2007, 07:49:31 PM
I've read that Miro merely changed its name to Rice Studios.
I can't help but wonder, since they're still involved with Mambo, how much of the Joomla code are they still holding a copyright to, and have they in any way had a say on the matter at hand.
The company that changed its name to Rice Studios was NOT Miro International Pty Ltd, the company that had owned copyright in Mambo. Different company, different owners. Miro International ceased to exist in December 2005. Miro has had no involvement with Mambo since that time as they did not exist!
Mambo is completely free of any corporate influence and has been since the end of 2005.
Well, after being a member here for 18 months its rather sad that my first posts have to be made in response to inaccuracies being bandied about as "truth".
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 09, 2007, 07:07:39 PM
Neither of us are copyright holders - neither of us know - but, we can at least admit we are hearing some conflicting reports here. I would not want to accuse anyone of FUD because I don't like to falsely accuse people of things of which I am not certain.
Huh? How does this statement correlate to the following statement Amy?
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 09, 2007, 10:54:54 PM
People who write code have copyright. You know that to be true.
The agreement the Mambo developers signed gave Miro joint copyright. But, the authors, themselves, also kept copyright and still hold copyright. Miro turned over copyright to the Mambo Foundation. That "transfer" did not include the author's copyrights, just Miro's.
I know you are an intelligent woman Amy. However, I wasn't aware that you are also an Intellectual Property lawyer. More specifically, I was unaware that you were party to the assignments of copyright, the deeds of transfer, or even the original agreements. Added to this, you would need to have an understanding of both contract law and Australian copyright law - do you?
If not, then kindly refrain from making *statements* about something you have already stated you know nothing about.
Quote from: Elpie on July 10, 2007, 08:37:03 AM
Well, after being a member here for 18 months its rather sad that my first posts have to be made in response to inaccuracies being bandied about as "truth".
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 09, 2007, 07:07:39 PM
Neither of us are copyright holders - neither of us know - but, we can at least admit we are hearing some conflicting reports here. I would not want to accuse anyone of FUD because I don't like to falsely accuse people of things of which I am not certain.
Huh? How does this statement correlate to the following statement Amy?
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 09, 2007, 10:54:54 PM
People who write code have copyright. You know that to be true.
The agreement the Mambo developers signed gave Miro joint copyright. But, the authors, themselves, also kept copyright and still hold copyright. Miro turned over copyright to the Mambo Foundation. That "transfer" did not include the author's copyrights, just Miro's.
I know you are an intelligent woman Amy. However, I wasn't aware that you are also an Intellectual Property lawyer. More specifically, I was unaware that you were party to the assignments of copyright, the deeds of transfer, or even the original agreements. Added to this, you would need to have an understanding of both contract law and Australian copyright law - do you?
If not, then kindly refrain from making *statements* about something you have already stated you know nothing about.
Elpie -
There is no reason for sarcasm, it only further clouds the issue. Your post did not provide any meaningful information. If you want to clarify the question, please do so. Go ahead and correct me, if you believe I am wrong.
You have stated a few times that Miro passed copyright to Mambo Foundation. That is understood. But what I have not seen you mention or confirm is that the original authors also
continue to hold their copyright.
Is that true or false?
Thanks.
Amy :)
Quote from: Elpie on July 10, 2007, 08:09:02 AM
The company that changed its name to Rice Studios was NOT Miro International Pty Ltd, the company that had owned copyright in Mambo. Different company, different owners. Miro International ceased to exist in December 2005. Miro has had no involvement with Mambo since that time as they did not exist!
Mambo is completely free of any corporate influence and has been since the end of 2005.
The emphasis of my post was how Rice Studios might affect Joomla, not Mambo.
The rights to Miro were sold in 2006 to what is currently Rice Studios. How or why would the copyrights Miro held (which includes some Joomla code?) not be transferable to Rice?
Elpie,
Amy's comments are not her own in this regard, they are basically cut and pasted from the thread you started regarding mambo and their copyright on the J! forums.
Someone posted that in that thread (At least I think it was that thread), though I am guessing you stopped reading that particular thread.
So while she might not be a copyright lawyer, she is inadvertently quoting someone who seems to think they are. ::)
Danayel.
It's just a simple question: Do the authors of Mambo code continue to hold copyright? I'm certain Elpie will answer. Patience. ;)
Amy :)
Quote from: cferd on July 10, 2007, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: Elpie on July 10, 2007, 08:09:02 AM
The company that changed its name to Rice Studios was NOT Miro International Pty Ltd, the company that had owned copyright in Mambo. Different company, different owners. Miro International ceased to exist in December 2005. Miro has had no involvement with Mambo since that time as they did not exist!
Mambo is completely free of any corporate influence and has been since the end of 2005.
The emphasis of my post was how Rice Studios might affect Joomla, not Mambo.
The rights to Miro were sold in 2006 to what is currently Rice Studios. How or why would the copyrights Miro held (which includes some Joomla code?) not be transferable to Rice?
Miro International Pty Ltd transferred all copyrights in Mambo code to the Mambo Foundation, Inc. So the copyrights in all the code from 2000 onwards are held by the Mambo Foundation. This was completed before Miro International Pty Ltd was deregistered as a company. Miro Int held copyrights in its own commercial software (that does not contain any code at all from the open source software) and presumably sold this software as part of its winding up.
Miro Software Solutions did not have the same principals - different company, different people (although one former Miro Int staff member was part of it as I understand things).
Miro Software Solutions is the company that became Rice Studios. It has never had involvement with the Mambo project under either name.
So, while the Mambo Foundation, Inc holds rights in the Joomla code, the only copyright holders are Mambo Foundation and individual contributors as I understand Joomla has not ever used a copyright assignment agreement on any of its code.
Given that I contributed security fixes to Joomla 1.0.10 I guess I am also a copyright holder in Joomla! ;)
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 11, 2007, 01:28:06 AM
It's just a simple question: Do the authors of Mambo code continue to hold copyright? I'm certain Elpie will answer. Patience. ;)
Amy, with respect, you are asking for a yes/no answer to a complex issue. I can just as equally answer "No, but..." or the alternative. Can any individual developers enforce the Mambo GPL? No - only the Mambo Foundation can.
But, seriously, should you have any of the many doubts you are expressing all over the web please just download Mambo and look at the files yourself.
I know that the whole GPL/copyright issue is confusing for you. If you run a search on Mambo and "Brian Connolly" you will see why action was taken in 2004 to protect the Mambo code against claims by individuals. It was very big news at the time and cost Miro a lot of money. As a consequence, steps were taken and agreed to by all developers, and when the Mambo Foundation was formed it was done in such a way to keep the copyright in Mambo safe.
I have no intention of debating the Mambo copyright ad nauseum. Mambo has a clear statement about its copyright and how it enforces it and Mambo developers and users have been happy with that for several years. Your continued attempts to debate something nobody else has a problem with, just to muddy the waters over Joomla's copyright enforcement stance is petty. As is your continued hijacking of this thread when Orstio has made his position very clear.
QuoteYour continued attempts to debate something nobody else has a problem with, just to muddy the waters over Joomla's copyright enforcement stance is petty. As is your continued hijacking of this thread when Orstio has made his position very clear.
Thanks for the comments and clarification, Elpie. With that, I'm going to lock this topic, and if anyone wants to know why, they can watch this video, and understand that we need to get on with coding instead of wasting time arguing moot points.
http://www.opensourcecommunity.org/2007/07/08/how-open-source-projects-survive-poison-people-and-you-can-too