Simple Machines Community Forum

As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

As a result of this change of direction, only GPL-licensed software can legally be distributed and used inside the Joomla! software. While we regret and are saddened by this development, we respect Joomla!'s position on their software license. As neither SMF nor the SMF bridge for Joomla! are licensed under GPL or a compatible license, we have had to cease distribution of our bridge. Please note that running the software as separate standalone pieces is perfectly fine, the issue is in the integration/bridge.

Due to this license issue, it is not legal for us to distribute our bridge. In addition, all versions of the bridge from 3.19 for the SMF 1.0 series to the latest 1.1.7 release for the SMF 1.1 series are under the SMF license, which forbids all redistribution. Just as we respect the license Joomla! is under, we ask that you respect our license and not distribute the bridge.

We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.

For those users who wish to continue their use of SMF fully integrated into a CMS, we recommend investigating the other options you have available to you. Our work on bridges for Mambo and other CMS programs will continue.





For those who wonder why we have had to come to such a decision, we have had input from both the Joomla! project and the FSF directly, and it is the stance of both Joomla! and the FSF that the use of a bridge into a GPL-licensed system constitutes the creation of a combined work. This forced us to reconsider our development of the bridge and look for ways we could accomplish the task while still respecting the licensing of both projects. Ultimately, that proved impossible. When discussing with the FSF, they stated that the bridge and SMF would fall under the GPL license, and there is no workaround. Below is an exchange between me and the FSF.

Quote
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:13:40 -0700
To:  [email protected]
Subject: License Clarification

I was looking over the GPL earlier and I had a question I hope you could
answer for me. Now, given the age of the GPL v2, I can understand that
it didn't take into account web applications, but a lot of web
applications are under this version today.

Given the license restriction on linking, how would that apply to web
applications written in a scripting language such as PHP or Ruby? I know
many of them offer a "module" or "plugin" system for developers. Would
making use of these systems constitute linking? Also, if such a plugin
or module was distributed separate from the GPL-licensed system and
installed manually by an end-user, how would the GPL work on that?

I know the GPL v2 is considered old now, but if you could advise me as
to my concern based on it, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could
note if v3 changes anything in this regard I'd also appreciate knowing.

Thank you very much.

Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:14:33 -0400

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:17:57AM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> Given the license restriction on linking, how would that apply to web
> applications written in a scripting language such as PHP or Ruby? I know
> many of them offer a "module" or "plugin" system for developers. Would
> making use of these systems constitute linking? Also, if such a plugin
> or module was distributed separate from the GPL-licensed system and
> installed manually by an end-user, how would the GPL work on that?

Our GPL FAQ has some discussion about how the plug-ins are affected by the
license; please see
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins>.  If the
plug-in is based on the original program (the answer talks about when that
is and isn't the case), then the developers need permission under copyright
law to create and distribute it.  Ordinarily, the GPL is the only thing
granting them such permission, and so plug-in developers must follow its
terms whether their code is distributed together with, or separately from,
the original software.  This includes releasing their own work under the
GPL.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.

Quote
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:52:45 -0700
To:  [email protected]
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification

Brett Smith via RT wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:17:57AM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
>> Given the license restriction on linking, how would that apply to web
>> applications written in a scripting language such as PHP or Ruby? I know
>> many of them offer a "module" or "plugin" system for developers. Would
>> making use of these systems constitute linking? Also, if such a plugin
>> or module was distributed separate from the GPL-licensed system and
>> installed manually by an end-user, how would the GPL work on that?
>
> Our GPL FAQ has some discussion about how the plug-ins are affected by the
> license; please see
> <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins>.  If the
> plug-in is based on the original program (the answer talks about when that
> is and isn't the case), then the developers need permission under copyright
> law to create and distribute it.  Ordinarily, the GPL is the only thing
> granting them such permission, and so plug-in developers must follow its
> terms whether their code is distributed together with, or separately from,
> the original software.  This includes releasing their own work under the
> GPL.
>
> If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>

While I appreciate the response, that FAQ deals with compiled software,
not on software provided as scripts in languages like PHP. As PHP is
interpreted by an external program (much like older BASIC was), there is
no linking that can be done in the program code. Similarly, there is no
ability to fork and exec as stated in that FAQ. It might be closer to
the third option given, but that still isn't quite the same.

Here is an example of a situation I am thinking of. Perhaps this will be
helpful. A web script is released under the GPL. It contains an API for
extending its functionality. Obviously, there is no ABI or similar as
there is no compiler. Now, a third party has another web script that is
complementary to the functions in the first. They decide that they can
write a "glue" script to the API of the first script to combine the
functionalty of the scripts such that the second party's script can be
called for output by the first script.

Simple diagram:

First Script (GPL) <---> "Glue" Script <---> Second Script

Now, as all parts are, say, PHP, nothing is compiled. There is thus no
linking or anything that traditional applications use to be able to run.
The "glue" script doesn't use any code of the first script. It simply
uses the published API structure to allow the first script to understand
it. All code for both the first script and "glue" are in their own
self-contained files. You could even go as far as saying this glue would
act as a two-way pipe allowing the separate scripts to communicate.

So, given that situation, how would licensing work for the "glue" script
and the second script? As there is no actual combining of raw code
(except in memory), does that still count as linking and thus requires
the GPL? If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second
script be then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?

Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:39:06 -0400

On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:56:47AM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> While I appreciate the response, that FAQ deals with compiled software,
> not on software provided as scripts in languages like PHP. As PHP is
> interpreted by an external program (much like older BASIC was), there is
> no linking that can be done in the program code. Similarly, there is no
> ability to fork and exec as stated in that FAQ. It might be closer to
> the third option given, but that still isn't quite the same.

Almost all scripting languages I know about have some functionality to
import scripts or modules, and then use data and functions from that other
code.  Calling functions that are imported like this creates a derivative
work, much in the same way that linking does for compiled languages.

PHP also has exec functionality.  See, for example,

<http://us.php.net/function.exec>.

> Now, a third party has another web script that is complementary to the
> functions in the first.

When you say this, I assume you mean complementary in the sense that a
human would want to combine them both -- not that there's any copyright
relationship between the two.  The second script should be completely
independent, able to perform some function on its own.

> So, given that situation, how would licensing work for the "glue" script
> and the second script? As there is no actual combining of raw code
> (except in memory), does that still count as linking and thus requires
> the GPL?

Yes.

> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?

No.

Again, if you have further questions, please let me know.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.

Quote
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:50:10 -0700
To:  [email protected]
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification

Sorry for yet another query, I just want to fully understand this. I
added my comments and questions in the below quote.

Brett Smith via RT wrote:
>> Now, a third party has another web script that is complementary to the
>> functions in the first.
>
> When you say this, I assume you mean complementary in the sense that a
> human would want to combine them both -- not that there's any copyright
> relationship between the two.  The second script should be completely
> independent, able to perform some function on its own.

Correct, the second script would be a standalone product. I did mean
complementary in the sense that their functions would be something a
user would want to combine, not in a copyright relationship.

>
>> So, given that situation, how would licensing work for the "glue" script
>> and the second script? As there is no actual combining of raw code
>> (except in memory), does that still count as linking and thus requires
>> the GPL?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
>> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
>
> No.

Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
that satisfy all requirements? If so, is there a way to make it so such
combination would not be possible?

>
> Again, if you have further questions, please let me know.
>
> Best regards,
>

Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.  The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.  Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.

So that means all the current bridges for Joomla! are removed and no more bridge will be made?

Yep.

jeez...

Damn, that's really bad news. :(

Still want to use the Bridge. But when this is not possible with Joomla! Then I maybe have to reconsider to take a look at an other CMS system. Really to bad I liked the Combo Joomla! and SMF. This is not a great step for the future. :'(

Lets go on mambo so....

does the mambo brigde is ok for mambo 4.6.2?

cause there will be lots of people which will go on it....

Quote from: Livebox on July 25, 2007, 06:01:34 AM
Still want to use the Bridge. But when this is not possible with Joomla! Then I maybe have to reconsider to take a look at an other CMS system. Really to bad I liked the Combo Joomla! and SMF. This is not a great step for the future. :'(

Yeah... very sad indeed! :(

Kind of leaves us all high and dry  :-[ surely this can be sorted out  ???

Damn, bad news for sure :(

glue script shoudn't be under GPL :(

Maybe talking directly to joomla coders could resolve this...

Still, i think unofficial scripts will float around..

No comments, where is the ***** freedom in the "free" software?!

Does Joomla! need some guns?! I can go take 2 or 3 pistols...

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
Still, i think unofficial scripts will float around..

Hopefully...

Quote from: Prasad007 on July 25, 2007, 09:31:40 AM

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
Still, i think unofficial scripts will float around..

Hopefully...

Well, we know that Joomla 1.5 will NOT be able to bridge with SMF whatsoever, so our only chance is older versions of Joomla along with updated bridge for SMF 1.1.3+, maybe even SMF2... :|

Quote from: zigzag on July 25, 2007, 08:22:29 AM
surely this can be sorted out  ???

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
Maybe talking directly to joomla coders could resolve this...

Negative on both counts! The whole point about this announcement is that everything possible has been done and it's *the end* for the bridge as we know it.

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 09:40:45 AM

Quote from: Prasad007 on July 25, 2007, 09:31:40 AM

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
Still, i think unofficial scripts will float around..

Hopefully...

Well, we know that Joomla 1.5 will NOT be able to bridge with SMF whatsoever, so our only chance is older versions of Joomla along with updated bridge for SMF 1.1.3+, maybe even SMF2... :|

There was a bridge for J! 1.5. There was even a sticky about that on this board ;)

But at this moment I'm testing with Mambo. And it looks ok for me  ;) I'm thinking about migrating to Mambo in the near future.

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
glue script shoudn't be under GPL :(

Maybe talking directly to joomla coders could resolve this...

Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The Joomla! developers are set on this interpretation and they have lost a number of developers over it. There is older discussion over here (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=177335.0) when things first started. The best we could come up with was a bridge that consisted of multiple wrappers in order to transition properly without violating the license. Given the FSF's position that it could still be considered a combined work, however, there is no way we could legally continue distributing a bridge.

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 09:40:45 AM
Well, we know that Joomla 1.5 will NOT be able to bridge with SMF whatsoever, so our only chance is older versions of Joomla along with updated bridge for SMF 1.1.3+, maybe even SMF2... :|

Even that won't work. As was said above, the Joomla! team consider this position on their license retroactive, so it applies to older versions of Joomla! as well. That is why we can't distribute the bridge at all anymore, even for older versions of Joomla!



As a note, if you develop your own solution, it is perfectly legal to use it. The problem comes when you distribute it, which causes it to fall under the terms of the GPL.

Quote from: GravuTrad on July 25, 2007, 07:12:09 AM
Lets go on mambo so....

does the mambo brigde is ok for mambo 4.6.2?

cause there will be lots of people which will go on it....

Yes, the Mambo bridge is specifically designed for Mambo 4.6.2.

Quote from: Ninoslav on July 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
Damn, bad news for sure :(

glue script shouldn't be under GPL :(

Maybe talking directly to joomla coders could resolve this...

Still, i think unofficial scripts will float around..

Why would you?

a) Not respect Joomla's license? Just because you do not agree with them does not mean you should not follow the license of the product your using.

b) Risk legal action against yourself and your site for using something that is essentially breaking the law.

You are on a rocky road if you take the path of using an illegal bridge if you ask me.

I was reading the pages on license and copyright here at the simplemachines.org site and did not find any information about which license SMF uses. Which license does SMF use? In what ways is this license not GPL-compatible? Are there any possibilities for heading towards a GPL-compatible license?

This issue of licensing is obviously coming to a head in the Joomla community but has been an issue for quite some time with all open-source projects. Here is a link to a document called "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else." by David Wheeler (http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html) in which he recounts a brief history of other projects with similar problems and the benefits of going with a GPL-compatible license for open-source projects.

Thanks for helping me understand these confusing issues. I hope that everyone who uses SMF and Joomla can wait and see what we can come up with before jumping ship to another CMS. The Joomla project has officially supported SMF for a long time. These issues should come as no surprise to long-term members of the global open-source community and they have been overcome before!

Finally, I'd like to point out that this is not a few rogue Joomla core team members' opinions, this is the project's official interpretation of the license. This interpretation has been made, similar to Motoko-chan's posts here, with the recommendations of many forerunners in IP law that specialize in the licensing of open-source projects. I believe that the intention of Joomla's  interpretation is to HELP the community clarify what it means to be compatible with the GPL license that the community requests, not a call to arms. Please consider this before flaming because supporting the GPL is the exact freedom we've asked for as a community. ;)

Quote from: gsbe on July 25, 2007, 12:07:26 PM
I was reading the pages on license and copyright here at the simplemachines.org site and did not find any information about which license SMF uses. Which license does SMF use? In what ways is this license not GPL-compatible? Are there any possibilities for heading towards a GPL-compatible license?

http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php (http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php)

http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php (http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php)

Quote from: gsbe on July 25, 2007, 12:07:26 PM
Thanks for helping me understand these confusing issues. I hope that everyone who uses SMF and Joomla can wait and see what we can come up with before jumping ship to another CMS. The Joomla project has officially supported SMF for a long time. These issues should come as no surprise to long-term members of the global open-source community and they have been overcome before!

SMF's license is not going to change. This announcement has come after weeks of discussion with both Joomla devs and the FSF. There is no other option at this point short of releasing SMF under the GPL, which isn't going to happen (although I won't get into the specific reasons here). We were really hoping it wouldn't come to this, but we don't feel we have any other option at this point. The FSF sees SMF+Joomla as a single application, and therefore both SMF and the bridge have to be released under the GPL for everything to be legal in the eyes of Joomla developers and the FSF.

I wonder, could a news item linking to this topic be added (if it already isnt)

Since alot of users may not discover this topic unless by chance like I did.

The post in the News and Updates (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=1.0) board has a link to this topic already.

Quote from: gsbe on July 25, 2007, 12:07:26 PM
This issue of licensing is obviously coming to a head in the Joomla community but has been an issue for quite some time with all open-source projects. Here is a link to a document called "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else." by David Wheeler (http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html) in which he recounts a brief history of other projects with similar problems and the benefits of going with a GPL-compatible license for open-source projects.

Thanks for helping me understand these confusing issues. I hope that everyone who uses SMF and Joomla can wait and see what we can come up with before jumping ship to another CMS. The Joomla project has officially supported SMF for a long time. These issues should come as no surprise to long-term members of the global open-source community and they have been overcome before!

Finally, I'd like to point out that this is not a few rogue Joomla core team members' opinions, this is the project's official interpretation of the license. This interpretation has been made, similar to Motoko-chan's posts here, with the recommendations of many forerunners in IP law that specialize in the licensing of open-source projects. I believe that the intention of Joomla's interpretation is to HELP the community clarify what it means to be compatible with the GPL license that the community requests, not a call to arms. Please consider this before flaming because supporting the GPL is the exact freedom we've asked for as a community. ;)

Whatever the intention of Joomla's re-interpretation, it has the effect of making all non-GPL scripts incompatible with Joomla.

Personally, I disagree with that interpretation. Several other GPL CMS softwares also disagree and have stated that they will/do include exceptions to their use of the GPL that will allow bridges like this.
In My Opinion, limitations like this were NOT the original purpose of GPL and I personally believe that this contrdicts the very spirit of Open Source and the GPL.

Unfortunately, it is not up to me. Joomla and the FSF have made their stance clear and we must (and will) accept that.

We currently have alpha and beta versions of bridges for e107, XOOPS and Mambo. I am setting up a test installation of each of those for people to compare and consider a shift to a different CMS if they so desire.

Quote
We currently have alpha and beta versions of bridges for e107, XOOPS and Mambo. I am setting up a test installation of each of those for people to compare and consider a shift to a different CMS if they so desire.

I'm sure people will appreciate it.

since this situation seems stuck, perhaps there are other ways -  how about a client-side (javascript) bridge?

i am pretty sure that it's no violation of the gpl to call a not proprietary webservice from a gpl client or a webservice provided by gpled software from a proprietary client  8)

javascript bridge?   That is unlikely and, IMO, unrealistic. You can't really do a bridge client-side.

From elsewhere:

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 25, 2007, 01:09:06 PM
I do have an idea for "integration" that might work around the license, but it wouldn't be all that nice and is kinda clunky. Basically, don't integrate SMF as a component via the bridge, and keep separate installs of Joomla! and SMF. With a third package (that is self-contained), watch for db modifications (new account, etc) and then do the same changes for the opposite package. With a small SMF mod, you might be able to get SMF to respect Joomla!'s login cookie and session info (assuming that won't trip the license issue) to allow a one-login solution. As I said, it is clunky, but I personally don't see that running into licensing issues as it doesn't touch any GPL code.

Ironicly the Joomla forums (http://forum.joomla.org/) are still powered by SMF. ::)

Why are there forums powered by SMF when they have fireboard. Probably becuase fire board is so bad :P

Their forums are not bridged with Joomla from what I know. I can't see anything that shows that they are bridged.

Quote from: Aäron on July 25, 2007, 04:14:25 PM
Ironicly the Joomla forums (http://forum.joomla.org/) are still powered by SMF. ::)

But they don't use the bridge. ;)

Quote from: shadow82x on July 25, 2007, 04:21:39 PM
Why are there forums powered by SMF when they have fireboard. Probably becuase fire board is so bad :P

Their forums are powered by SMF because it is a powerful board capable of handling the large number of users and posts they expected. At the time, FireBoard did not exist; but even if it did, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as SMF, nor is it's predecessor, SimpleBoard (now JoomlaBoard).

They use a software (smf) who don't have the same interpretation as they have from the license!

Soo... Joomla! why u use SMF? (who cares... its just a question)

btw...
In this page (http://dev.joomla.org/) joomla use a module to display the forum posts... if smf users can't use the bridge to joomla why can joomla use smf?...

The GPL concern is about distribution of software, not about usage of any software.

Joomla can use whatever forum software they choose.  That says absolutely nothing about the license under which they distribute their own software, or how they choose to enforce that license.

and ormuz, anyone who uses SMF also can use SSI functions. You don't need a bridge to do that.

Quote from: Kindred on July 25, 2007, 02:14:20 PM
You can't really do a bridge client-side.

on the login-page of system A have an invisibly loaded login page for system B  in an iframe. use javascript to send the content of the input-boxes to both forms to get a cookie for both systems.

modify the register & user-administration scripts of both systems to update both databases (or use one user-table and views to translate the db-structure). do not use common scripts - have the package split in two parts under different licenses.

integration done the hard way, not very elegant, but probably not against the gpl
(IANAL)

So... there's no chance of getting that password bug fixed, is there?  :P

I don't care anymore, because:  1)  I dislike Joomla and OSM's interpretation and enforcement of their license and 2)  I've already moved to Mambo, which I feel is much better despite third-party developers' feelings toward it and Joomla.

In relation to my first point, this interpretation is stupid and, honestly, un-open-source-like.

In relation to my second point (the 'sorry, we don't support Mambo anymore, move to Joomla attitude' after the simultaneous release of the two wares), I think that attitudes are about to unravel and reverse themselves... maybe more Mambo support in more products (again)?

Please clear one thing, I am currently usign Joomla, SMF 1.1.3 and the bridge. May I continue using this, or do I have to remove this as well before getting sued by someone?

you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

Quote from: sloopz on July 26, 2007, 05:45:05 AM
you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

I spend many hours to get the site where it is at the moment!!! This will mean that I loose everything and need to start from scratch??? All my forum posts will be lost? All accounts needs to re-register??

I hope not! I am seriously considering to remove Joomla!

Quote from: sloopz on July 26, 2007, 05:45:05 AM
you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

Some clarification here:

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM
We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.

Quote from: Peter Duggan on July 26, 2007, 05:56:55 AM

Quote from: sloopz on July 26, 2007, 05:45:05 AM
you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

Some clarification here:

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM
We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.

thanks i must of missed that bit :)

Quote from: eibot on July 26, 2007, 05:40:34 AM
Please clear one thing, I am currently usign Joomla, SMF 1.1.3 and the bridge. May I continue using this, or do I have to remove this as well before getting sued by someone?

The license concern is only with distribution, not with usage.  You have no need to fear about getting sued for using the software if you already have it installed.  It just can't be distributed any longer.

Quote from: Orstio on July 25, 2007, 10:42:40 AM

Quote from: GravuTrad on July 25, 2007, 07:12:09 AM
Lets go on mambo so....

does the mambo brigde is ok for mambo 4.6.2?

cause there will be lots of people which will go on it....

Yes, the Mambo bridge is specifically designed for Mambo 4.6.2.

Great, so lets go on conversion of joomla in mambo....

Quote from: eibot on July 26, 2007, 05:53:33 AM

Quote from: sloopz on July 26, 2007, 05:45:05 AM
you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

I spend many hours to get the site where it is at the moment!!! This will mean that I loose everything and need to start from scratch??? All my forum posts will be lost? All accounts needs to re-register??

I hope not! I am seriously considering to remove Joomla!

No not at all.Unless your MySQL database is there you wont loose your members/boards/posts etc.

Quote from: Orstio on July 26, 2007, 06:14:15 AM
The license concern is only with distribution, not with usage.  You have no need to fear about getting sued for using the software if you already have it installed.  It just can't be distributed any longer.

True - the license concern is not for usage; only distribution.

The FSF's comments indicated that combining non-GPL software with any GPL software is a violation of the GPL. Joomla! was *never* mentioned in the correspondence. The FSF's comments were as relevant for Mambo. If the FSF's word is what you are using as justification, then it is as just as illegal to distribute an SMF bridge for Mambo.

QuoteFrom Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/) It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

I deeply hope that SMF will rethink this approach. The announcement made on July 24 forces Joomla!/SMF end users to either a) use a CMS they did not freely choose or b) leave their sites vulnerable for the v 1.0.13 security fixes.

The last discussion with Joomla! on the bridge was June 17 - at that time, it was agreed between Johan and Orstio that a workable solution was in front of us.

Again, I urge discussions with Joomla! resume. There are protocols for truly seeking FSF opinion and assistance that we have not explored. We have not tapped SFLC resources that the Joomla! project offered for the express purposes of finding a solution to this very challenge.

Why? That is what I cannot wrap my mind around. Why wouldn't we try to resolve this? It *can* be resolved without changing the license for either product. Why would we simply give up and suggest end users use Mambo, or another CMS? Why?

If SMF no longer wants to continue a relationship with Joomla!, that is *clearly* their choice. But, a reasonable transition period, perhaps six months to a year, would be very much appreciated and there is nothing stopping SMF from providing this time for these people.

Please, for the sake of end users, offer time.
Amy

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM
As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM

Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.&nbsp; The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.&nbsp; This is not legal advice.

Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?

From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla

Quote
License Guidelines
Learn more about how Mambo is licensed and how this affects you.

1. What license is Mambo released under?
Mambo is released under the GNU/GPL, Version 2. A copy of this is included with your copy of Mambo and can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Unofficial translations can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html.

So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL

Mambo has specifically stated that the bridge is good with them.

And, Amy, we went through this one the other thread. We (SMF) discussed this as a team.
It is OUR interpretation of the statements from Joomla!, combined with the statements from FSF, that the coding gymnastics to even get close to a bridge (at this time) are not reasonable, if even possible.

If Joomla! finds another solution, we are willing to revisit the consideration, at that time.


As for offering time...  
we can not distribute the bridge as it exists. That is very clear.
Joomla 1.0.13 breaks the bridge. That is clear.
Therefor, people looking for a solution, right now, need to consider some other avenue.

Quote from: palorber on July 26, 2007, 09:58:59 AM

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM
As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM

Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.&nbsp; The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.&nbsp; This is not legal advice.

Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?

From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla

Quote
License Guidelines
Learn more about how Mambo is licensed and how this affects you.

1. What license is Mambo released under?
Mambo is released under the GNU/GPL, Version 2. A copy of this is included with your copy of Mambo and can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Unofficial translations can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html.

So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL

Version 2 of the GPL allows developers to grant permission to combine their program with other non-GPL-compatible software:

QuoteIf you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Quote from: Oldiesmann on July 26, 2007, 11:08:33 AM
Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Thank you... This clears it up for me

Quote from: palorber on July 26, 2007, 11:21:17 AM

Quote from: Oldiesmann on July 26, 2007, 11:08:33 AM
Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Thank you... This clears it up for me

for me too!

So what if someone writes a bridge and releases it as GPL? This wouldn't cause troubles neither with Joomla nor with SMF, right?
The subject says "SMF Bridge for Joomla! discontinued"... maybe someone ill take the effort to write a new bridge and release it as GPL. Though that's hard to imagine, because there are very few people outside of SMF who care to spend time on SMF. (Read my other post in some other topic to better understand what I mean)

Rudolf, been there sadly, orstio looked into that I believe and didn't really mind it being a GPL bridge (If I remember right), however the problem exists again because the bridge is connecting SMF to Joomla which then uses both scripts and does some weirdo thing where its illegal.

However, the whole situation can usually be avoided, use Joomla and SMF, use a link like joomla.org does, and use SMF for your authentication :) unless ofcourse you need some sort of function that's member restricted by joomla, then theres issues.

Oh I dunno

The bridge used to be GPL.  I'm not sure of the exact reasonings for changing licenses but I doubt Orstio would go back to a license that failed.

According to the FSF, the bridge's license needs to be GPL compatible as well as the software being bridged (SMF).

Having followed the GPL issue regarding Joomla over the past few months, it boggles my mind that the developers here at SMF think the solution is to develop a bridge for Mambo. The issue is the license (GNU/GPL), not whether the CMS is Joomla, Mambo or Drupal. A FAQ at Mambo is meaningless regarding whether you can legally bridge SMF to Mambo or not. I can assure you that there is GPL code in Mambo that was written by copyright holders who are not part of the current team. Your legal risks with Mambo are exactly the same as with any other GPL CMS, including Joomla.

The problem is not with the GPL CMS, the problem is clearly with SMF. The biggest ocean in the open source world is GNU/GPL and compatabile licenses. If you don't want to change your license, then don't bother trying to swim in that ocean. Or should I say, swim at your own risk. phpbb is 2-3 times more popular than smf and they do just fine with a GPL license.

Finally, are you really sure that 100% of the SMF codebase is non-GPL? If not, you could be in for problems in the future.

dmwalker, you are incorrect on nearly all counts.

1- SMF is not and has never been GPL. Copyright and license to SMF is held 100% by Simplemachines LLC.
2- Mambo copyright is held, 100% by the mambo foundation. There was a discussion about this elsewhere and I'm not going into it here. the Mambo foundation has indicated that they are not interpreting the GPL in the same way... and as they are the sole copyright holder to mambo, they are allowed to do so.

The real problem here is the draconian interpretation of GPL that says "If you don't do what we want you to do, then you can't play with our toys"

there are plenty of non-GPL products that use parts of the Linux GPL code...   why is that allowed while this is not? See conversation with FSF.

dmwalker: the author is the one that holds the rights to their software, not the person(s) that wrote the license. If you were to go by that sense, every copyright and trademark lawyer would be in court right now suing their clients. The author and ONLY the author can say "I will allow this product to be used by this person". The FSF might be a powerful lobby organization that is willing to support authors when it serves the FSF, but that is all they are - a lobby organization.

So, in the end, it has entirely to do with the CMS.

I just spent three weeks hammering together an installation between Joomla, SMF, and G2.  That was before I knew about this little thing.  At least I found this out before I really got to work cataloguing my site into Joomla.  I really didn't like it anyway, Joomla seems to require constant hacking to get anything at all to work.

I have been really happy with the Gallery 2 software, but if it's GPL, I guess I'll be taking that down, too.

Regardless of what everyone says now, with all this sweetness and light,  this being the software world and all,  I'm quite certain that things will get ugly somewhere, at some point.  In my case, HTML works fine, even if it is extra work.  I'm NOT taking down SMF to make my site "legal".  It accounts for over 80% of my traffic.  It's the best forum software, period, and I'm not using these other cobbled-together pieces of junk.  It just means that I will have to do some extra work, and spend some extra money, to avoid the GPL from now on.

It's all well and good to say that this license doesn't apply to end users, but I don't think that will be the interpretation forever.  The tendency on this type of thing in the past has always been to become more and more restrictive, not the other way around.  The fact is, most web software requires at least small amounts of hacking to get it to work in a particular installation.

I have consulted a copyright attorney, and he has advised me NOT to use ANY GPL software on my website, if I am using any other publicly accessible software that is non-GPL.  This is because, when changing code to fit my website's needs, I am creating a "derivative work".  In other words, if I want SMF, he says to avoid GPL for anything else.  I trust a lawyer's interpretation more than a hacker's...
mike

Just because the Joomla! and Gallery are both GPL, doesn't mean they interpret their licenses the same way. I don't know the Gallery license, but it might have a caveat for non-GPL licensed software. Consulting a lawyer is a good idea too.

SMF isn't against the GPL. We just don't conform to some people's interpretation of what it is and what the world should be.

Quote from: Rudolf on July 26, 2007, 12:41:21 PM
So what if someone writes a bridge and releases it as GPL? This wouldn't cause troubles neither with Joomla nor with SMF, right?
The subject says "SMF Bridge for Joomla! discontinued"... maybe someone ill take the effort to write a new bridge and release it as GPL. Though that's hard to imagine, because there are very few people outside of SMF who care to spend time on SMF. (Read my other post in some other topic to better understand what I mean)

No.  As it says in the email from the FSF:

QuoteNo. The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

The bridge, no matter under which license it is released, cannot derive from (connect to) SMF so long as SMF's license is not compatible with Joomla's.  According to the email, it would violate both the GPL and the SMF license in doing so.

I so far have not been able to bring myself to un-install the Gallery 2 software.  I am waiting a little longer to see how things shake out, and also, at some point BEFORE a lawsuit, there is generally a "cease-and-desist" order, to prove good faith on their part, at allowing you to comply.

If or when that day comes, I will use that "cease and desist" time period to move to something else.  There are a few different gallery-type mods for SMF that work OK, but for my needs, Gallery 2 is the SMF of that world for me.  The two combined are awesome.  I'm thinking TinyPortal on top is probably all I need, to catalogue the huge amount of HTML and image stuff I have, into a CMS of some sort that makes sense, not just to install and use, but to live with, in an operational sense.

I am not trying to start some sort of hysteria here, or cause a ruckus.  Just pointing out that a license is exactly that, permission on how a work is to be used.  Regardless of how it is worded, it is up to the license holders to determine when or if prosecution will proceed.

Most likely, whether or not a suit has any merit,  J***** and others like them probably have a heck of a lot more money at their disposal than I do.  And that's the civil litigation system, nothing to be done about it, in the short term.  If a threat is made, I will have to stop.  No choice, due to financial considerations.

To clarify what I was saying earlier about my attorney's interpretation:

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

This is only one possible way to look at it, and in my view, it's not a very defensible or practical viewpoint.  But when is the legal world ever practical?  And defense is simply a matter of dollars and cents, at least in the US.  I ain't got what they got, probably ain't ever going to catch 'em, either.  Which means that THEY call the shots, not me.

My job in this kind of thing is simply to dodge bullets, provide content, and obey the masters.
mike

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

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

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

have you looked at TinyPortal?

Yes, and I didn't liked. Every time I did it broke my forum. It is hardly a CMS.

Try the SSI Grab Message mod, I made a basic CMS with that one function, pages, links, you name it :)

Otherwise, I quite like snews, but then I like simple stuff.

I have looked at TP and I'm going to be trying it out starting tonight.  From what I've seen, it's got most everything you need, and the added bonus of the SMF database already in place.

TinyPortal isn't a CMS by itself, but when combined with the capabilities that are already there in the SMF package, especially with a G2 bridge,  you're getting pretty close to a CMS...

What started out as my original web site is now going to become the information archive for the forum.  The forum kind of took over my site.  So I think the TinyPortal makes sense as a way to tie my existing website information into the forum.

For what it is worth, I think that the SMF team should look at throwing in behind the TP folks, helping to iron out compatibility issues like Rudolf mentions, to create a new type of CMS, which is really what it amounts to anyway, from what I can tell.

If all you want is a forum, it's all good.  But if you want to move up to a normal web site, or a CMS, then you add in the TP, and BOOM!  It's CMS, baby, YEAH!

You'd have something then that would kick that booty when it comes to simplicity and ease of install, especially when compared to the effort it takes just to get one of the other forum packages to stay up and running, to say nothing of the constant screwing around that J***** takes.  And the overhead on the system seems to be a lot less, also.

I can't wait...  evil hee hee.   >:(  ok, I have to wait(at least till tonight), have to run errands etc., but maybe tomorrow I'll be in a different place, website-wise.
mike

i think the only sure-fire prescription for this problem is time. 

Simplemachines is not the only developer being forced to cease development on a project due to the issue at hand.

Just give it time.

And don't think for a second we didn't try everything we could to alleviate the situation.  Fact is, ignoring this could have meant litigation being filed against SMF.  How does that help any of our members out?  How does that help the image of simplemachines AND the image of every user of SMF software?  Not at all. 

Quote from: Oldiesmann on July 26, 2007, 11:08:33 AM

Quote from: palorber on July 26, 2007, 09:58:59 AM

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM
As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 24, 2007, 11:39:51 PM

Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.&nbsp; The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.&nbsp; This is not legal advice.

Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?

From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla

Quote
License Guidelines
Learn more about how Mambo is licensed and how this affects you.

1. What license is Mambo released under?
Mambo is released under the GNU/GPL, Version 2. A copy of this is included with your copy of Mambo and can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Unofficial translations can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html.

So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL

Version 2 of the GPL allows developers to grant permission to combine their program with other non-GPL-compatible software:

QuoteIf you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Oldiesmann is completely in the truth, it's that joomla purely don't want authorize combination or would purely see the code of smf free.

Bad idea of them cause they will lost lots of users with their next version of joomla (no more smf bridge so...)

So if someone could say us where to find a joomla to mambo converter, it will be super cool! thanks for advance of your answer.

Quote from: groundup on July 26, 2007, 03:36:30 PM
According to the FSF, the bridge's license needs to be GPL compatible as well as the software being bridged (SMF).

GroundUp -

Really, that is not what the FSF concluded.

If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec (http://us.php.net/function.exec) functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.

This is not impossible - it is doable. I urge Joomla! and SMF to get back to talking to one another.

QuoteFrom Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/) It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

Joomla! is not rushing this - we can take the time that is needed to make it work for everyone.

Please, consider the end users! Please provide the v 1.0.13 updates so people's websites are not vulnerable and give them time. That way people are not forced into choices and can freely choose.

Thanks,
Amy :)

Quote
A bridge links Joomla! to an external application so that they can exchange data and cooperate. On the Joomla! side of the bridge, the bridge is treated just like a component, module, or plugin; it must comply with the GPL unless it is a separate work (and some bridges might indeed be separate works).

If the external application is separate enough from Joomla! that it is a separate work under copyright law, it may be licensed under whatever license the holder of its copyright sees fit.

^ I was just about to paste that EXACT same bit into here.

I know some users are EXTREMELY frustrated and bordering on angry at the decision.

But its not like the SMF guys (and Joomla guys) haven't tried to resolve the problem.
I'm sure they are actively continuing to look for alternatives, but the bridge as it stands clearly MUST be licensed under GPL.

Therefore it must immediately be taken down from distribution.

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 26, 2007, 09:27:54 PM
If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec (http://us.php.net/function.exec) functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.

Sorry but exec is not an option.  I would suspect that any reasonable PHP developer would agree with me that the line about exec is utter BS.  In a PHP environment it just doesn't work.  Sorry but parrotting BS from another source doesn't make it true or useful.

Thantos, if we had karma, you'd get +1 karma for that.
(sidenote: your 10 away from the 10k posts)

Quote from: Thantos on July 26, 2007, 09:57:34 PM

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 26, 2007, 09:27:54 PM
If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec (http://us.php.net/function.exec) functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.

Sorry but exec is not an option.  I would suspect that any reasonable PHP developer would agree with me that the line about exec is utter BS.  In a PHP environment it just doesn't work.  Sorry but parrotting BS from another source doesn't make it true or useful.

Thantos -

OK - call it what you will.

Will you *please* consider supporting v 1.0.13 so that Joomla!/SMF users can update their software for the security enhancements? Then, announce an ending date for the bridge that provides for a safe transition.

Will SMF do that, please?

Amy

Quote
We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0).

I'm sure they would provide support if they could.  Unfortunately the GPL makes no provision for 'transition' time.

amystephen,

We can not legally do so. To distribute a bridge at this point would be to specifically go against the position that Joomla and the FSF have taken and violate the license they have agreed on.

Once again, we discussed this both with joomla and as a team. There is no current solution and we CAN NOT distribute the bridge. We would love to continue supporting and distributing the bridge, but as karlbenson says, there is no provision or exclusion for "transition".

Quote from: karlbenson on July 26, 2007, 10:21:01 PM

Quote
We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0).

I'm sure they would provide support if they could.  Unfortunately the GPL makes no provision for 'transition' time.

That is a HUGE relief to hear because Joomla! WILL make provision for the time, they say so in their announcement!

QuoteFrom Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/) It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

Six months would be great. Joomla! is not rushing this. In a sense, it is the same "word of mouth" Mambo is giving.

So, yes, there is provision for time.

Will SMF *please* support Joomla! v 1.0.13 so that Joomla!/SMF users can secure their websites and there can be some time for good solutions. It would be very much appreciated.

Amy :)

Quote from: Kindred on July 26, 2007, 10:24:06 PM
amystephen,

We can not legally do so. To distribute a bridge at this point would be to specifically go against the position that Joomla and the FSF have taken and violate the license they have agreed on.

Once again, we discussed this both with joomla and as a team. There is no current solution and we CAN NOT distribute the bridge. We would love to continue supporting and distributing the bridge, but as karlbenson says, there is no provision or exclusion for "transition".

Kindred -

It is no different at all from Mambo. Joomla! and Mambo both use the GPL. You heard the opinion from FSF about the GPL - not about Joomla!. Mambo is "overlooking" what the FSF says. Joomla! has made it clear they are not rushing this.

You are in the same legal position with both.

Now, I do urge you to get back to talking to Joomla!. The very last discussion with Joomla! was between Orstio and Johan on June 17  (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865935.html#msg865935) and the talks were very promising. Johan offered to take Orstio's plan and share it with the SFLC - there has been no discussion since then. It is not clear what happened!

Please, provide a transition period. And, if you want a long-term relationship, get back in there and talk.

I recognize this is difficult but, honestly, you guys are the ones who are rushing this, no one else. Slow it down so that we can all work together and  come up with good solutions.

Amy

From that same article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

QuoteFrom Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/) It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

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

Really!
Amy :)

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

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

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


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

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

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

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 26, 2007, 10:31:06 PM
The very last discussion with Joomla! was between Orstio and Johan on June 17  (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181173.msg865935.html#msg865935)

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

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

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 26, 2007, 10:51:51 PM
Technically, SMF is in violation distributing any bridge that connects to any GPL'ed environment. That was explained clearly in the SMF and FSF email. Joomla! was not discussed at all - bridging GPL and non-GPL compliant software was discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

In order to do that, I suggest the Joomla team draw up a statement of exception to the GPL for the SMF bridge for the stated period of six calendar months.  This statement should be electronically signed by each and every Joomla copyright holder.  I am certain that if each copyright holder was to send an email of agreement of the statement to info at simplemachines, with some information so we can identify each of them individually to ensure

1) no copyright holders have been excluded,
2) no copyright holders find objection,
3) all copyright holders are in unanimous agreement,
4) the verification of the identity of each and every copyright holder,

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

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

This post contains no legal advice.

Quote from: Rudolf on July 26, 2007, 06:22:44 PM
There is a solution to all the license compatibility issues.
SimpleMachines should develop it's own CMS. No, I am not saying that the developers of the "Simple Machines Forum" software should start to write a CMS. Start it as a new project, with it's own developers and support staff.
If I understand correctly then none of the team members get paid, so the only issues are to find the time and the resources to run the project. The resources are: people (free), hardware and software to run an official website and time.

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

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

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

Orstio,

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

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

Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 01:40:05 AM
All of this hype and misinformation could then be avoided.. don't you think?

What kind of hype and misinformation you are talking about?

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

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

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

Quote from: Praedator on July 27, 2007, 04:59:42 AM
What kind of hype and misinformation you are talking about?

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

Amy,

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 01:40:05 AM
Orstio,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Route 66 RamblerThe hacking of the code to get the software to work in my installation, in the most basic and literal interpretation, creates a "derivative" or "combined" work (my site's content and programming, combined with the "J***** codebase.  When someone clicks on a link that uses this combination, now I am "distributing" the code to an end-user.

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

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

Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 06:16:25 AM
Thats fine, just don't claim that your decision was developed in consultation with the Joomla Core Team. When/if you are ready to talk, let us know, as we have plenty of information to share with you.

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

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

Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 06:16:25 AM
Thats fine, just don't claim that your decision was developed in consultation with the Joomla Core Team. When/if you are ready to talk, let us know, as we have plenty of information to share with you.

Brad,

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

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

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

I think Orstio hit it on the head:

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

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

Quote
In order to do that, I suggest the Joomla team draw up a statement of exception to the GPL for the SMF bridge for the stated period of six calendar months.  This statement should be electronically signed by each and every Joomla copyright holder.  I am certain that if each copyright holder was to send an email of agreement of the statement to info at simplemachines, with some information so we can identify each of them individually to ensure

1) no copyright holders have been excluded,
2) no copyright holders find objection,
3) all copyright holders are in unanimous agreement,
4) the verification of the identity of each and every copyright holder,

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

Quote from: Praedator on July 27, 2007, 04:59:42 AM
btw check this out http://www.toonla.com/  ;)

I love those cartoons, they are so True.

Quote from: Aravot on July 27, 2007, 12:09:26 PM

Quote from: Praedator on July 27, 2007, 04:59:42 AM
btw check this out http://www.toonla.com/  ;)

I love those cartoons, they are so True.

:D completly agree

Just one small question.
What if someone devoleps a Joomla!/SMF Bridge and uses it for his OWN purposes and does NOT redistribute it?Can He use it?

If you write all the code yourself and don't give it to anyone, you are not subject to the distribution part of the GPL and are legal.

Note that this is how many companies can add their own special code to GPL projects and be legal. They just don't distribute outside their company.

/me makes note that nobody on the team is a lawyer

Take the advice as a suggestion from an informed person. Still good advice :)

Everyone -

I want to thank you for your responses - KarlBenson, Jeff Lewis, Thantos, Motoko-chan, Orstio, Trekkie101, Kindred. Trekkie101 - particular thanks for your thoughtful post. I *know* everyone on the SMF team appreciates the end user community shared with Joomla!. I know this.

Kindred - I am trying to be considerate and clear in my remarks. I am not trying to accuse anyone of being bad - but - SMF is rushing this, not Joomla!. That's not blaming, it's true and I am not at all certain you all understand that. I am a *community member* who is hoping we can get these two projects back together and figure this out.

The Joomla! project did *not* approach you and accuse you of violating the GPL. You contacted the FSF. The FSF has made it clear that the current method used to bridge SMF to GPL environments is a violation of the GPL. You were right to contact the FSF - the GPL is their license - they are the ones who ultimately seek compliance, if asked by copyright holders.

They seek compliance. <-- Read that.

QuoteFrom Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: (http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/) It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

Joomla! is not rushing this.

Quote from: joomla on July 27, 2007, 06:16:25 AM
Thats fine, just don't claim that your decision was developed in consultation with the Joomla Core Team. When/if you are ready to talk, let us know, as we have plenty of information to share with you.

Brad (joomla) is one to talk to; he is a Joomla! core team member. He invited SMF to keep working on a solution. I hope you take him up on that offer.

This has been a real learning experience for me, too. I used to share Marko's (Predator's) viewpoint that this was a "hard-core GPL interpretation." But, I don't think that, at all, anymore. In fact, I agree that ignoring the terms of your license is not wise for copyright holders. I shared my thoughts on that in the J! forums. (http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,194593.msg922855.html#msg922855)

Listen - I am confident, I really am, that if SMF and Joomla! begin talking, again, a solution will be found. For now, please consider the Joomla! v 1.0.13 security release.

With respect,
Amy

Amy,

You can quote that post from Joomla all you want... "it's a long, slow road..." may be nice rhetoric, but unfortunately, it doesn't wash.
If the bridge is a violation of the GPL, then it is a violation. it does not matter how much joomla says they want to take it slowly.
When Joomla announced their interpretation of the GPL, they essentially said "If you do not fit this interpretation, then you are in violation."
Although the joomla team may not choose to pursue any litigation against SMF for the bridge, SMF WOULD be in violation, if we continued to distribute the bridge.


As for maintaining stability...   1.0.13 has, unfortunately, just contradicted that by changing parts of joomla critical to any integration.

If, and until, the bridge has been redesigned, there will be no further release.

Quote from: eldʌkaː on July 27, 2007, 06:25:26 AM
Viewing a product of software, whatever it is, including the HTML produced by SMF+Joomla, is not the same as receiving a distribution of it. You're not distributing it unless you offered your PHP code for download.

Thank you for that clarification.  I'll fire my lawyer right away, and find a programmer to represent me.  What was I thinking?   :D    And it was nice of you to chop off the part where I said it wasn't a practical or defensible viewpoint, just a very literal one.  Thank you.  That was extra anyway.

I don't think I have ANY liability on this issue.

But the fact remains, I CAN'T USE anything that is non-GPL, if I am using J!  Why?  Because I'll be sued?  NO. 

Because anything at all that is non-GPL, when combined with GPL stuff, leaves the software creators and distributors liable for damages to the ***I modified my message here***"Free" software foundation***  license holders.  Now, that makes it automatically an unreliable choice for a software solution.

Just like this bridge, it will disappear, or lose support, or force me as an end-user to pay a license fee.  It's going to happen with other stuff, bank on it.  ***Modified by me***Essentially, FSF/GPL system has become a proprietary system with this interpretation, the same as Apple and Microsoft.***

In the long run, it just means that less and less teams will be developing on the GPL license, less and less stuff will remain free, and it seems to me from where I sit as an end-user, that's exactly what the "Free" software foundation is shooting for with this opinion.  It's all about eliminating the competition, nothing else.  Say it as pretty and nice as you want, it still translates to "screw you".

The FSF ***indirectly*** controls the usage of every piece of software under the GPL, hundreds of packages from what I can tell, and it ain't "free" anymore.  Either you use GPL stuff, or you use non-GPL stuff.  But not both.  Period.

It's no big deal to change the wording on this license, or to make exceptions.  NO BIG DEAL.  ESPECIALLY when companies like GoDaddy are pitching in with money that could be spent on lawyers.

But this is all about control, nothing else.  The more I think about it,  the more I think I'm going to stop using GPL software, OR offering free code altogether, as it has just turned into one big cesspool.  What if I offer source code that LOOKS LIKE a solution that has already been tried in a GPL package?

So I can't offer the source anymore, ***I modified my message here***because someone at the FSF might think I got it from them. ***

I'm going to follow the SMF route instead, and draw up my own custom license, which will NOT include source code.  It's silly to hang yourself out for it, by offering the source code, for someone else to assert control over.
mike

What? FSF is going to sue you for violation of the author's license? One which they (FSF) doesn't own. That doesn't make any sense. They can give you legal advice and even counsel, but as far as filing the lawsuit - how can they? All they did was write the license.

Sorry... I'm only trying to point out, that as the writers of the license, it can be changed by them.  You are right.
mike

I've modified my message above, to clarify the point made by groundup in the last post...

Kindred -

I don't want to wear out my welcome, but I feel like it's rude not to respond. I'm happy to leave after this post. And, I'm happy to continue if people continue to address me. I just want to make it clear why I continue to respond.  ;)

Quote from: Kindred on July 27, 2007, 04:08:50 PM
If the bridge is a violation of the GPL, then it is a violation. it does not matter how much joomla says they want to take it slowly.
When Joomla announced their interpretation of the GPL, they essentially said "If you do not fit this interpretation, then you are in violation."
Although the joomla team may not choose to pursue any litigation against SMF for the bridge, SMF WOULD be in violation, if we continued to distribute the bridge.

I don't say that to frighten you - but, you learned from the FSF that you are violating the GPL with each of your bridges into GPL software.  The GPL is the FSF's license. They set the terms. The terms of the GPL are the same for everyone who uses the GPL to license their software.

I really don't know how to make that more clear.

Some of the projects are choosing not to enforce the terms of the license. That is what is making you feel comfortable. Having said that, do not forget that there are typically third party libraries included in those distributions that are also licensed using the GPL. Those copyright holders could certainly choose to request the FSF work with you on their behalf to get compliance.

Do not take my word for anything. I certainly could be wrong. Ask the FSF if that is true or not.

I have to say, though, it is mind boggling to me that for some reason SMF feels comfortable violating the GPL for projects who say they will ignore the infraction - but refuses to see that Joomla! is not rushing this. I'm at a loss for words to explain this any more clearly.

Quote from: Kindred on July 27, 2007, 04:08:50 PM
As for maintaining stability...   1.0.13 has, unfortunately, just contradicted that by changing parts of joomla critical to any integration.

If, and until, the bridge has been redesigned, there will be no further release.

It wasn't a redesign. It is merely a password change! lol!

+++

Please take Brad and the Joomla! core team up on their offer to help SMF find a solution. What do you have to lose? Maybe, SMF will learn how to resolve all four of the GPL violations at the same time.  Then, you don't have to take anyone's word that they won't enforce their license. Instead, you'll be in compliance.

In my opinion, this could certainly turn into a good opportunity for your project.

All the best,
Amy :)

FYI I have now had 2 personal PM's from SMF team members, neither of them having posted in this thread. I strongly suggest the rest of the SMF team allow the people who are working on this to be able to do so now... please.

This should not have turned into the mess that it did.. if I somehow did not make my contact details available enough, or appear approachable etc.. I apologize.

I strongly encourage everyone to read my post here (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184678.msg1178278#msg1178278). There is way too much misinformation flying about right now and it's bordering on a little tit for tat argument indicating it's gotten out of control with no valid reason for that.

Both projects are trying to protect their interests and at the same time are trying to offer the best they can for their users.

As it stands now, there is movement and discussion on the issue and I urge everyone not to start flinging at each other as it does no good.

We're all in this software thing together people ;)

I just need to put in my 3 cents here.

Do not allow any Joomla supporter or Team Member to mislead you. There is only one reason that makes the SMF bridge illegal to use with Joomla and that is because the Joomla Core Team has decided that it is so:

From the announcement found here: http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/

Quote
Can I release an extension under a non-GPL license?

It is our opinion that most extensions are derivative works of Joomla! and must be licensed under the GNU GPL.  It is possible that an extension could work within Joomla! and not be considered a derivative work according to copyright law but this would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  If you believe your extension is not a derivative work we strongly recommend that you seek professional legal advice.

If the SMF bridge is released under a GNU/GPL license it can be legally installed in Joomla and no one can complain.

That it creates a non-GPL compliant "combined work" cannot be legally prosecuted unless that "combined work" is distributed.

Remember the most important point about the GPL: you can modify any GPLed software to your heart's content. Just don't distribute it if it no longer meets the GPL requirements.

I hope no one minds that i interject just a few things here...

First off Joomla's decision was based on information from the FSF. Made because of issues involving Joomla's use of GPL software it doesn't own copyright to, not based on any change of attitude that proprietary (which really doesn't apply to much to SMF anyway) is bad but that by allowing them, Joomla would be encouraging people to violate a license of software they borrowed. They did the right thing by saying we don't want to encourage anyone to violate anyone else's license. Is it the most desireable position? No! But it was the most Moral one that could be made with the information available.

Simple Machines made their decision based on information from the FSF too and did the right thing by saying we don't want to violate anyone else's license and therefore will pull the project as of now. This too is the Moral choice and if there is any issue with it the worst you could say was it was a bit rushed and seemed like a panic move. Panic leads to irrational decisions. Thought takes time.

I personally don't feel SMF is a villain here and neither is Joomla. Both are trying to do what is right and respect other peoples license. This should be applauded.

That said though both are operating based on information from the FSF. And while it is true they wrote the license and know what their intentions were when they used the language they did to create it, thier interpretation is really no more valid than say Yours or Mine, Joomla's or Simple Machines' is...

There is only one arbitor of what is TRULY enforcable, Truly a Violation and that is a court of law.
FSF can take anyone to court for license violation they want (not entirely true...) but it isn't actually a license violation and no action to pull a project needs to be taken until a court says "Hey FSF, Your Right it is a violation."

It should be pointed out that FSF's interpretation has ramifications for all GPL not just Joomla and given that what they say can not be construed as the final word (only a court can do that) we should not put anymore weight to their interpretation than we give to Mambo or Joomla's interpretations.

If we truly want to solve this issue and truly want to disprove the notion that only GPL can be combined with GPL then it should be a goal of the entire developer community to find a way to shoot down this midas touch licensing interpretation by the FSF.

Copyright judgement in a court is largely determined on Harm and Fairness...
If these interpretations that FSF are truly unfair to any 3rd party developer and they want to maintain what they deem are their rights, they should get together to challenge the FSF interpretation in court.

If Both Joomla and Simple Machines have made unpopular decisions based on information from the same source then we should not be going back and forth on who is to blame and who is wrong between Joomla and Simple Machines...

The problem is probably not the decisions made by both but the information those decisions were based on.
Instead of attacking each other for decisions made we should work to find a way around the information or attitude that brought both parties to the unpopular decision in the first place.

I believe there are ways around this issue and provided Joomla has no intentions of starting legal action it is unlikely FSF can either. That gives everyone time to think. No rushed reactions and no rush to judge.

But if we are going to waste our time beating each other over the head then no progress and no solution will ever come to pass.

Let stop the dog marking their territory work and move towards finding solutions to the problem. Even if that solution means making FSF actually prove their interpretation as fair and valid in court.

QuoteDo not allow any Joomla supporter or Team Member to mislead you. There is only one reason that makes the SMF bridge illegal to use with Joomla and that is because the Joomla Core Team has decided that it is so:

Colt you truly miss the point...there are many libraries in Joomla that Joomla can not give you permission to use in proprietary work they don't own them. You may choose not to believe that if you want but ingnorance doesn't always equal bliss!

Just more poison....

There is a difference between "distribution" and its use though. You can quite legally use the bridge and there is no issue with that.

Distributing the bridge is a whole different issue. I will not join the debate on this other than to say if we can work towards a solution that is viable then it will be done.

Until such time a formal announcement comes from Simplemachines on this issue all the additional back and forth is speculation.

Quote from: Asphyx on July 28, 2007, 11:19:06 AM

QuoteDo not allow any Joomla supporter or Team Member to mislead you. There is only one reason that makes the SMF bridge illegal to use with Joomla and that is because the Joomla Core Team has decided that it is so:

Colt you truly miss the point...there are many libraries in Joomla that Joomla can not give you permission to use in proprietary work they don't own them. You may choose not to believe that if you want but ingnorance doesn't always equal bliss!

Just more poison....

All of the "libraries" in Joomla are licensed under the GPL (correct me if I'm wrong)

If a bridge is released with a GPL license there is no violation if the bridge is installed in a GPLed software product (correct me if I'm wrong).

When a GPLed bridge is installed in a GPLed software product and connects to a non-GPLed software product, only then is a non-GPL compliant "combined work" created. (correct me if I'm wrong)

This does not violate anyone's license as long as the "combined work" is not distributed. (correct me if I'm wrong)

It is my opinion that the FSF's response(s) to Motokochan's inquiries are somewhat misleading.

Quote from: Brett Smith
No. The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all those licenses to create it. Combining the first script with the second this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

What Brett fails to mention is that this "violation" would be irrelevant unless the end-user distributes the "combined work".

And I agree with all of the previous points you made in your post.

Welcome to SMF, Asphyx.

I think your assessment of the situation is the most fair and clear I have read so far.  It is much appreciated that somebody is able to understand this all clearly.

QuoteThere is only one arbitor of what is TRULY enforcable, Truly a Violation and that is a court of law.
FSF can take anyone to court for license violation they want (not entirely true...) but it isn't actually a license violation and no action to pull a project needs to be taken until a court says "Hey FSF, Your Right it is a violation."

While I agree, I must say that most people on both the Joomla and SMF teams are just volunteers.  This is my hobby, not my job, nor my bread-earning business.  I know that I certainly don't have any desire to go to court over my hobby, so the best/safest course of action is to pull the project.

Asphyx,

Your first post here is really a very good one indeed. 8)


Colt45,

You are absolutely right that it's the user who does the installation and that as long as he doesn't redistribute it combined, there is no problem, imho. It's worth clarifying this point. :)

Quote from: Asphyx on July 28, 2007, 11:19:06 AM

...

Copyright judgement in a court is largely determined on Harm and Fairness...
If these interpretations that FSF are truly unfair to any 3rd party developer and they want to maintain what they deem are their rights, they should get together to challenge the FSF interpretation in court.

...

I don't think that SMF &/or Joomla! would be successful though.  FSF has a very good defense of their 'fairness' - it allows for 'exceptions',  which Joomla! chooses not to include in their license...  I recall that word 'exceptions' or lack of them gets repeated numerous times in the FSF/SMF e.mail exchange...  Joomla! no doubt would be asked by the Courts why they would not follow that route...

If I understand it correctly, SMF is in no position to argue anything in Courts because this has nothing to do with THEIR license... SMF has no obligation to comply with FSF 'interpretations' or their rules.  I believe they are complying out of courtesy and respect for other groups and their projects...  The same way I as Canadian do not need to comply with USA laws or their interpretations and vice versa...  FSF has no jurisdiction over SMF...

If I were Orstio I would most certainly do not waste my 'hobby' time and energy on the projects which might result with legal actions regardless if those actions are valid or not... bogus or not... there are other more interesting and more rewarding and useful options.

Yes, Joomla! is an excellent CMS and my choice for my website so far... however, there are others probably even better options and I'm confident that  developers like Orstio will have some excellent solutions when it is my time to upgrade...

Anna

Quote from: anna.young on July 28, 2007, 06:48:28 PM
If I understand it correctly, SMF is in no position to argue anything in Courts because this has nothing to do with THEIR license... SMF has no obligation to comply with FSF 'interpretations' or their rules.  I believe they are complying out of courtesy and respect for other groups and their projects...  The same way I as Canadian do not need to comply with USA laws or their interpretations and vice versa...  FSF has no jurisdiction over SMF...

If I understand it correctly, there are very few occasions when you can bring something to a court to decide when the other party hasn't made any actions. As far as I know, the only way the license would be settled would be if one of the Joomla! copyright holders or their agent was to sue over that license. Until something like that happens, we won't likely get a clear verdict on what the license terms are held to mean.

Also, I will point out that, in general, copyright and IP law is very very vague in some areas. Things like derivative works and similar are not very well-defined.

Quote from: Asphyx on July 28, 2007, 11:19:06 AMIf we truly want to solve this issue and truly want to disprove the notion that only GPL can be combined with GPL then it should be a goal of the entire developer community to find a way to shoot down this midas touch licensing interpretation by the FSF.

I happen to agree with this.

I am not pleased with the FSF GPL and all the grief that has ensued in regards to a bridge between two free products. It should be up to them to prove their stance holds water, and not at the expense of projects that choose to work with each other.

I don't blame you for your concern with the FSF. It's most unfortunate that this feels threatening, it simply shouldn't be so.

Anyways, let me take this opportunity to thank Orstio and the SMF people for how they have supported Joomla!. I use your bridge and it's good. I hope that I am still using a Joomla!/SMF bridge in the future.

QuoteIf a bridge is released with a GPL license there is no violation if the bridge is installed in a GPLed software product (correct me if I'm wrong).

Ok first correction. Takes more than just slapping a license on a product to get around a license violation. The problem here is key components of the bridge are not GPL they are licensed under SMFs own license. It calls to code that is not GPL and that is where the license is being violated. What the program actually does and how it does it is almost as important as what license it uses. in a sense the GPL bridge (if you believe FSF on this issue) is in violation of it's own license because it is combined with proprietary software. The notion may seem rediculous on the surface (how can you violate your own license?) but that is the barrier to proprietary FSF has wanted to construct from the get go!

If the bridge only interacted with GPL licensed files then the SMF bridge would not be in violation. If the files the bridge called to were LGPL or GPL, then the bridge would be compliant. (I'm not suggesting SMF should do that just showing an example of what it would take.)

QuoteWhen a GPLed bridge is installed in a GPLed software product and connects to a non-GPLed software product, only then is a non-GPL compliant "combined work" created. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Well it's a minor point but if you create a GPL extention that connects to both a GPL and NON-GPL code you are actually combining two incompatible licenses even before the extention actually touches the non-GPL program. It is FSFs position that creating this ability is the violation not the actual communication that occurrs when run. SMF itself wouldn't be violating the license of Joomla the GPL Bridge would be. It's semantical but that what Law really is the art of semantics!

QuoteThis does not violate anyone's license as long as the "combined work" is not distributed. (correct me if I'm wrong)

I really don't want to rehash this all over again...FSF says it must be allowed to be combined and redistributed as GPL or it violates. I don't personally agree with this as I think it oversteps the bounds of what is legal. But the GPL does say you can not incorporate GPL into a proprietary work. By creating the bridge in essence you are combining Joomla into SMF which constitutes a violation. You are in essence using Joomla code to add display capability to SMF with a bridge.

IE: I could not write a proprietary loader, have it run Joomla and say the entire thing was proprietary. While a bridge is actually BiDirectional (which would make this a sketchy example at best. ) it does in essence add capability to both making a combined work when run. As I said this is better off left to a court...

QuoteWhile I agree, I must say that most people on both the Joomla and SMF teams are just volunteers.  This is my hobby, not my job, nor my bread-earning business.  I know that I certainly don't have any desire to go to court over my hobby, so the best/safest course of action is to pull the project.

I know and I understand 100%...
Me personally I think it might be an option to see if SMF could get GPL COMPATIBLE status for it's license. It may actually comply as you are allowing most everything GPL does with some slight exceptions. (I haven't really drilled into your license so I may be wrong here)

Basically Orstio all I'm trying to say is lets stop fixing the blame and start fixing the problem.
We shouldn't need courts and lawyers to do that and until it comes to that point nothing has really changed.
Joomla has asked developers to comply but they haven't demanded it.
Joomla has also said they don't intend to prosecute so FSF can say whatever they want it amounts to a whole lot of nothin because they can't start a suit on Joomla's behalf. The risk is from some GPL copyright holder of code that Joomla uses. If that should happen then that would be the time to pull the product. the GPL states that at most you will be forced to pull distribution, no monetary penalty will be incurred.

I think it is a much better use of our time and brain matter to find solutions than to find some corner to hide in.
We have two groups of programmers who together have tackled what is likely the two hardest programming tasks that can be undertaken and did it in a manner that rivals what many commercial programs have accomplished.

With all that intelligence to work with I find it odd that it is ready to simply give up and not find a way to make the reality that we want.
Or gets bogged down with He did it She Did it dissertaions which are unproductive and don't solve the issue.

We shouldn't let some 3rd party be allowed to influence two sets of programmers who have worked together quite well for so long to put them at odds simply because they want to push their agenda.

Joomla for legal reasons has their hands tied. To allow GPL violation for Joomla requires they violate someone else's license which I think both sides agree is not the best practice.

J1.5 is a new system. I know you (Orstio) put a lot of work into bridging it and hate abandoning all of that work.
I think there are ways to bridge without using SMF code. (I have mentioned one way over at Joomla) That would solve the issue of combination since the only code that would be combined would be GPLed. I don't want to go into a great deal of detail as I'm not sure it is on topic for this thread. I'll be happy to discuss it further if anyone from SMF wants to.
This post is already longer than I would like ti to be...

QuoteI don't think that SMF &/or Joomla! would be successful though.  FSF has a very good defense of their 'fairness' - it allows for 'exceptions',  which Joomla! chooses not to include in their license... 

Joomla has no choice in this matter. they have to comply with licenses of code they have combined with just the same as SMF must comply with licenses of code they combine with. And FSF does not allow just any exceptions..they are specific such as a specific copyright in a specific country and the exception allowed is to deny distribution in that country, not ignoring those laws or permission to violate any terms of the GPL. FSF also gives you an explicit exception to use if you want to allow proprietary programs to be combined with yours.

It is called the LGPL. this brings up the Mambo issue...

Mambo's license is GPL. a bridge there is just as much a violation of their license as the Joomla bridge. Mambo just chooses not to file a suit when it happens. Joomla has essentially said the same thing. No different. Where the difference lies is that Mambo may have the right to LGPL the project because they don't have any borrowed code. I have a hard time believing that is true because if it was they would have simply LGPLed the project already so you didn't need to go to a faq to see what is allowed. It should be in the license. their Faq contradicts their license.

The problem as I see it is conflicting interests. Not between Joomla and SMF but between the FSF and Joomla/Simple Machines.

FSF wants only GPL code to be used with GPL code. If most code was GPL then that might be a reasonable goal.
Thats their agenda...It is only a problem for us if we let it be.
I think there are reasonable ways around this unrelated to the licensing.
How you bridge is the key.
and as programmer both Joomla and Simple Machines would have to be classified as EXPERTS in the HOW TO department.

Lets stop the hysteria, clear the minds and get down to it!
Lets fix the problem not the blame.

Quote from: Jeff Lewis on July 27, 2007, 07:27:40 PM
I strongly encourage everyone to read my post here (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184678.msg1178278#msg1178278). There is way too much misinformation flying about right now and it's bordering on a little tit for tat argument indicating it's gotten out of control with no valid reason for that.

Both projects are trying to protect their interests and at the same time are trying to offer the best they can for their users.

As it stands now, there is movement and discussion on the issue and I urge everyone not to start flinging at each other as it does no good.

We're all in this software thing together people ;)

Folks! lol! It has been posted on both in the SMF (see the quote, above!) and Joomla! forums that the teams *are* working together, again, to resolve this issue. 

A bridge can be built in a way that is compliant with both SMF's and Joomla!'s license. It is not required that SMF be GPL-compliant; only that the bridge to be GPL-compliant.

As it luck would have it  :) the individual from the FSF who was emailing with SMF was in Oregon when Louis and Rob were there for the OSCON. Louis reported that they were able to talk to him (http://www.joomla.org/component/option,com_jd-wp/Itemid,105/p,394/) about ideas to build compliance for bridges into non-GPL compliant environments. So, there are ideas on how to do this properly, now.

The GPL has the same terms regardless of who uses it; it's not really an "interpretation" issue. Some choose to ignore infractions to their license. Joomla! is working towards compliance with the GPL. A license does you no good if you don't enforce it.

Honestly, in the end, this will be better for SMF and any non-GPL compliant application. Developers will not need Joomla!'s "word" that they won't seek compliance of their license - there will *be* compliance.

Let's give the teams a bit of time to work, now. I am completely confident this will be resolved.

Amy :)

If it means not reading another 20 posts by you saying the same thing over and over again, I'm all for it.

Quote from: M3g4d37h on July 29, 2007, 01:21:32 PM
If it means not reading another 20 posts by you saying the same thing over and over again, I'm all for it.

Careful...there might be a group hug involved. ;)

Quote from: M3g4d37h on July 29, 2007, 01:21:32 PM
If it means not reading another 20 posts by you saying the same thing over and over again, I'm all for it.

Me, too! ;)

Very bad bad bad bad news !!!!!!!!!

I was looking forward to welcome the bridge between Joomla! and SMF 2.0. Now it seems I will not see such a result.

Why ?

Joomla! and SMF 2.0 are both great web applications. why they can't integrated together?

Is this because some personal feelings considerations?

Why can't you all think about the request from thousands of users of Joomla! and SMF ?

Quote from: baijianpeng on July 29, 2007, 10:59:24 PM
Very bad bad bad bad news !!!!!!!!!

I was looking forward to welcome the bridge between Joomla! and SMF 2.0. Now it seems I will not see such a result.

Why ?

Please read the first post in this topic.

Quote from: baijianpeng on July 29, 2007, 10:59:24 PM
Joomla! and SMF 2.0 are both great web applications. why they can't integrated together?

Is this because some personal feelings considerations?

Why can't you all think about the request from thousands of users of Joomla! and SMF ?

There are no personal issues involved in the decision.

We can't continue at this point because the way the bridge works violates Joomla!'s software license and could get us sued.

We are talking with the Joomla! people right now and they think they might have some solutions to the problem. We don't know how complicated this will be, or if it is even possible. Should something change in the situation, we will make a new post.

For now, read the first post on the topic to understand the details.

Motoko -

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 29, 2007, 11:39:53 PM
We can't continue at this point because the way the bridge works violates Joomla!'s software license and could get us sued.

I want to *try* to ease concerns about being "sued."

Eben Moglen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen) has been general counsel for the Free Software Foundation for many years. I encourage you to read his article entitled Enforcing the GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html) if you have time or interest. This is a piece from that article:

QuoteIn approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

It is going to take time to get compliance with the GPL for Joomla!. These words are not rhetoric, it's an approach that has worked well for the enforcing the GPL for years. There is no intent to sue, the desire is to bring compliance with the license. And, that is not going to happen over night.

Given your comment about possibly getting sued, it dawned on me you might not understand this and for me, the possibility of getting sued would bring sleepless nights. So, I just wanted to share this article.

Amy :)

Quote from: Asphyx on July 29, 2007, 10:42:59 AM
It calls to code that is not GPL and that is where the license is being violated.

So then, any GPL software that runs on Windows and makes system calls is violating the GPL? Would it be illegal then to install Joomla! on a Windows server with MSSQL? (Certainly not the best server environment in my opinion, but I think some people use it.)

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 30, 2007, 12:14:38 PM
It is going to take time to get compliance with the GPL for Joomla!. These words are not rhetoric, it's an approach that has worked well for the enforcing the GPL for years. There is no intent to sue, the desire is to bring compliance with the license. And, that is not going to happen over night.

Amy...

We *ARE* now in compliance with the GPL. *THAT* is the reason that the bridge has been removed.

And, I think Motoko-chan may have mis-spoken. We are not so afraid of getting sued as being in compliance. Especially since we insist that users maintain compliance with OUR license.

Once again... The reason that the bridge was removed was to make us in compliance with Joomla's interpretation of the GPL. We ar enow in compliance, and despite the fact that we are in discussions with the joomla team on ways to release a compliant bridge, nothing will be released or distributed until we find a way to do so IN compliance.

Quote from: Kindred on July 30, 2007, 12:19:38 PM
And, I think Motoko-chan may have mis-spoken. We are not so afraid of getting sued as being in compliance.

Kindred -

No problem. I just wanted to make certain no one was worrying about being sued. I am relieved to hear you are not concerned about that since I do not see it as a concern to begin with.

All the best!
Amy :)

@ AmyStephen

I feel I must take issue with a point you keep repeating...


If I write code X and license it under the GPL it remains my code...I can then license it under the BSD license too...it's my code...I can license it under the SMF license more than likely...it's my code. I can license it under as many different licenses as I like, simultaneously, and grant whatever exceptions to those licenses as I like...it's my code.

If some person or organisation came to me to ask for permission to use my code then though that permission might be against the terms of any of the licensing I had used I could grant them an exception and allow them to use it...it's my code.

Joomla do not own quantities of the code they use and thus cannot grant exceptions to the GPL licensing under which they use that code...it's not their code.

Mambo can grant such exceptions...it's their code.

You have repeatedly said that the case of the Joomla bridge is the same as that of the Mambo bridge...as the above clearly shows the two cases are not the same at all. CMS, or other products, that own their code can license it and grant exceptions to said licensing and thus many, probably most, are in an entirely different position to that of Joomla.

As other bridge products appear to have been granted exceptions to licensing by the code owners they are entirely moral and legal...your repeated claim that they are in the same position as the Joomla bridge simply is not the case.

[ignore my incoherent ramblings]

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 28, 2007, 07:59:38 PM

Quote from: anna.young on July 28, 2007, 06:48:28 PM
If I understand it correctly, SMF is in no position to argue anything in Courts because this has nothing to do with THEIR license... SMF has no obligation to comply with FSF 'interpretations' or their rules.  I believe they are complying out of courtesy and respect for other groups and their projects...  The same way I as Canadian do not need to comply with USA laws or their interpretations and vice versa...  FSF has no jurisdiction over SMF...

If I understand it correctly, there are very few occasions when you can bring something to a court to decide when the other party hasn't made any actions. As far as I know, the only way the license would be settled would be if one of the Joomla! copyright holders or their agent was to sue over that license. Until something like that happens, we won't likely get a clear verdict on what the license terms are held to mean.

Also, I will point out that, in general, copyright and IP law is very very vague in some areas. Things like derivative works and similar are not very well-defined.

Actually there are many, it's called declarative judgement see link here http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/05/21/lawyers.html


Similarly, Orstio did the same thing by pulling the license, putting the ball in Joomla's court (no pun intended) to make a *definitive* statement regarding the SMF interface to Joomla (Bridge).
Joomla/FSF seem, I think, to have painted themselves into a corner with their highly ambitious and overreaching extrapolation and interpretation of the GPL to claim that even interfacing disparate software (even at 'arm's length') is a violation via derivative works- but  Templates, whose PHP codes intertwine and intermingle within the Joomla codespace like fornicating sea-anemone are not? :P

Few among us, reading of Joomla's desire to reassert, reaffirm and to restate their "affiliation and committment" to 'Opensource' would have predicted or guessed that even building a bridge (on the River Kwai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai), no less) would be the talk of a VIOLATION !!!!! (no emphasis added):D

For those who consider 'panic' Orstios pulling of the bridge, that the claims, as wild eyed as they are, are without merit, I only suggest you look at the case of the Korean Dry Cleaners, brought to the brink of bankruptcy over a missing pair of $30 pants <insert wry smile here> http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1

- Wild legal claims notwithstanding, SMF needs to be seen to be scrupulously observing ,or at least attempting to observe, the license claims of others wherever possible, if only to expect reciprocity in turn! (example: We the USA wont torture people/prisoners and expect the same for our troops :P)


Make no mistake, this storm if it can be called such, is solely of Joomla's making. Is it their desire? That is a different question entirely!

Before we lay blame, recognize that Joomla is not one person, but a coalition of the willing (Willing to raise Hell over the GPL :P), a  much more homogeneously structured organization now than a few months ago, ( several key people Schmuck et al, resigning in protest),  the remaining 'core' (of the Joomla apple, if you will) is still comprised of people who have different motivations and driving factors and these affect the decisions made.

Quote
You have your Opensource zealots, Talibanesque beards sodden with spittle as they swear at the "Commercial Encroachers!"

You have your Core Members whom are 3PD and hope/hoped  to make some money on the side leveraging their 'insider' knowledge with Joomla to make Applications (extensions) that they sell a few dollars many times


You have your Core Members who are more 'consultants' and make their money selling "Joomla Services" like training etc.

QuoteWe can provide you with the training you need to utilize Joomla! to its fullest capacity. As specialists with the Joomla! 1.5 Framework there is no better source for information on how to get the most for the least. We also proudly participate in the Joomla! University training seminars to be announced soon... Stay tuned for more!

Of course, the difference between this group and the former, is that when you do a training for $200 an hour + expenses, the client isnt going to take your training course and slap their logo on it and sell it! :P

The Joomla "Rebirth" conveniently shifts the scale to those who 'service' vs those who 'sell'. If you are already conveniently positioned then you are sweet!

The Men in the Middle:

They either sell commercial templates or WEB HOSTING, the former again conveniently, excepted from this GPL trainwreck.

Therefore, the balance is:

Zealot (1)
Developer_who_stands_to_benefit (1)
Core_Member_who_is_Really_Unaffected(1)
Core_Member_without_a_stake_But_Is_PRO_JOOMLA_regardless (1)
Core_Member_without_a_stake_But_Think_Phil_Taylor/Ostio are bloody primadonnas(1)

VS

Developer_who_stands_to_LOSE(1)
Person_Against(1)

With those odds, you dont need a crooked referee to see how this ball game is gonna turn out! :P


Disclosure: I have been a Mambo FAN and Joomla afficionado for ....3 years or so, switched to Joomla during the "Great Rift and Separation from the Evil Foundation" chose SMF 'cause I saw Joomla using it ( I had already bought VB and dumped it, all $160 worth!) use Rockettheme 'cause Joomla did, and that was good enough for me!

Been around the block enough to recognize that if you take a Fat Twin out to the prom, she still has a sister! :D


Did NO ONE know that the change in Password authentication would INVALIDATE ALMOST EVERY BRIDGE?

Could No one make this an 'OPTIONAL FEATURE that is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED?'

(Note: Despite the horrors and the many exploits of REGISTER GLOBALS, that setting emulating it is still  ON by default?????? )

Has anyone considered that the DATABASE (the schema, not the contents) may be covered by the GPL and extensions thereto may be derivative works? As a developer myself, the most IMPORTANT part of my application is the database schema which drives the ENTIRE APPLICATION.. will we we see a declarative statement from FSF about that?

.......or will the issue remain hidden to lurk like Cleopatra's ASP to strike when ready? :P

( Amy, I have taken the liberty to reply on your behalf by emailing myself some syrupy plattitudes, exclamation points and smiley faces, thanks! :D )

@ metallica48423

With respect I think you're missing my point...a code owner can license their code however they like and there can only be a violation it the entire licensing is violated...in this case if the only licensing is the GPL, with no exceptions being granted, then there is a violation...if there is an exception that has been given then the licensing is the GPL plus that exception so there is no violation.

Think of it in terms of house insurance...you can get a better deal if you grant the insurer an exception (for instance no claim less than $3,000 any loss less than that to be uninsured) the insurance then becomes the contract including the exception.

By granting an exception you modify the license and the modified license is not violated if the exception is the basis of a claim of violation.

Mike - if you own 100% of the code that will be used with Windows then you can do whatever you like...
If you used GPL Routines you don't own and try to use them in Windows you can of course be sued by the person who you borrowed code from...You would need their express permission (which is tantamount to relisencing) and you would have to LGPL the project.


If you really want to interface with proprietary works then you should be using the LGPL for your license and you should not be borrowing GPL code from other sources.

Who installs it doesn't matter!

If I write Lord of the rings IV which encompases all of the Lord of the Rings trilogy plus some story I added to it.
The person who gets that work and reads it out loud can't be sued...
The guy who wote the thing can.

you can NOT GPL code that uses proprietary code.
It hurts the integrity of the GPL.
There has to be complete assurance that there is no violation of the use of proprietary code!
Merely slapping a GPL Sticker on it is not enough!
You would in fact be violating the proprietary nature of the license. Only those who purchased the proprietary product can actually use those codes.

By slapping a GPL sticker on it you are saying in essence anyone can use them. That is not only a violation of the GPL you slapped on it but a violation of the proprietaryt licensed code you used.

to allow that would mean anyone could use all the proprietary code they wanted and GPL it by merely slapping that GPL sticker on it...They have a right (your are claiming by GPLing) to use your routines, Which means you just gave them rights to use that code as well. That code would in essence no longer be proprietary. Maybe you have the right to use them but you can't legally transfer that right therefore you can't legally GPL it!

SMF has a right to GPL whatever parts of their code they want. If they wish to do that then I'm sure the Bridge could be made compliant!
But those parts would be GPL inside SMF as well!

thats the rub!
No matter how you slice it, there is some degradation to the proprietary nature of the work.
Either by duplicating key proprietary functions in a totally GPL bridge so you don't use the prorietary code OR GPLing parts of the proprietary code distribution so they can be used in a call from the GPL Bridge.

here is the issue...
I have GPL Program (GPLPA)
I have Proprietary program B (PPB)
In GPLPA I have a function that says include file from PPB.
It's GPL anyone can now use that function code to include file from PPB
Doesn't matter if they have rights to use PPB from the owner or not I GAVE them that right because I GPLed a program I had no right to GPL. 3rd party license violation...
I have money in the bank, I say you can take the money in my bank. Just because I have permission to take money from my bank doesn't mean I can give anyone I meet the right to take money out of it!
I can give them a check (aka License) But still my license is only good for the money I own. I can't have $75 and say you can take $100.

Maybe that will explain what the actual problem is and why GPL doesn't allow proprietary to meet directly. Why it requires all code to be GPL so there is no question that it can be used by anyone.

Truesatan, after re-reading certain parts of the GPL,

You're correct, theres no violation because of the allowance for exceptions.

I stand corrected.

QuoteBy granting an exception you modify the license and the modified license is not violated if the exception is the basis of a claim of violation.

Unfortunatly you are only able to grant an exception on code you write...
If you used someone else's GPL routines they have to sign off on any exceptions as well...

If you asked Joomla for exceptions on specific functions and code they might be very happy to grant exceptions.
But they can't give you an exception for a code they do not own. And THAT is why they can't give you an exemption for JOOMLA (Whole Encompassing Distribution) since the license applies to the entire distribution and so would any exemption they can't legally give an exemption on 100% until they own 100%

Quote from: Asphyx on July 30, 2007, 04:01:54 PM
In GPLPA I have a function that says include file from PPB.
It's GPL anyone can now use that function code to include file from PPB

But the user wouldn't have PPB (i.e. SMF) unless they were licensed to use the PPB code anyway. The distributor hasn't given away, or modified any code from PPB... just function calls to code within PPB. Just like if I write a program that makes a call to some windows system function, I haven't given the user any windows code, or the right to use the windows code... I've just given them something that would work for them IF they already had a licensed copy of windows. Do you understand my confusion?

@ metallica48423

Thanks...it's an important point to make IMHO as AmyStephen's repeated postings were saying that we were in breach of licensing based upon incorrect assumptions. We aren't in breach, at least not in the way she has claimed.

We ought not to let a claim of a breach of licensing by SMF go by unchallenged (espescially if it's an incorrect claim.)

@ Asphyx

Yes...only the owner (or the owners fully accredited agent) of a code can grant exceptions to licensing relating to that code...Joomla isn't in a position to grant exceptions as you rightly say.

QuoteBut the user wouldn't have PPB (i.e. SMF) unless they were licensed to use the PPB code anyway. The distributor hasn't given away, or modified any code from PPB... just function calls to code within PPB. Just like if I write a program that makes a call to some windows system function, I haven't given the user any windows code, or the right to use the windows code... I've just given them something that would work for them IF they already had a licensed copy of windows. Do you understand my confusion?

The same concept boggles my mind as well.
Also, as far as 'linking' code etc.
If I distribute code that does not work ( the user has to download and install a patch or modifier - distributed separately, wouldnt that be better?

or, instead of distributing the complete code, distribute the delta to modify the target code to something else?

it seems to me that the whole solution to this thing is NOT as Asphyx and others are helpfully trying to represent as a technical problem, just needing us to 'get our heads together' but a POLITICAL problem. Nothing is automatically kosher or can be made so, pending a specific exception.

The more complex the interface,  the more the resulting union is a new derived work!

@ MikeC801

It's a difficult area but one of the differences is that Operating Systems licensing has to include exceptions such that the systems can run applications whereas a bridge seeks to, in effect and with varying levels of success, make two products act as one and may need extra licensing exceptions so to do as that was not the original intent of either of the two products.

It all depends on the particulars of the license in question.

@ elfishtroll

It's far worse than a political problem...it's a legal one.

Note that when Microsoft offers patches it also offers extra licenses to go with them.

Quote from: TrueSatan on July 30, 2007, 05:01:24 PM
@ MikeC801

It's a difficult area but one of the differences is that Operating Systems licensing has to grant exceptions such that the systems can run applications whereas a bridge seeks to, in effect and with varying levels of success, make two products act as one and may need extra licensing exceptions so to do.

It all depends on the particulars of the license in question.

Still confusing... why doesn't Joomla! view itself as the "operating system" of a website... and let people write applications that can be based off of it. Make the exceptions like Microsoft! I think Microsoft is happy to have a lot of software out there that runs on its system... means it is actually USEFUL to a lot of people when there are so many applications out there allowed to run on it.

To me, a bridge is an interface between two useful software packages.. not necessarily making two softwares act as one. Joomla and SMF still very much retain unique and separate functionality even when bridged.

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 30, 2007, 12:14:38 PM
Motoko -

Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 29, 2007, 11:39:53 PM
We can't continue at this point because the way the bridge works violates Joomla!'s software license and could get us sued.

I want to *try* to ease concerns about being "sued."

Eben Moglen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen) has been general counsel for the Free Software Foundation for many years. I encourage you to read his article entitled Enforcing the GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html) if you have time or interest. This is a piece from that article:

QuoteIn approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

It is going to take time to get compliance with the GPL for Joomla!. These words are not rhetoric, it's an approach that has worked well for the enforcing the GPL for years. There is no intent to sue, the desire is to bring compliance with the license. And, that is not going to happen over night.

Given your comment about possibly getting sued, it dawned on me you might not understand this and for me, the possibility of getting sued would bring sleepless nights. So, I just wanted to share this article.

Amy :)

All legal mumbo-jumbo (or should I say Joomla-Jumbo?) aside, this attitude is nothing new, and I'm not surprised that team members have left the J! team.

What this *does* do is paint the J! crew in the same light as some of these commercial/proprietary companis -- And not just to me, as evidenced by the postings here.

I too went with J! during the great rift, but I should have saw this coming long ago.

For me, it's this simple -- SMF is much more integral to my sites than J! is.  So when all the dust settles and nothing has changed (which is based upon the inflexibility from J! that is seen from J! on their forums), I will dump J! for a competing piece of Open Source CMS software.

It's a shame how people can take a perfectly good thing that works perfectly well, then break it.

If open source means this is what we get, I'd rather pay and do whatever the hell I want with it.  I say that strictly as a consumer.

Amy, please don't reply.  There's no need for you to expound the same thing again and again to me.  I get it.

Quote from: MikeC801 on July 30, 2007, 05:34:52 PM
Still confusing... why doesn't Joomla! view itself as the "operating system" of a website... and let people write applications that can be based off of it. Make the exceptions like Microsoft! I think Microsoft is happy to have a lot of software out there that runs on its system... means it is actually USEFUL to a lot of people when there are so many applications out there allowed to run on it.

The problem is, and this has been said multiple times, they don't own all the code in their software, so they can't change the license on the package as a whole.

QuoteI'm not surprised that team members have left the J! team.

ONE person left, just to set the record straight. Marko was also not able to attend our summit where we thrashed out this issue before releasing to the public.

In any case, it's a free world, and I hope you find a open source CMS that suits your needs.

QuoteIt's a shame how people can take a perfectly good thing that works perfectly well, then break it.

You might like to look into what is 'broken'. When you do, you will see the reasons were based on concern for you, the end users website security. In any case, the bridge was not pulled due to the changes in 1.0.13 Joomla, so I think this is taking this thread off topic.

All the best.

lets please not this degenerate into finger pointing.  The issue at hand isn't a he-said she-said, it is a simple (read: complex) legality that needs worked out.  I'd hate to see such an important topic locked.

Thank you.

@ MikeC801

As Motoko-chan says they (Joomla) simply don't have the option to do as you suggest.

Supposing even that they did there are still more problems with your suggestion.

Quotewhy doesn't Joomla! view itself as the "operating system" of a website

The term "Operating System has a complex legal definition and Joomla doesn't even come close to meeting that definition.

Even if Motoko-chan's point didn't already rule the idea out (which it does) then if they even could do such a thing it would seem to run contrary to their apparent wish to enforce a particular licensing on all 3pd development.

QuoteTo me, a bridge is an interface between two useful software packages.. not necessarily making two softwares act as one. Joomla and SMF still very much retain unique and separate functionality even when bridged.

I would wish you great good fortune if you were to have to defend your definition of a bridge in legal circles...you'd need it. The danger being that it would be all too easy to put forward another definition or definitions that would be considerably less helpful to your cause.

All said and done the bridge has gone the way of the one at Tacoma Narrows http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bridge/meetsusp.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bridge/meetsusp.html) and this is becoming a rather hypothetical discussion.

@TrueSatan

You tell me... how are they made one if they can still operate separately, and run out of separate web directories, and off of separate databases, and maintain their own distinct code? Doesn't seem so "one" to me... "bridged"... yes... "wrapped"... sure... "one"... nope.

It's not clear cut though...separate is a compromised term in a bridge as there is some sharing. As we have seen ad nauseum there's enough sharing to cause a licensing problem.

As soon as you get into anything that is at all a muddying of terms then it's something to keep away from lawyers.

BTW I'm not a lawyer however I'm a business accountant who has had to undergo formal legal training in licensing and copyright law as part of his qualifications and knows when to run a mile from taking a legal route when the outcome isn't clear cut.

Quote from: TrueSatan on July 30, 2007, 03:28:21 PM
@ AmyStephen

I feel I must take issue with a point you keep repeating...

< snip >

Mambo can grant such exceptions...it's their code.

You have repeatedly said that the case of the Joomla bridge is the same as that of the Mambo bridge...as the above clearly shows the two cases are not the same at all.

Given those points, I see why you must take issue - I am clearly not communicating well. My apologies.

Agreed upon fact: SMF engaged FSF in an email exchange about building a bridge a specific way between a non-GPL and GPL environment. The FSF indicated that doing so would result in an infraction of the GPL.

Understand: The FSF's comments were relevant to *any* of the bridges between SMF and GPL environments. FSF's comments were not for one specific CMS. No CMS was named in the email. Each bridge violates the GPL.

However: Some projects indicated they will *permit* the violation of the GPL without seeking enforcement.

That is all I have said.

My hope was to see the SMF and Joomla! teams reconnect to try to find a solution. They are doing that, now! Let's see how it works out!

Hope that helps, if not, please me know!
Amy :)

No Amy...you're still saying that there is a violation where there is none.

QuoteEach bridge violates the GPL.

No it doesn't...where an exception has been granted by the copyright holder there is no violation taking place. Likewise the following is also incorrect as by permitting they grant an exception and thus no violation takes place.

QuoteSome projects indicated they will *permit* the violation of the GPL without seeking enforcement.

We all need to be very careful about claiming anything to be a violation of licensing...I trust everyone can agree on that. In this context if an exception (or permit) is in place then there can be no violation of licensing as the terms of the GPL are modified by that/those exception(s) or permit(s) from the copyright holder(s).

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 30, 2007, 07:00:00 PM
...

However: Some projects indicated they will *permit* the violation of the GPL without seeking enforcement.

...
Hope that helps, if not, please me know!
Amy :)

I agree with Truesatan

I understand that 'some projects' who own 100% of the code granted an 'exception' and NOT 'permission to violate the GPL', therefore your statements are misleading Amy.

All J! needs to do is contact ALL code owners in order to grant that exception.  This would be the simplest direction for J! to take...  Were any steps taken by J! in that direction?

Anna

Joomla! can still grant an exception as far as I see it. They just need to get permission from those that have submitted code.

Quote from: groundup on July 30, 2007, 07:28:07 PM
Joomla! can still grant an exception as far as I see it. They just need to get permission from those that have submitted code.

That is not possible. ie Physically, not possible to locate all code contributors.

 Are the code contributors so different from those who contributed to Mambo?

I'm surprised that Joomla didn't put in place some possibility to grant licencing variances within agreed limits when accepting code from contributors...a considerable oversight IMHO. Such structures aren't unusual in the commercial world and often form part of contracts.

We are a GPL project, and intend to stay that way.. free from riders/exceptions etc..

So even if you could contact the code contributors, as groundup suggested, you appear now to be saying that you wouldn't be prepared so to do...that you wouldn't be willing to ask them to allow you to grant exceptions? If that is the case your reply to groundup appears to be factually correct but incomplete in a way that was somewhat misleading.

QuoteBut the user wouldn't have PPB (i.e. SMF) unless they were licensed to use the PPB code anyway.

If you do not have the right to distribute every code that your GPL code uses then you can not use them or make them GPL.

If you are violating license directly or encouraging, enabling a license violation of the GPL product you are still violating...

From the GPL:

QuoteThis General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

If Joomla was LGPL then this wouldn't be an issue...
If Joomla owned all of the code they could LGPL and this wouldn't be an issue...

You keep trying to break a law by proxy when you say a User has rights to use that program...yes as a USER!
But you used that program as a developer! You wrote the derivative book and you gave them the gun that is smoking. YOU are in violation for Joining the proprietary to the GPL!

Proprietary can only be joined to LGPL. It is totally forbidden to facilitate it's use with GPL!

Until someone wants to get in touch with the literally 100's of developers who have worked on Joomla/Mambo over the last 17 years and then try to find some 10-20 folks who wrote a GPL library 16 years ago and then dropped off the face of the earth there is no way for Joomla to give you an exemption until all of that code hets replaced!

Anyone here willing to find all of them?
No pay involved...after all it's GPL!

#1 It's NOT POSSIBLE to contact all the contributors.
#2 We have no desire to grant exceptions to the GPL. Joomla is what is it today because it is GPL. We intend to endure it stays that way.

Hope it helps.

Quote from: joomla on July 30, 2007, 05:59:43 PM

QuoteI'm not surprised that team members have left the J! team.

ONE person left, just to set the record straight. Marko was also not able to attend our summit where we thrashed out this issue before releasing to the public.

In any case, it's a free world, and I hope you find a open source CMS that suits your needs.

QuoteIt's a shame how people can take a perfectly good thing that works perfectly well, then break it.

You might like to look into what is 'broken'. When you do, you will see the reasons were based on concern for you, the end users website security. In any case, the bridge was not pulled due to the changes in 1.0.13 Joomla, so I think this is taking this thread off topic.

All the best.

Point well taken, and I must apologize -- Igniting a firestorm is the last thing I had on my mind.

My intent was simply to so say that many of us end users are exasperated by all of this.  When we are told that these things are going to work out (great rift), we expect it -- Not that we have any right to, mind you.

I will qualify my remarks also by saying that the couple of times that I asked for help, it was forthcoming and polite.

Part of this may be my take on the world. I was taught and hold the view that we live in a results-oriented world, and when the debate becomes somewhat convoluted as this has, I see scores of end users scratching their head and shrugging their shoulders. All the debate in the world won't resolve any issue, unless the core participants come together and hash things out in a forthright and direct manner, without ego.

I love J! and I look forward to the future of J!, and I hope that all of this will get worked out.

I agree with you.. and I'm not going to explain why this turned into a bigger issue than it needed to, it happened, we never wanted it to, time to move forward.

We live in a results orientated world.. some of the results I have already heard happening are great. The future is bright, the world is not ending.

Thanks for your well thought out commendation and input. I mean it. :)

Quote from: joomla on July 30, 2007, 08:08:43 PM
I agree with you.. and I'm not going to explain why this turned into a bigger issue than it needed to, it happened, we never wanted it to, time to move forward.

We live in a results orientated world.. some of the results I have already heard happening are great. The future is bright, the world is not ending.

Thanks for your well thought out commendation and input. I mean it. :)

And by the same token, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.  I truly hope this works itself out.  If so, we're all winners for the effort.

Both SMF and Joomla are products in sectors where they have competitors...one of the many things SMF can offer is easy integration with other products via its API and official bridge codes...this gives it an advantage over, at least some (if not most) of its competition. Joomla, as evidenced by joomla's posts appears to be stuck in a position where its competitors are able to make it far easier for other products to integrate with them.

Many, many users have complained about the inflexible attitude shown by Joomla...perhaps you have little choice but to take such a stance but it is viewed in a negative manner by many users.

You appear to feel that exceptions to the GPL are, somehow, a dilution of your ideals whereas other CMS projects appear willing to grant them in the interests of giving their users what they want. Users don't seem to be being told that the situation is unfortunate and you'd love to be able to give them what they want but you're unable to do so right now because of some licensing problems that you're working your hardest to resolve...in my opinion the tone of the debate has felt, to many of those involved from outside of the Joomla team (judging by their postings), more to be Joomla adopting a rigid stance and expecting everyone else to do their bidding.

At the very least you have some serious PR damage limitation to do.

I'd like to thank you all for taking the time to respond to this topic.  Quite a bit of good has come out of this topic but it has gotten to the point of talking in circles.  As such I am closing this topic so we can all move forward.

At this time SMF does not have any plans for releasing a Joomla! bridge.  If an adequate solution is found to the license problem we will update you all at that time.  For now we suggest that you all assume that no further bridges will be made available.

As stated earlier we were in communication with the Joomla! team in regards to building a bridge that was compatible with their license.  The exchange is now over and, sadly, we have decided that the cost of building such a bridge is too great.  We understand that this comes as a great disappointment to you.

I would like to thank you all for your understanding in this issue.  You all have been a beacon of understanding and respect.

We would like to thank Joomla! for their cooperation in this manner and wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Please note that we will continue to provide support in the Joomla Bridge Support (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=138.0).