I personally have spent several months preparing an existing website for a relaunch with Joomla & SMF completely integrated and now less than a week from launch I find I can no longer successfully bridge Joomla & SMF due to the Joomla upgrade version 1.0.13.
The choice for me is therefore a horrible one.
Separate my Joomla website from the forum component (SMF) and have them running as standalones, or begin the search for a forum component that will blend in with my website as an integrated 'partner'.
I really don't have much of an option and will have to reluctantly part company with SMF as I simply cannot have two separate logins for my website. They MUST be integrated.
It seems such a pity that a compromise could not be reached and of course both sides will blame each other. I have no opinion other than I feel greatly let down.
My final question is does anyone here at SMF feel that a solution is likely, and my question relates only as far as me selfishly being able to use SMF alongside Joomla?
I currently have this...
Joomla 1.0.12
SMF 1.1.2
SMF bridge 1.1.7
I will have to upgrade to Joomla 1.0.13
How difficult will it be for me to tweak the bridge to work with the upgraded Joomla?
Best wishes
Joe
Quote from: joejackson on July 25, 2007, 12:45:41 PM
It seems such a pity that a compromise could not be reached and of course both sides will blame each other. I have no opinion other than I feel greatly let down.
My final question is does anyone here at SMF feel that a solution is likely, and my question relates only as far as me selfishly being able to use SMF alongside Joomla?
Unfortunately, there is no room for a compromise. The easy thing would be for Joomla! to have an exception in the license that allows third-party components under any license, but they feel they do not have the ability to do such as they don't hold all of the copyright in the code (and thus would need permission from every contributor to change their license). The other option would be to have SMF under the GPL, but, for reasons I won't go into here (it is talked about elsewhere) that will likely won't happen. Do believe me, we tried to find a way to respect the license and still allow the bridge to function, but there is no way short of what I said above.
Quote from: joejackson on July 25, 2007, 12:45:41 PM
I currently have this...
Joomla 1.0.12
SMF 1.1.2
SMF bridge 1.1.7
I will have to upgrade to Joomla 1.0.13
How difficult will it be for me to tweak the bridge to work with the upgraded Joomla?
I'll leave the changes part for those who have the knowledge of the bridge, but I do want to ask why you have need to move to 1.0.13. (I don't follow J! progress, so I don't know what changed).
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.
Joomla 1.0.13 will no doubt be followed at some point by 1.0.14 and 1.0.15
Not upgrading just so the bridge to SMF continued to work would not be best practice.
I have grown to really like SMF and the community here is an informed and friendly one, but I cannot have SMF running as a separate item to the website. It is crucial they are integrated.
I really don't have a choice and if I cannot have SMF integrated with Joomla working from a single login then I must find another forum and that fills me with such disappointment at the time I have spent creating my current integrated setup.
Before making a final cutoff I will of course look at ways of keeping the current bridge functional with the changes brought about by Joomla 1.0.12 > 1.0.13 upgrade, but if I cannot do so I have no choice but to move on.
Any suggestions or ideas will be most gratefully received.
my suggestion, at this point, is to take a look at Mambo.
1- most (if not all) of your template work done for Joomla will still work on Mambo
2- many of the joomla modules will still work on Mambo, and many of the modules and component authors will likely be moving to that system as well.
3- the bridge is available for mambo, and integrates even better than the joomla bridge did.
I doubt SMF will be the only forum software that is impacted by the Joomla decision.
I expect there will be other forum software devs looking at the decision taken by smf and depending on their licensing, looking at whether they need to take action too.
I'm not much up on what licenses each forum software are using , but simply looking for a GPL one, you may end up with inferior forum software.
Quote from: Kindred on July 25, 2007, 01:35:06 PM
my suggestion, at this point, is to take a look at Mambo.
I wonder how many Joomla users are currently considering this route?
I see 3 options for my site going forward, and Joomla is not included in any of them:
1 - migrate to Mambo
2 - migrate to Tinyportal
3 - ditch any type of CMS and run SMF standalone only
Quote from: joejackson on July 25, 2007, 01:31:43 PM
Joomla 1.0.13 will no doubt be followed at some point by 1.0.14 and 1.0.15
Not upgrading just so the bridge to SMF continued to work would not be best practice.
If you're intent on leaving SMF behind, then Joomla 1.0.13 may not be the best choice. The future of Joomla is not 1.0.14 or even 1.0.15, it would be 1.5, which is up to RC status.
Otherwise, like Kindred said, Mambo may be the way to go in order to continue with SMF going forward. I for one, am sticking with my J1.0.12 and SMF for now, with contingency plans in the works.
I like Joomla, I like SMF, I don't want to leave either of them behind.
Joomla works well as a CMS for my website, and SMF works well as the forum portion,
but without any doubt whatsoever there cannot be a situation that requires two different logins.
They must work together with a single login.
As this now seems impossible I have two ways forward.
Either lose Joomla and find another CMS that can bridge with SMF
or
lose SMF and find another forum that can bridge with Joomla.
The learning curve and work involved I believe will be much less if I retain Joomla.
I am reluctant to do this, but I don't see any other way ahead.
The whole situation seems to have underlying power issues between two factions and their respective licence stances.
That is not my business and I have no opinion on right or wrong.
Let me put this to bed right now.
there are no "underlying power issues" between SMF and Joomla.
The difference is that SMF is not GPL. SMF will not be GPL (discussion elsewhere).
There is no issue of power involved in this, it is a legal issue of interpretation of the GPL license.
Let me put it to bed also.
Legal issues are decided in courts of law.
Until this happens there are only opinions, established best practices, and workable compromises.
This is the way of things in a society where democracy rules.
Interpretations until tested in a court of law remain only opinions,
and where opinions are concerned we can indeed achieve compromise if,
and it's a crucial "if",
if there is a willingness to do so.
In this instance there does not seem to be a willingness to achieve compromise
and my experience tells me that this relates to some underlying issue.
It cannot be a legal one because legal issues must be decisded by courts of law
and unless I'm mistaken there has been no lawful legal ruling on this matter which means it is one of opinion.
Hmm...perhaps the next time I get pulled over for speeding, I can get out of it by saying "sorry officer, that's just your opinion." :P
My friend, if you were pulled over for speeding and there was a difference of opinion between you and the policeman about whether you were speeding or not, it would be settled in a court of law by the production of evidence and argument and the court would decide the outcome.
Until this time you would be innocent until proven otherwise.
Any guilt applicable to you would only be a matter of opinion.
Thanks to all the very helpful people who helped me along the way in becoming familiar with SMF.
It's a great shame we won't see any results of all that effort, but I wish you well for the future.
Quote from: joejackson on July 25, 2007, 06:57:54 PM
In this instance there does not seem to be a willingness to achieve compromise
Sadly, this does a great disservice to those who took part in all the genuine negotiation that preceded the announcement.
Quoteand my experience tells me that this relates to some underlying issue.
And your experience is unfortunately letting you down here.
So of course you're terribly disappointed, and that's understandable, but *everything possible* was done to avoid this situation.
joejackson,
As Peter points out, you are mistaken. Legal issues are legal issues. They may get TESTED when taken to court, but it is the goal of nearly everyone to avoid court by obeying the rules. Joomla and the FSF have stated what they feel the rules are. We tried to find a way to work with/around that interpretation, but were unable to come to a sastisfactory conclusion.
We (as developers and supporters of SMF) have no hard feelings toward joomla, and there was never any power stuggle to put anyone on top or put anyone down. Unfortunately, we could not find a common ground to work from when the only two choices appear to be "change the joomla license or change the SMF license".
We have no intention of saying that joomla has done anything wrong (they have not). We regret the choice they made, because it means that we can not continue to develop the bridge between our two systems, but it was their choice to make.
Thanks for the reply, and I'm certain you have done so with complete honesty and integrity.
It is not my intention to do anyone a disservice, but as this issue has not been decided in a court of law the position regarding the legality of any licence interpretation is still one of conjecture and opinion.
Therefore at this stage it would have been possible if both parties had been willing to compromise, but that willingness is not there. That is the key.
Neither side was willing to move from their position to facilitate a compromise - so by definition when both parties are declaring they would like this to have been possible, but could not bring themselves to make it happen, there MUST be some underlying issue.
Anyway, I won't post anything else as it won't change the situation and although I now have thoughts on the bigger picture involved here, my intial and main problem was a purely selfish one.
Good luck with the future of SMF, it is a fine product.
Confirming the license before a court of law requires a lot of money, something we (and most other developers that have pulled their code) can't really afford. I don't think they can either, but they are more likely to be able to get free legal assistance from the FSF or similar organization. Given this, until someone can afford to get a straight ruling and has standing to do such, it is best to try and come to an understanding and if that fails to just stop working with that other party.
Quote from: joejackson on July 26, 2007, 04:15:13 AM
Therefore at this stage it would have been possible if both parties had been willing to compromise, but that willingness is not there. That is the key.
We were certainly willing to compromise, including adjusting the licensing of the bridge to be able to continue it. However, given that the only option given to us that would have followed their interpretation (which no one else has been able to get them to soften) was to license both the bridge and SMF under an exception-less GPL, there certainly wasn't room to do much. There was playing with offering a multi-nested script (one wrapper is GPL, the next is LGPL, etc), but the drop in performance that would have caused made it unworkable. Given further clarification by the FSF, that probably wouldn't have worked legally anyway.
You can find some of the old discussion over in this topic (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=177335.0).
Thanks.
Actually, I specifically found the one post by Orsito discussing some possible ways to develop the bridge, which of course, were rather impractical.
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=177335.msg1155097#msg1155097
Thanks again.
I feel as if I have two options now...
a) Joomla bridged with phpBB
or
b) Mambo bridged with SMF
I like SMF but it all depends on how good and easy to use Mambo turns out to be.
Why not Tinyportal?
Quote from: Dragooon on July 26, 2007, 11:57:00 AM
Why not Tinyportal?
Joomla has a lot more features than TP. Although that could work for some people it won't for everyone.
Quote from: joejackson on July 26, 2007, 11:49:31 AM
Thanks again.
I feel as if I have two options now...
a) Joomla bridged with phpBB
or
b) Mambo bridged with SMF
I like SMF but it all depends on how good and easy to use Mambo turns out to be.
Switching over to Mambo isn't right because then you'll have the same license issue as with Joomla. There only one option left over and that is convert your SMF to PhpBB2 or later on PhpBB3. PhpBB doesn't have a licenseconflict. They are working on a bridge for PhpBB3 with the upcoming Joomla 1.5.
It's real sad to leaving SMF. I have changed few years ago from PhpBB to SMF, SMF suits much beter, excellent forumsoftware.
PhpBB3 looks also real nice, great step forward comparing to PhpBB2. So I wait for the stable 1.5 and than sadly convert my SMF over to PhpBB3. Thank god there is a good alternative => PhpBB3, but be patience ;)
QuoteSwitching over to Mambo isn't right because then you'll have the same license issue as with Joomla.
No, you won't. That's FUD being spread to scare people away from doing it.
It is up to the copyright holder to determine how they will enforce their license. Mambo's determination is completely the opposite of Joomla's.
It is realy very sad that SMF bridge will discontinue.
For now, my website works ok, but I am sure there would be a time when I have to decide what to do.
Leaving Joomla is not a option for me, for many reasons. One of them is that i use many of Joomla's components.
So i guess i will just switch to phpBB myself.
It's too bad Simple Machines didn't have their own CMS for use...too bad we didn't have a central kind of feature wish list...
Quote from: al0000 on July 26, 2007, 08:24:04 PM
So i guess i will just switch to phpBB myself.
I'd take my forums offline before I did that!
Hi,
it's not possible to release the bridge with GPL license?
please read all of the posts. This has been discussed and explained.
Quote from: KSE75 on July 27, 2007, 07:32:49 AM
Hi,
it's not possible to release the bridge with GPL license?
Hi mate, look to the blogs discussion!
blame joomla for it, it's not joomla's fault it's just something about the licenses.
i thought mambo is also GPL so it still illegal also. my opinion if ytou switch to mambo is running away from a licence problem to a future license problem...
if you know a bit coding you can do a lot with SSI.php inside joomla, and if you know Joomla! 1.5 then you know it has authentication plugins (examples: Gmail, Ldap, OpenID) wich could make it possible without using functions of SMF (so it would be legal following the GPL).
Vancanneyt,
You are incorrect on most counts.
Mambo copyright is held by a single entity. Therefor, they can easily (and have done so) make an exception to the GPL. Mambo allows nonGPL components to be linked to Mambo.
Yes, you can use SSI to do some stuff. However, this does not handle dual-login and maintain a dual userbase bteween the systems.
and any bridge for 1.5 would ahve the same issues as the existing bridge, it links a nonGPL product with a GPL one... which is forbidden by Joomla's license and the FSF explanation of the licesne terms.
As I see it there are no good forumsolutions for Joomla at the moment, and that is a shame.
Planning for upgrading my current site, and then it will be Joomla, but not as long as things doesn't work. I'm running phpBB today and sure, it works great. But there's no smooth integretation, and as I said, no one has. :(
Good lord, this has stirred up a hornet's nest over at Joomla forums. They seem to be blaming SMF and a "lack of communication and one of many other over-reactions". An admin also goes on to hint to people that SMF will be lost without Joomla because most people find SMF through Joomla (I sure as heck didn't).
Quote from: Stallyon on July 27, 2007, 12:33:14 PM
Good lord, this has stirred up a hornet's nest over at Joomla forums. They seem to be blaming SMF and a "lack of communication and one of many other over-reactions". An admin also goes on to hint to people that SMF will be lost without Joomla because most people find SMF through Joomla (I sure as heck didn't).
Not new, blaming others is more simple for the Joomla! guys insteed to realized that the FSF's opinion combined with OSM/Joomla's hard-core GPL interpretation is more than faulty.
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on July 26, 2007, 09:41:43 PM
It's too bad Simple Machines didn't have their own CMS for use...too bad we didn't have a central kind of feature wish list...
Maybe dreams come true :D
I know this is an emotional issue for many of you, but please don't make attacks against any of the parties involved. Both SMF and Joomla! hold their own opinions on this matter and their own view of events. While we may disagree with some of the actions of Joomla!, we nevertheless respect their position and ask that you hold some respect too.
If anyone has suggestions on how to make a proper bridge without running into license issues, we welcome a public description and discussion on this.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 27, 2007, 12:52:52 PM
If anyone has suggestions on how to make a proper bridge without running into license issues, we welcome a public description and discussion on this.
Maybe we could do a with topic with a list of potential ways which have been ruled out (and a quick explanation as to why)
eg
using php exec() - impractical
releasing bridge under GPL - still would make SMF a derivative of Joomla
releasing smf under GPL - various reasons
joomla granting an exception - they have no authority to do so (which is why they opted for GPL (Pure)
I believe that would help the calm debate where the same ruled out ways are continually put forward
help to find more alternatives
show the extent which has been investigated
Another option ruled out:
Using a "layered" bridge system with GPL and LGPL shells - as the project stated extending API classes classifies as derivative, this is unworkable (my understanding might be a bit off here, Orsito, please correct this post if I am incorrect)
Quote from: Kindred on July 27, 2007, 10:19:10 AM
....
Yes, you can use SSI to do some stuff. However, this does not handle dual-login and maintain a dual userbase bteween the systems.
and any bridge for 1.5 would ahve the same issues as the existing bridge, it links a nonGPL product with a GPL one... which is forbidden by Joomla's license and the FSF explanation of the licesne terms....
Hi
I'm no coder but if I use a CMS that don't need a plug-in to authenticate the user in SM database, then it would be ok since its only i call to the database, right. I mean any php script can query the SMF database and get authentication? No other interaction, themes, bridges, just asking two tables name and password.
Like I've tested with moodle (no CMS) very successfully? It's very simple. Just change 1 setting to use sha-1 and the database tables.
Regards
Johan
Hi
it might be possible to do this. However, doing so means that you are ignoring all of SMF's integration hooks and basically having to recode all database interactions...
Quote from: Kindred on July 27, 2007, 04:21:02 PM
it might be possible to do this. However, doing so means that you are ignoring all of SMF's integration hooks and basically having to recode all database interactions...
I Hi
I've tested it and no hooks (?) and only interaction is onway, importing SMF members into moodle. The rest i RSS and feeds. No fancy looks but working.
Just looking farward, and Mambo is backwards these days.
//johan
but for real integration with smf user levels, permissions, etc, we have all those nice hooks in place.
and, despite the fact that I prefer joomla myself, mambo is not at all backward. Mambo 4.6.2 and eventually mambo 4.7 is a nice step forward.
Quote from: vancanneyt on July 27, 2007, 09:26:03 AM
i thought mambo is also GPL so it still illegal also.
This is, unfortunately, correct. The note from the FSF that SMF provided did not discuss Joomla!, at all. It was about bridging GPL and non-GPL compliant software. The FSF indicated the manner in which the SMF bridges have been built is, indeed, a violation of the GPL. That is true for all four of SMF's bridges into GPL environments.
Some projects have indicated they will allow the GPL to be violated. Mambo is one of those projects. They have indicated they will not pursue compliance. It is possible third party library copyright holders could ask for compliance, though.
Those of you Joomla!/SMF users who are not wanting to find another CMS - hang in there. There is still hope - not everyone has given up on this. It's a challenge, but not an impossible one. Hopefully, all four bridges could come into compliance at once!
Post in at Joomla! land, too, and make certain people there understand your concerns and that solutions can be made available to you.
Amy :)
I don't think anyone is giving up hope. SMF team members have indicated a willingness to listen to any ideas for ways around the licensing issues. (Note further up, I even suggested posting a list of all the ideas we are coming up with).
If you are a member of 'Joomla! land' then let them know, ask them for ideas for solutions. (and anyone else who might have an idea) Two heads are better than one and all that.
Again, just to CORRECT
There is NO issue with Mambo, they have the authority to grant an exception.
Whereas Joomla themselves indicate they DO NOT have the authority (hence why they are having to use the pure/strict GPL which doesnt allow exceptions). Third parties don't have to ask for compliance - they can just SUE. Invariably it makes financial sense for them.
The current issue ONLY affects the Joomla bridge.
I really hope a solution can be found. SMF will be the better for it, and Joomla likewise. Unfortunately until we discover a means, SMF must and should ensure compliance.
For now, people should hang in there and wait it out. There are ongoing discussions on a few fronts and where those will go, nobody knows.
However, there is a lot of misinformation being thrown around and in any situation that's an unhealthy thing.
Saying "he said", "she said" doesn't do anyone any good. Apparently there may be a crack in the wall, and we'll continue to explore options.
I don't mean to be starting a "he said/she said" argument, I just gave input at what I seen over at Joomla forums. Maybe those at Joomla also need to stop with the blame game and "he said/she said" arguments too. Working together will bring some sort of solution eventually. I wish both parties the best of luck, and really hope a solution can be reached.
Quote from: Stallyon on July 27, 2007, 07:25:23 PM
I don't mean to be starting a "he said/she said" argument, I just gave input at what I seen over at Joomla forums. Maybe those at Joomla also need to stop with the blame game and "he said/she said" arguments too. Working together will bring some sort of solution eventually. I wish both parties the best of luck, and really hope a solution can be reached.
Was directed in general, not at anyone in particular.
However, I agree, both sides need to and will work together. Both sides WANT a solution, all that is left is to find out what that solution may be.
Quote from: Kindred on July 27, 2007, 05:20:45 PM
but for real integration with smf user levels, permissions, etc, we have all those nice hooks in place.
and, despite the fact that I prefer joomla myself, mambo is not at all backward. Mambo 4.6.2 and eventually mambo 4.7 is a nice step forward.
Hi
User level, permission and all that is just why I use SMF. Thats the fare best solutions I've tested. Coppermine Gallery (also in use) got that kind of system to (disabled by bridge now).
Joomla and Mambo (not what I know) has no such advanced futures, big disadvantage on both. Moodle do.
For me changing from one CMS to another must lead forward and that's a better ACL or what you prefer to call it.
Q?
Still, the way Moodle do this, is that against the whole issue here, GPL and that (SMF I mean)? Calling tables in the SMF database to get authenticated?
If that's not the case (=ok), I would love to se Joomla/Mambo or any good CMS work the same way.
[edited some poor english]
//johan
Although this is my first post in this forum, I have been using SMF and Joomla for just under a year and both are excellent programs. So even though I am a "one poster", I have "lurked" around for most of that time and pretty much was able to learn what I needed from the excellent support forums here without the need to really post (i.e., all my questions were typically asked prior). I am just a "little guy" user using Menalto Gallery, SMF, and Joomla for a family web site. I am amazed at the amount of resources that people expend on all these programs from the developers side of things. It is a lot of free time that is devoted to make quality programs.
However, I was disheartened to hear that the bridge between the two is discontinued. I have read quite a few posts on both the Joomla and SMF forums regarding licensing in general as well as specific to SMF/Joomla. I have my opinions on the real reasons of how things got to this point but I will not retread what has already been said. But I will say that I completely understand SMF's position in taking the position they have.
In the end, I just want to put in my "vote" (for all it is worth) as a newbie "End User" that I hope that the issues can eventually be resolved like Jeff mentioned in the prior posts. My limited memory capacity (human RAM) is not up to learning another CMS and/or forum :D
Cheers,
Chris
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 27, 2007, 05:44:56 PM
This is, unfortunately, correct. The note from the FSF that SMF provided did not discuss Joomla!, at all. It was about bridging GPL and non-GPL compliant software. The FSF indicated the manner in which the SMF bridges have been built is, indeed, a violation of the GPL. That is true for all four of SMF's bridges into GPL environments.
Some projects have indicated they will allow the GPL to be violated. Mambo is one of those projects. They have indicated they will not pursue compliance. It is possible third party library copyright holders could ask for compliance, though.
Amy :)
No offense, but you seem to come accross to me as someone who's more than happy to just keep blindly attacking Mambo.
I'm guessing by the tone of your posts, you know matter-of-factly that what Mambo is doing is illegal. Has FSF at any point adviced Mambo that they may be playing with fire? I mean, it is crystal clear to me by now that Mambo will continue to allow non-GPL plugins. Surely, FSF must know already whether there could be trouble for them or not.
I believe I remember reading something in the license about "interpretation". Every license holder is free to interpret it anyway they see fit. Why is that so hard to understand?
Joomla is interpreting it the way they want or feel is best for them and their users, and Mambo is seeing it the way they feel best for them. I seriously doubt that the single entity holding the Mambo copyright will shatter into bits and pieces and then procede to start suing left and right.
Joomla is just fine the way I see it, and Mambo is NOT doing anything wrong because they see thing different than Joomla or you. Can we try and bite the bullet for once and respect that?
Ferd
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on July 27, 2007, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: Stallyon on July 27, 2007, 07:25:23 PM
I don't mean to be starting a "he said/she said" argument, I just gave input at what I seen over at Joomla forums. Maybe those at Joomla also need to stop with the blame game and "he said/she said" arguments too. Working together will bring some sort of solution eventually. I wish both parties the best of luck, and really hope a solution can be reached.
Jeff is right. If a solution can be found then it will be pursued.
Was directed in general, not at anyone in particular.
However, I agree, both sides need to and will work together. Both sides WANT a solution, all that is left is to find out what that solution may be.
The problem is not GPL or even Joomla's stance on same.
The problem is, as you have seen in the FSF blog responses, is that the 'definition' of 'derivative work' can change at a whim (and has, in Joomla's case)
Combine this shifting stance with a constant stream of disingenuous dissembling from the Joomla! powers, "Blackwhitespeak" from their appointed "unofficial spokesmen/women/other" and of course the Orwellian editing of their own forums* create an environment which is not only UNFRIENDLY to business, commercial exploitation or use of "their" baby, but to just about ANY development or USE that conflicts with the WOFTD (Whim of the Day)
* The long running debate forums on Joomla's New Stance on the GPL have been summarily closed and more ominously, MOVED to a backwater location on the site.
Why?
As George Orwell himself wrote so eloquently in the book 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four) there is no need to LIE when you can REWRITE THE TRUTH:D
by moving the forums, they have invalidated the entire internet that links to those posts (without having to make them 'disappear') this serves the dual purpose of hiding the truth and discrediting the poster who links to those posts as proof! :P
The first REAL thing to realize is that RESOURCES ARE FINITE
Second thing: as far as alternatives go, the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Joomla and Mambo are ridiculously trivial.
The fork between Joomla and Mambo was an idealogical not Technological split and 90% of extensions work for either "CMS" without modification, therefore, a choice or choosing between Mambo or Joomla, hinges upon issues only a religious zealot would fine significant :D
In any event, it seems to me, that Joomla! has lost the moral high ground and have become the "Evil Empire" bloated with the self aggrandisement that Mambo was 'known' to be!
Logically, it makes no sense to persist in banging your head against an intransigent Joomla wall when an almost identical (and less resource consuming solution) exists next door?
Granted, the relationship between Joomla and SMF has been less than smooth.
After trying in vain to get some technical guidance from the Joomla team regarding interfacing with J 1.5, Orsitio (somewhat rashly) posted that there may be NO joomla bridge from SMF for J1.5.
The resulting recriminations from angry users who (rightly or wrongly) laid the fault at the feet of the Joomla devs, left a bitter feeling in the mouths (keyboards?)
Can anyone think it a COINCIDENCE that the latest version INVALIDATES and renders INOPERABLE just about EVERY CURRENTLY EXISTING BRIDGE SOLUTION?
[EDIT by Orstio -- removed offensive image]
There's so much smoke and mirrors around this subject its more like a Vegas Magicians Convention than anything else. :)
Consider this scenario for a moment.....
If I was more or less controlling the overall development of a piece of software, ........ and if I had ambitions to release an additionally featured commercial product alongside the free version, .......I'd make damn sure that the free product stood on its own unfettered with any other software that could remotely be considered non GPL compliant.
As a businessman this would be a sound strategical decision.
Do not misunderstand me, I'm not saying this is the Joomla teams motivation, but I can show factual historical evidence that supports this model in dozens of software life-cycle and it could be applied to the current situation, but that is for others to decide upon, not me.
I'm only pointing out one possible aspect of a scenario that without any doubt whatsoever has underlying issues that are not yet in the public domain.
Quote from: cferd on July 28, 2007, 12:47:37 PM
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 27, 2007, 05:44:56 PM
This is, unfortunately, correct. The note from the FSF that SMF provided did not discuss Joomla!, at all. It was about bridging GPL and non-GPL compliant software. The FSF indicated the manner in which the SMF bridges have been built is, indeed, a violation of the GPL. That is true for all four of SMF's bridges into GPL environments.
Some projects have indicated they will allow the GPL to be violated. Mambo is one of those projects. They have indicated they will not pursue compliance. It is possible third party library copyright holders could ask for compliance, though.
Amy :)
No offense, but you seem to come accross to me as someone who's more than happy to just keep blindly attacking Mambo.
I'm guessing by the tone of your posts, you know matter-of-factly that what Mambo is doing is illegal. Has FSF at any point adviced Mambo that they may be playing with fire?
Ferd -
My sincere apologies! Mambo is doing
nothing wrong, at all! In fact, the license holder in these examples is not violating the license. Neither is the end user. It's actually the one distributing the bridge. This is the concern.
The email between SMF and FSF discussed a method used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant software via a bridge. In that conversation, the FSF indicated that method would result in a violation of the GPL. This violation happens when the bridge is distributed.
This is relevant for any SMF bridge into any GPL environment given the approach discussed by in the SMF/FSF email. Some projects have indicated they will ignore these infractions of the license.
Technically, the license holder isn't interpreting the terms of the license. The terms are the same, regardless. The copyright holder is choosing whether or not to enforce the terms.
There is no one to attack; just clarifying information.
Amy :)
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on July 27, 2007, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: Stallyon on July 27, 2007, 07:25:23 PM
I don't mean to be starting a "he said/she said" argument, I just gave input at what I seen over at Joomla forums. Maybe those at Joomla also need to stop with the blame game and "he said/she said" arguments too. Working together will bring some sort of solution eventually. I wish both parties the best of luck, and really hope a solution can be reached.
Was directed in general, not at anyone in particular.
However, I agree, both sides need to and will work together. Both sides WANT a solution, all that is left is to find out what that solution may be.
This is good, good news and I am confident a solution will result. Thanks so much to the SMF group!
Amy :)
Oh well, I knew that this was coming.
I've been considering going back to Mambo for some time now. And this announcement only gives me the go ahead.
As for any compromise, since Joomla won't allow exception to their interpretation to the license I can't even see SMF being bridged with Joomla again. I doubt that SMF will change their license after deciding on it long ago.
Quote from: Omega X on July 28, 2007, 06:23:33 PM
As for any compromise, since Joomla won't allow exception to their interpretation to the license I can't even see SMF being bridged with Joomla again. I doubt that SMF will change their license after deciding on it long ago.
Omega -
There will be no reason for anyone to change or to compromise their license. There are ways to do this that meet the requirements of both licenses. As Jeff indicated, there are discussions, again, between SMF and Joomla!. People are trying to find ways to make this work, given the terms of each software license.
This will be behind us. It will get resolved. No one will have to compromise their license or grant exceptions, either. The solution will be compliant. Wait and see!
Amy :)
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 28, 2007, 06:36:29 PM
Quote from: Omega X on July 28, 2007, 06:23:33 PM
As for any compromise, since Joomla won't allow exception to their interpretation to the license I can't even see SMF being bridged with Joomla again. I doubt that SMF will change their license after deciding on it long ago.
Omega -
There will be no reason for anyone to change or to compromise their license. There are ways to do this that meet the requirements of both licenses. As Jeff indicated, there are discussions, again, between SMF and Joomla!. People are trying to find ways to make this work, given the terms of each software license.
This will be behind us. It will get resolved. No one will have to compromise their license or grant exceptions, either. The solution will be compliant. Wait and see!
Amy :)
I've been waiting and seeing since the very beginning of this silly escapade.
Bottom Line: Orstio has discontinued the bridge for Joomla. The End.
When Orstio announces a new bridge version for Joomla then I will happily install it. Until then, I already have a deadline for removing Joomla from my installs.
AmyStephem,
You keep bringing up Mambo or other GPL pieces... However, all those other GPL softwares have the right to interpret the GPL differently than Joomla and/or include an exception.
In the case of Mambo, thye have specifically indicated that they do not interpret the GPL in the same way, and they welcome 3rd party development. Therefor, there is no problem with developing (and distributing) a bridge for mambo.
Amy, as just an end user I'm not interested in 'wait & see' approach, nor in politics involved nor in your damage control nor your 'spin cycles'...
SMF in the past was consistent in their software, philosophy and their support. Their earned my loyalty and support. The same cannot be said about Joomla!. It is unfortunate that I am not be able to upgrade to Joomla1.0.13 at this time. When it's time for me to upgrade, I'll be looking for an CMS that is bridgable simply and elegantly with SMF and not the other way around. Somehow I doubt that Orstio will be developing some monstrosity just to comply with some silly 'interpretations...' I know I wouldn't... I would rather put my 'hobby' time and effort into another project...
Anna
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 28, 2007, 06:14:24 PM
My sincere apologies! Mambo is doing nothing wrong, at all! In fact, the license holder in these examples is not violating the license. Neither is the end user. It's actually the one distributing the bridge. This is the concern.
Exactly. That is why it boggles the mind why the so-called powers that be at Joomla, all of a sudden decided to be the champions of the users and devs. The users really don't need them and devs hardly need or want them protecting their interests.
Thank You For Interested..
Quote from: Omega X on July 28, 2007, 07:03:20 PM
Bottom Line: Orstio has discontinued the bridge for Joomla. The End.
When Orstio announces a new bridge version for Joomla then I will happily install it. Until then, I already have a deadline for removing Joomla from my installs.
If you want to see it that way ok, but Orstio is a dev. I don't think he's SMF.
I know he appears close to it :) but he's yet to corner the market on Bridges. If he has really given up on SMF-Joomla, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of Joomla-SMF, but maybe only this particular Bridge.
Quote from: cferd on July 28, 2007, 07:54:34 PM
Quote from: Omega X on July 28, 2007, 07:03:20 PM
Bottom Line: Orstio has discontinued the bridge for Joomla. The End.
When Orstio announces a new bridge version for Joomla then I will happily install it. Until then, I already have a deadline for removing Joomla from my installs.
If you want to see it that way ok, but Orstio is a dev. I don't think he's SMF.
I know he appears close to it :) but he's yet to corner the market on Bridges. If he has really given up on SMF-Joomla, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of Joomla-SMF, but maybe only this particular Bridge.
That is only because you read it that way.
None of the things I've said suggested that Orstio was SMF or any other project.
My answer was simply that since Orstio is not making the bridge for SMF anymore. I did not mention that it was the end of SMF-Joomla for anyone else willing to wait forever for another implementation which would probably be held to the same restrictions that Orstio was.
But it is the end of SMF-Joomla for
ME if this issue is not resolved by the time that I have to make a decision.
Is that clear enough?
Quote from: Omega X on July 28, 2007, 08:13:24 PM
But it is the end of SMF-Joomla for ME if this issue is not resolved by the time that I have to make a decision.
Is that clear enough?
It was clear the first time around and that's what I replied to. From your post, you are looking at Orstio and only Orstio as your savior and that was my point.
Quote from: cferd on July 28, 2007, 07:54:34 PM
If you want to see it that way ok, but Orstio is a dev. I don't think he's SMF.
I know he appears close to it :) but he's yet to corner the market on Bridges. If he has really given up on SMF-Joomla, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of Joomla-SMF, but maybe only this particular Bridge.
That doesn't mean any third-party bridge will be legal either. That will need to be determined should one pop up.
Anyway, the Joomla! folks are talking to us on some possible workarounds to make a legal bridge that would respect both licenses. I haven't been told any details yet, so I don't know how practical the solutions would be. We'll have to see once more information is gathered. Speculation without any details won't help any.
Quote from: antracit on July 28, 2007, 03:53:58 AM
Q?
Still, the way Moodle do this, is that against the whole issue here, GPL and that (SMF I mean)? Calling tables in the SMF database to get authenticated?
Hi
Sorry for quting, but I'm trying to move forward. Any SMF Guru that have an answer to this?
//johan
I'm confused. Then how can forum.joomla.org use SMF if you're not allowed to bridge the software? I would imagine that they have the latest version of Joomla on their site.
Quote from: cferd on July 28, 2007, 08:23:21 PM
It was clear the first time around and that's what I replied to. From your post, you are looking at Orstio and only Orstio as your savior and that was my point.
No, I am not looking for Orstio to be a "savior" or whatever you choose to call it.
I am looking at my
current options to the problem at hand by the time my deadline comes around.
@Sageth
This has nothing to do with Joomla using SMF as a standalone product. Its about the Bridge that lets the two operate together.
Joomla's site is not bridged.
Quote from: Sageth on July 29, 2007, 12:04:54 PM
I'm confused. Then how can forum.joomla.org use SMF if you're not allowed to bridge the software? I would imagine that they have the latest version of Joomla on their site.
Again, the difference is between "use" and "distribution". If memory serves me correctly the forum at Joomla is not bridged. Even if it was your misunderstanding the current situation.
You are not distributing the bridge you are simply using it. I hardly see anyone taking you to court for using such a bridge.
;)
p.s For those that have talked about Simplemachines and the license. I strongly doubt that you can expect a change in direction in terms of the that. We have always been clear about and will remain so.
I understand what the license meant, but I was not aware that Joomla.org was not bridged. Thank you for that clarification.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on July 28, 2007, 11:11:29 PM
Anyway, the Joomla! folks are talking to us on some possible workarounds to make a legal bridge that would respect both licenses. I haven't been told any details yet, so I don't know how practical the solutions would be. We'll have to see once more information is gathered. Speculation without any details won't help any.
Excellent. Thanks, Motoko for sharing this great news. All the best to you as you work together on this. Much thanks!
Amy :)
I can across this post quit by accident while looking for solutions in getting the bridge to work and find it very disturbing. I am an old man and not as adapt at making web pages work as I believe so many of you probably are. It has taken me close to to years to get to a point where I think I can present a quality site. Up grades are probably a very good idea but i would rather concentrate on site content than have to spend most of my time learning how to get things to work together.
If there is going to be a problem with upgrades as it appears there will be in upgrading to joomla 1.0.13 I will probably just stick with what I have and hope no hacker finds and exploits any weakness.
I have been a business man most of my life. There seems to me to be a simple solution to this problem. Neither side has to change a license or anything else. When ever I had to integrate two competing systems for business purposes it was simply a matter of a contract that allowed the two sides to use the features of the other. It is done in business every day. Owners of proprietary systems or processes agree to allow a third party (us, the end users) to use both to achieve the goal of the third party. Neither license is compromised and neither side gives up rights they are other wise entitled to.
If there is any interest in this approach I would be willing to submit a contract for consideration by both sides.
I am too old with too many other irons in the fire to try to learn new systems just to keep my sites functioning.
Quote from: Toma Grubb on July 29, 2007, 09:10:33 PM
If there is going to be a problem with upgrades as it appears there will be in upgrading to joomla 1.0.13 I will probably just stick with what I have and hope no hacker finds and exploits any weakness.
There are actually un-fixed security issues in 1.0.13. The only "security fix" in 1.0.13 I know of was upgrading the password scheme to behave differently, which makes things a lot harder if an attacker should get access to where they are stored. Of course, if they get access to there, they already have enough to cause you problems (they just can't easily reverse the passwords you and your users have).
Quote from: Toma Grubb on July 29, 2007, 09:10:33 PM
I have been a business man most of my life. There seems to me to be a simple solution to this problem. Neither side has to change a license or anything else. When ever I had to integrate two competing systems for business purposes it was simply a matter of a contract that allowed the two sides to use the features of the other. It is done in business every day. Owners of proprietary systems or processes agree to allow a third party (us, the end users) to use both to achieve the goal of the third party. Neither license is compromised and neither side gives up rights they are other wise entitled to.
The problem is this is unlike a business with closed software. They (Joomla! project) are using portions of software code developed by others and don't have permission from those people to change the license from their current terms, which a contract would accomplish. They would need to have all the owners of the code agree to that, and it is either too large of a burden, or they don't have records to ensure they can contact everyone.
Quote from: Sageth on July 29, 2007, 12:04:54 PM
I'm confused. Then how can forum.joomla.org use SMF if you're not allowed to bridge the software? I would imagine that they have the latest version of Joomla on their site.
SMF on our website is not bridged with Joomla at all.. it is standalone.
Quote
There are actually un-fixed security issues in 1.0.13. The only "security fix" in 1.0.13 I know of was upgrading the password scheme to behave differently, which makes things a lot harder if an attacker should get access to where they are stored. Of course, if they get access to there, they already have enough to cause you problems (they just can't easily reverse the passwords you and your users have).
Please be sure to report these issue so we can address them. Thanks!
Joomla vs. Mambo reminds me of the PHP-Nuke/Postnuke days.
I think the Joomla team are skating on very thin ice here.
They seem to be hiding behind so called legal issues regarding licences, but these issues are NOT law because they are untested and unproven in the ONLY place legal issues can be resolved in a democracy - a court of LAW.
Statements that it "costs too much in court" as a justification for accepting a so-called legal opinion are not helpful. If Joomla wish to force a legal policy on anyone they must test the legailty of that action in a court of law or run the enormous risk of themselves being sued.
Disclaimers are no protection when someone forces an unlawful course of action onto another person if that other person decides to settle the issue in a court. This fact has been proven time and time again where unlawful actions have been severely penalised despite disclaimers.
Are the Joomla team so blind they do not realise this?
I wish they would stop whining about this opinion or that opinion and remove their tunnel vision spectacles and provide users with a workable solution to this self-made problem.
If the Joomla team do not wish their software to be used in a bridged fashion with SMF they are acting foolishly and recklessly by giving as their reason and justification an opinion on legality that has not been tested in law.
They are opening the gates to a potentially crushing legal blow.
Common sense must prevail or is there a hidden prize worth risking everything for?
This argument is going in circles now, and I think everyone exhausted all the discussion. I'm locking this topic for the time being.
SMF is working with the Joomla! team on a possible workaround they contacted us about and we will post the results once things are figured out.