of course, that complicates the bridge to another level.

Personally, with all of the developers leaving the joomla-ship, I would suggest mambo.

Quote from: Kindred on July 03, 2007, 10:32:04 AM
Personally, with all of the developers leaving the joomla-ship, I would suggest mambo.

I'm unsure what you mean here - are you referring to mod devs leaving Joomla and working for Mambo only, or do you mean that some of the devs for Joomla itself are leaving (and creating YAC, Yet Another Cms)?

a bunch of joomla devs quit...

many of the 3rd party component developers are not going to do any more development because thye don't want their products released under GPL.

It seems a fitting end for Joomla...yet Mambo keeps going. Hah!

Sorry, I'm VERY amused.

I am sure a lot of the debate surrounding the Joomla license comes from the many commercial components and extensions that can be purchased or indeed "need" to be purchased in order to actually install and use.

It certainly creates confusion for users this is for sure.

Quote from: redone on July 03, 2007, 03:25:29 PM
I am sure a lot of the debate surrounding the Joomla license comes from the many commercial components and extensions that can be purchased or indeed "need" to be purchased in order to actually install and use.

It certainly creates confusion for users this is for sure.

Maybe its because I have done plenty of PHP Dev work myself, and been around software development for a while as well, I'm not at all confused...I understand quite well that some software is open source and free, some is free and not open source, and so on...IMO, it isn't hard to understand it; there are a plethora of Wikipedia articles, blog posts, forum posts and FAQs available for the average user to read up on types of software. As far as I see it, if someone is looking to install a website of their own and customize it, then they have some foreknowledge of the field - if they lack this foreknowledge, then they should stick to using free sites such as blogspot, or be ready to do plenty of reading (maybe visit a friendly IRC Channel or forum.)

I don't see "It confuses people" as a reason to cripple or limit software...Photoshop can confuse people, but you don't see anyone running to make it so simple its next to useless...

Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 06:06:58 PM
I don't see "It confuses people" as a reason to cripple or limit software...Photoshop can confuse people, but you don't see anyone running to make it so simple its next to useless...

Speaking for myself, I believe the confusion is coming more from how to interpret the licenses involved so you can figure out what you can or can't do in a given situation. Gotta keep in mind site needs in determining what you're going to setup and/or use after all. At least, that's where my confusion point is at. Should add that I just finished up one of the 'business legal issues' courses I'm taking as part of my MBA program and asked my instructor - a lawyer - for some comment. She works in dealing with intellectual property law primarily, so I thought she'd have some knowledge. In a nutshell, she says she's confused over the wording and ramifications. So, if a lawyer with that kind of background can't make sense of it easily, it is no wonder it confuses us ordinary folk!

That, in a nutshell is what I'd like to see. Clear ideas of what I can do, or can't do, with open source products. At least with SMF, I've got a very clear picture!

I

Quote from: ComputerLady on July 03, 2007, 07:37:04 PM

Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 06:06:58 PM
I don't see "It confuses people" as a reason to cripple or limit software...Photoshop can confuse people, but you don't see anyone running to make it so simple its next to useless...

Speaking for myself, I believe the confusion is coming more from how to interpret the licenses involved so you can figure out what you can or can't do in a given situation. Gotta keep in mind site needs in determining what you're going to setup and/or use after all. At least, that's where my confusion point is at. Should add that I just finished up one of the 'business legal issues' courses I'm taking as part of my MBA program and asked my instructor - a lawyer - for some comment. She works in dealing with intellectual property law primarily, so I thought she'd have some knowledge. In a nutshell, she says she's confused over the wording and ramifications. So, if a lawyer with that kind of background can't make sense of it easily, it is no wonder it confuses us ordinary folk!

That, in a nutshell is what I'd like to see. Clear ideas of what I can do, or can't do, with open source products. At least with SMF, I've got a very clear picture!

I used to view SMF with contempt because of its copyright and such, but I never researched it on my own, I relied on a friend who is more into open source software, who descrubed SMF as being more....assinine. Now that I'd seen for myself how good SMF is, and WHY it is copyrighted...I think I prefer the method used by SMF. I honestly think SMF rivals vBulletin, though some parts are a little more streamlined (but hell, its free, so I'm not complaining! Its better than PHPBB2 for sure, PHPBB3 has its own issues that I think kill it. One major issue is the lack of a module management area...you have to mess with code. I have no issues with changing code, I know PHP well, but it makes upgrades....interesting.

Anyway....if GPL truly meant to say copyrighted software cannot call or be called by GPL software, then why do I see open source software for Windows...I mean, calling a function to create a new thread is using Windows! Gasp!

Joomla can stick it IMO. I was dead set on using Joomla until now. I think I'll look for a Drupal bridge to SMF again, then default to Mambo if I have to.

Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 09:55:58 PM
I used to view SMF with contempt because of its copyright and such, but I never researched it on my own, I relied on a friend who is more into open source software, who descrubed SMF as being more....assinine. Now that I'd seen for myself how good SMF is, and WHY it is copyrighted...I think I prefer the method used by SMF. I honestly think SMF rivals vBulletin, though some parts are a little more streamlined (but hell, its free, so I'm not complaining! Its better than PHPBB2 for sure, PHPBB3 has its own issues that I think kill it. One major issue is the lack of a module management area...you have to mess with code. I have no issues with changing code, I know PHP well, but it makes upgrades....interesting.

Anyway....if GPL truly meant to say copyrighted software cannot call or be called by GPL software, then why do I see open source software for Windows...I mean, calling a function to create a new thread is using Windows! Gasp!

Joomla can stick it IMO. I was dead set on using Joomla until now. I think I'll look for a Drupal bridge to SMF again, then default to Mambo if I have to.

Should add, to explain about the background for the lawyer for that course, that she specializes in the entertainment business involving movies, videos, songs, etc. She's admitted she plans to broaden her understanding on this topic after studying it as these factors could have an impact on the clients she represents. (Song artists, record studios, movie production companies, etc.) After all, many of these entities do have - or want to have - websites as part of their marketing plans.

I agree in so far as SMF's license is concerned too. Fairly easy to understand with the do's and the don'ts for developers very evident. The model for SMF, as I see it, balances quite nicely the concerns over product protection and developer contributions against the desire that it be open source. I've not spent as much time reading over the GPL license, which is something I'm going to need to do. 

Should also add that I've tried other web forum products myself, and keep coming back to SMF. Had a suggestion to a combination of Joomla, Community Builder, and Fireboard. http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,2134/Itemid,35/
(New forum product designed specifically for Joomla in beta testing.)

While I know I should probably look at the combo from the back-end before making comments, I've reservations about the idea in advance. First, there's the fact I wasn't overly impressed with Community Builder itself in previous tests. After all, the permission and access rights you give to groups of people within the forum will often differ substantially from those given to those same parties in Joomla. Content inside SMF is usually considered transient and not more permanent in nature such as that stored in Joomla. Being able to define different policies is a must.

Then there's the fact this is a beta product...  Need I really say more about the risks involved in using beta software on active sites?   

 

Quote from: Kindred on June 26, 2007, 02:53:11 PM
although SMF is Free (as in, it costs no money), the license restriction that SMF requires the copyright to remain unaltered means that it is not "free software" as in GPL.

The way Joomla is interpreting the GPL license, they claim that any utility that uses Joomla function calls must also fall under the broadest GPL lisence, which means that the bridge (which uses SMF's license requirements) can not do so, if it is to call joomla functions (and it basically needs to do so, in order to be a bridge)

IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Having read the license model they are working from, I can honestly say that it is distinctly unclear what they actually mean. Maybe if I had 20 years of legal terminology behind me, I might... but to even the above average reader, that piece of legalese is the same as vietnamese (which I don't speak).

Kindred -

Does SMF offer bridges to WordPress, Typo3, Drupal or Plone? I suspect not as each of those subscribe to the same GPL position.

Also, I wonder about the Mambo "position?" I am certainly *not* a lawyer, but I believe I have heard it said many times that each individual copyright holder can enforce the GPL.  So, I am not certain *who* can make blanket statements about any GPL'ed software. I believe each of the individual copyright holders can enforce the license. If I am not mistaken, most of the Joomla! folks are also Mambo copyright holders. Again, I really don't know, this is what I've read around the blogs and various forums.

There's always FireBoard, for those who require integration. It's GPL'ed, like Joomla!. Also, integration can take place within the template -- just like Joomla.org does now. Visitors really do not notice a difference.

Or, better still, maybe SMF would consider the GPL?  That would be sweet and could certainly open up all kinds of opportunities for using SMF.

Anyway, just a few thoughts as we brainstorm adaptations needed to continue forward.
Amy

Quote from: Kindred on July 03, 2007, 01:54:43 PM
a bunch of joomla devs quit...

many of the 3rd party component developers are not going to do any more development because thye don't want their products released under GPL.

Kindred - one Joomla! developer quit.

Amy you are mistaken, few quit.

Is there some sort of official announcement about devs quitting?... or where are you getting this info from?.

What's so important about being strictly GPL anyways... don't think its worth loosing a bunch of users/devs.

From Orstio, as a person:

QuoteDoes SMF offer bridges to WordPress, Typo3, Drupal or Plone? I suspect not as each of those subscribe to the same GPL position.

No, it doesn't.  Not necessarily because of their GPL position.  Drupal, for instance, has several function and variable name collisions that make a true bridge impossible.  I found Typo3 impossible to install in a sub-directory without reconfiguring the server, which I found unprofessional/unacceptable.  If Joomla wishes to follow in those footsteps, so be it.  I haven't gotten around to WordPress yet, but thanks for the heads-up:  I won't bother.

QuoteAlso, I wonder about the Mambo "position?" I am certainly *not* a lawyer, but I believe I have heard it said many times that each individual copyright holder can enforce the GPL.  So, I am not certain *who* can make blanket statements about any GPL'ed software. I believe each of the individual copyright holders can enforce the license. If I am not mistaken, most of the Joomla! folks are also Mambo copyright holders. Again, I really don't know, this is what I've read around the blogs and various forums.

That would be an incorrect and uneducated statement.  Miro signed over full copyright of all Mambo code (and other things) to the Mambo Foundation in December of 2005, several months after the Joomla fork.  Miro no longer exists, so there would be nobody left to be sued, were it the case.  IOW, Miro signed off the copyright that anyone at Joomla had prior.  Miro can't be sued for this action, because it doesn't exist anymore, and the opportunity to sue has long passed.  (read:  People who worked for Mambo/Miro before December 2005 might still have copyright on Joomla code because it was forked before the sign-over, but not on current Mambo code.  Perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing to be owned by a corporate entity after all?)

There are only two libraries left in Mambo 4.6 that are not either owned by the Mambo Foundation, nor under LGPL, and there is no chance that those two libraries are used directly by any third party developers, so absolutely no worries there.  The Mambo Foundation has made their position clear, and the code, other than those two libraries which will never be used by third parties, is either LGPL, or owned solely by the Mambo Foundation. 

As I have said before, (and is explicitly stated by the FSF) it is up to each copyright holder to decide how they will enforce their license.  Joomla has made their decision, and the Mambo Foundation has also made their own.  It should also be noted that the president of OSM refuses to comment on whether or not Joomla has had any notice given about GPL compliance from any of these invisible copyright holders (whether they be Darth Vader or the devil himself -- they seem quite mysterious, perhaps we should call Scooby and the Gang).  Perhaps the president of OSM should be notified that the FSF is not a copyright holder, and therefore can't "go after" anyone?   Let's keep in mind as well that it is up to each copyright holder to decide how they will enforce their license.  That also means it is not the responsibility of any copyright holder to act as a ward for any other copyright holder.  It is not Joomla/OSM's responsibility to enforce the GPL by any other copyright holder's interpretation.  This negates any argument that there is a Darth Vader lurking in the background.  No third party developer has been contacted by anyone, except for the public statement by OSM.  No invisible copyright holder has contacted any other third party developer about license violation of Joomla extensions (and yes, I can, and do know this for certain).  I am also aware of several Joomla copyright holders who were not contacted by Joomla/OSM in regards to this matter, so nobody has any precedent to imply any former copyright holder has made any statement on the licensing of third party Joomla extensions whatsoever.  Please do not attempt to misdirect people's attention to the imaginary enforcement of invisible copyright holders who may or may not exist.  I think it is extremely cowardly to combine a statement as OSM has made, and the attempt to imply that there may be unknown copyright holders that are the main pressure (or any pressure for that matter) behind the move.  I think it's even worse to make an attempt to imply that this is also the case of other (competing) softwares like Mambo.  If one makes such a bold statement, one should also have the backbone to own it.  Let's come out of the closet on the fact that this is Joomla/OSM's decision, and nobody else's.

From Orstio, as a developer:

QuoteOr, better still, maybe SMF would consider the GPL?   That would be sweet and could certainly open up all kinds of opportunities for using SMF.

SMF will NEVER consider GPL.  SMF's predecessor, YaBBSE, was GPL.  The creators of SMF had several good reasons for choosing a non-GPL compatible license for their new product.  While the GPL opens up all kinds of opportunities for the use of SMF, it also opens up all kinds of opportunities for the abuse of SMF.  Remember that a license has absolutely no jurisdiction over the intention of its users (abusers).  The third freedom (the freedom to modify and redistribute) is actually a detriment to the end user, as a developer can (and historically has proven) that they can release a substandard product claiming to the unwitting end user that it is superior, which actually serves nothing but to sever a community and create havoc and confusion.  ( a former boss of mine used to say "The road to Hell is paved in good intentions.")

SMF's current stance on Joomla is to remain hands-off, at least until Joomla/OSM can make a clear statement on the enforcement of their interpretation of their license.

Because SMF is an independent project, we have continued development of all bridges to other CMS softwares, including Mambo, e107, Xoops, and iGamingCMS.  If one wishes to use the power of SMF alongside an appropriate CMS, I suggest testing out those options.

I have also recently been looking at the feasability of bridging with ExV2 and Exponent.  As per my contact with them, the developers of those two CMS softwares seem open to third party development of any kind/license.

Orstio -

Thanks for your response. I was really responding to Kindred's comment "IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face."

Joomla! did not change their license. They have been and continue to use the GPL. But they did announce they are committed to compliance with the GNU/GPL license. I mainly want to point out that this is not a "stupid" or unusual "interpretation." It is the same stance that WordPress, Drupal, Plone and Typo3 have.

If SMF tries to bridge to any GPL-compliant CMS these challenges will be faced. You had a possible workaround - a bridge for a bridge - but have found that unacceptable and probably a bit silly, I suppose. Maybe, in the end, it will be reconsidered, I don't know. Clearly that is your right to choose which way, if any, you want to proceed.

It's perfectly fine if SMF does not want to consider the GPL and no one should criticize this project for it's decision. In the same way, let's also show respect to the Joomla! copyright holders for their licensing decisions, too.

Regarding Elin's comment, it is hardly unusual that legal issues, if such issues exist, are not discussed openly. Certainly you understand that is the stance any organization would take.

Here is the discussion on Mambo.  Like I said, I am not an expert or even well informed on these matters, but clearly there is a difference of opinion from people in the know on the copyright holder question and individual rights.

SMF is entitled to it's position and it is good to communicate openly with end users so that they can make plans. There are other options for CMSes that work with SMF and there are other options for forums that work with Joomla!. And, it will continue to be possible to use both SMF and Joomla! and integrate at the template - just like Joomla! org does very successfully now. These are not life altering choices here and nothing for anyone to get too worked up about. These are two good projects *hopefully* trying to figure out how to make things work.

Look - Orstio - you and I have always enjoyed a friendly relationship and I am not trying to stir things up. Just trying to clarify a few facts that I believe were "cloudy."

Thanks,
Amy

@Aravot - maybe I am not understanding the specifics of what people are talking about? There was only one J! core member who resigned. Now that I think about it, though, I do not believe he was even in the developer group. I believe he was actually in the Forum Administration group. Other than that, no one from Joomla! core or OSM quit - at least not that I know of. Please correct me if I am wrong, though! Thanks!

Amy,

I never said that joomla changed its license, I said they changed their interpretation.   If this had been their interpretation of the GPL from day 1, the majority of the 3rd party developers probably would never have jumped onto the joomla bandwagon.

They annoucned that they were committed to compliance... but they re-evaluated what that compliance actually meant.... and IN MY OPINION, that was rather stupid and short-sighted of them.   IMO, it's a poor decision/interpretation because, after having read the GPL, I can just as clearly support the other side of the argument (i.e. it's not at all clear)...


(oh, and Orstio, I believe there actually is some sort of bridge (or at least some sort of integration) for SMF -> Wordpress, and I swear I saw someone do a Drupal linkage...)

Thanks for your response, Kindred. I am sorry if it sounded like I suggested you said they changed their license. I didn't mean to suggest that. And, you are entitled to your opinion! lol! I'd consider less inflammatory words, but, hey, that's okay, too!

Dries Buytaert has posted in the Joomla! forums that all extensions to Drupal must be GPL-compliant and he indicated that opinion was supported by the FSF. If there is a bridge to Drupal it *must be* GPL to be listed on the Drupal.org site. That, I am confident of. Same is true for WordPress.

Of course, that doesn't mean people are always abiding by the copyright holders instructions and certainly could be offering non-compliant modules, etc., outside of official support sites. But the official stance regarding the GPL is strict.

Thanks, again, for your response. I am certain it will all work out in the end.
Amy

QuoteLook - Orstio - you and I have always enjoyed a friendly relationship and I am not trying to stir things up. Just trying to clarify a few facts that I believe were "cloudy."

I agree, so let's clarify some facts a little further.

QuoteJoomla! did not change their license. They have been and continue to use the GPL.

That is factually correct.

QuoteBut they did announce they are committed to compliance with the GNU/GPL license.

That is not factually correct, and should read:

"But they did announce they are committed to compliance with the FSF's interpretation of the GNU/GPL license."

Keep in mind it is not the only interpretation of the GPL, and, as the FSF has stated, it is up to each copyright holder to choose how they will enforce the license.  In this case, it is not up to anyone but Joomla/OSM.  That needs to remain clear.  (Please don't imply Darth Vader again, I've already dispelled that myth above.  )

QuoteIf SMF tries to bridge to any GPL-compliant CMS these challenges will be faced.

Not true.  If SMF tries to bridge to any CMS that interprets the GPL in the same way that Joomla (and, as you have pointed out, Drupal, Typo3, and Wordpress) have interpreted it, then that is the case.  But, again, it is up to each copyright holder to choose how it will enforce the license.  For example, both e107 and Mambo are GPL, but choose to allow third party extensions that are not GPL-compatible.  As the copyright holders, that is their choice; not Joomla's, nor Drupal's, nor Typo3's, nor FSF's.

The choice of how to enforce the license is made by people, not by the license.  Joomla is not forced to enforce the license in this way by the GPL itself.  It is their choice to interpret it in this way.  Yes, other CMS developers also interpret it in the same way, but that does not mean that all CMS developers need to interpret it in this way.

As a consequential result of Joomla's decision, I now contact each CMS to ensure their stance on the GPL before doing any bridge work whatsoever.  There is no point in wasting my time as I have with Joomla, and there is no point in disappointing future users of SMF by discontinuing a product due to a changing of the interpretation of a license.

Quote(oh, and Orstio, I believe there actually is some sort of bridge (or at least some sort of integration) for SMF -> Wordpress, and I swear I saw someone do a Drupal linkage...)

Yes, there are attempts at it, but nothing distributed from here.  There is some concern about the licensing/distribution of the smf_api.php for Drupal, however.  It was apparently intended to be released under the BSD license, but was never legally assigned, so falls under the SMF license.  Drupal is currently violating both their interpretation of the GPL and the SMF license with distributing that.

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 06, 2007, 10:59:57 PM
it will continue to be possible to use both SMF and Joomla! and integrate at the template - just like Joomla! org does very successfully now.

This is not practical for most of us, as we need to sync users and not to maintain two user bases.

Quote from: AmyStephen on July 06, 2007, 10:59:57 PM
@Aravot - maybe I am not understanding the specifics of what people are talking about? There was only one J! core member who resigned. Now that I think about it, though, I do not believe he was even in the developer group. I believe he was actually in the Forum Administration group. Other than that, no one from Joomla! core or OSM quit - at least not that I know of. Please correct me if I am wrong, though! Thanks!

The list is missing David Gal
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/board,371.0.html

Aravot -

Yes, David Gal took personal leave awhile ago and resigned his position prior to the retreat. Certainly, his leaving was not related to the licensing issue, if that is what is suggested.

And, yes, there were a number of options I listed...I'm certainly not here to debate. I just believe this will all work out and the choices are numerous.

HTH,
Amy