Why the long faces?

[青山 素子]

Are you using the WYSIWYG editor?

[Orstio]

I also rely on the Sobi2 component, as yet there is no alternative that will take paid listings - commercial or free, then there's the problem with commercial templates that may work now but probably won't later. 

The proper code is...

When you click the smiley it produces this: 

Code Select Expand

>:(

The developer of SOBI2 has also moved to Mambo:

http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/showthread.php?t=6758&highlight=sobi2

[sektor]

I'll wait a few months still, then decide what to do.

I might just move to Joomlahack's bridge. I just have to make sure that my forum's URL will not change. I hope he uses com_smf option.

Other than that, i HAVE been experiencing some problems with Orstio's bridge. Some users do not get added to the ACL database (i have a custom-made script which syncs the users every day), and others are only logged in to SMF and not Joomla (i haven't been able to resolve this issue). Maybe it's my configuration, since i'm one of the very few that run Joomla + SMF on a Windows enviroment, and even worse for a 1Tb/month website.

However, Orstio's support has been absolutely incredible and i'm totally willing to help, beta test, and whatever it needs to get his bridge going.

I just hope the license issue get's resolved at some point.

[elfishtroll]

I'll wait a few months still, then decide what to do.

I might just move to Joomlahack's bridge. I just have to make sure that my forum's URL will not change. I hope he uses com_smf option.

Other than that, i HAVE been experiencing some problems with Orstio's bridge. Some users do not get added to the ACL database (i have a custom-made script which syncs the users every day), and others are only logged in to SMF and not Joomla (i haven't been able to resolve this issue). Maybe it's my configuration, since i'm one of the very few that run Joomla + SMF on a Windows enviroment, and even worse for a 1Tb/month website.

However, Orstio's support has been absolutely incredible and i'm totally willing to help, beta test, and whatever it needs to get his bridge going.

I just hope the license issue get's resolved at some point.

The license issue HAS been resolved.

although the outcome has not been perhaps what you or I may like, it is not unexpected.

The resolution is, NO bridge (from the SMF side).

Just to be clear, there is NO chance of legal compliance with the "Joomla stance/version" of GPL, NONE.

Even IF there were to be a complete REWRITE (throwing away all the institutional knowledge painfully developed over the last two years and eschewing reasonable performance and tight integration), NOTHING would work.

Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)

Furthermore, their 'current at this particular moment' stance on prosecuting their rights under the GPL license claims no permanence and indeed can be withdrawn at anytime, presumably, after they have finished "cleaning house"

Programming and development resources are neither infinite nor cheap. Neither is the prospect of possible legal claims by an organization that seems to be run by mavericks and zealots - i.e. not guaranteed to act in their own self-interest, OUR THE CONSIDERED INTEREST OF THEIR USER COMMUNITY.

In my humble opinion, it makes no sense to squander the finite development resources, aiming at a capricious target that can shift the goal posts, the playing field and alter the rules of the game.  (which they had set)

For the aforementioned (and other unmentioned/unmentionable) reasons, development on the bridge has ended.


Other than the foregoing, what does that mean for you and your present problems?
You will currently be able to use the current bridge you DO have and the current versions of Joomla - currently 1.013 (with modifications).

be advised however, that they are actively looking for ways to introduce incompatibilities with Mambo and older bridges and components making it harder for you to 'bridge the gap' as it were ( you may lok @ the pun if you wish)

Other than that, i HAVE been experiencing some problems with Orstio's bridge. Some users do not get added to the ACL database

Which users have been giving problems?

Can you detect anything in common? (characters in username,time of day database load?
etc?)

what type of registration model are you using?
Mambo, Bridge, CB?

personally, I have the same configuration with none of the problems you describe so maybe its an installation (did you read the docs? ) problem!

[青山 素子]

As I posted over at the Joomla Forums:

Back on topic, here are the basic choices right now:

• Keep the current version of the "official" bridge and Joomla! you have, while manually patching for any security issues that come up. (Difficult, not a likely long-term solution)
• Use the JH bridge and hope it doesn't get pulled if the developers can't find a way to make it legal or it drops in functionality to satisfy the license issues. (Not all that difficult, works for now)
• Drop the bridging in total. (Depends on how your site works, some can get by better without it than others)
• Move to a different forum system that will pass the legality issue. (A pain, but doable)
• Move to a different CMS. (A pain if you have a lot of content and custom stuff)

Right now, the least painful solutions are the first and second. Until some major security fixes come along (and I don't think changing the password hashing mechanism in the middle of a branch is a good idea - as it does break all bridges for no fix of an existing weakness), holding steady will work fine. If you want to, move to the JH bridge for now. At the least, you can get a bit of time to investigate what you want to do.

Most certainly you picked both Joomla! and SMF after careful examination of choices. You should do the same at this point. The worst thing to do in a case like this is to panic and act on emotions. Any of the bottom three choices are likely to be painful, don't jump at them until you are certain that is the proper path for you.

[Farix]

• Move to a different CMS. (A pain if you have a lot of content and custom stuff)

Of course, your pain very much depending on which CMS you switch to. Switching to Mambo will be less painful then switching to most other CMSes.

Right now, the least painful solutions are the first and second. Until some major security fixes come along (and I don't think changing the password hashing mechanism in the middle of a branch is a good idea - as it does break all bridges for no fix of an existing weakness), holding steady will work fine. If you want to, move to the JH bridge for now. At the least, you can get a bit of time to investigate what you want to do.

Either of the first two are good for the short term, but they are not good long term solutions. That is if my understanding that JH was going to drop development of their bridge is correct.

Most certainly you picked both Joomla! and SMF after careful examination of choices. You should do the same at this point. The worst thing to do in a case like this is to panic and act on emotions. Any of the bottom three choices are likely to be painful, don't jump at them until you are certain that is the proper path for you.

When I started working on the convention's website, the previous webmaster had already installed Joomla! So, when I went looking for a new forum, I looked for one that best combined with Joomla! Our old forum was a preview copy of IPB v2 before they went commercial and we need of moving to a more secure forum package after using IPB for 3 years with no updates. phpBB v2 did not provide the control we needed without serious modifications and phpBB v3 was still a long ways off. It also didn't help that I couldn't find a bridge between the two. SMF v1.1 was already in RC stage and had the features and control we need and had a bridge to Joomla!, so it became our best option at the time. I also picked Orstio's bridge over JH's bridge because Orstio's bridge did not altering any files on either side.

Right now, I'm looking to move over to Mambo after the current convention season is over after the first weekend in October. Two of our existing components are working, but one (a newsletter component) we never really used. The other is Gallery 2, which I want embedded into Mambo and not into SMF.

[Raul Dias]

The license issue HAS been resolved.

although the outcome has not been perhaps what you or I may like, it is not unexpected.

The resolution is, NO bridge (from the SMF side).

Just to be clear, there is NO chance of legal compliance with the "Joomla stance/version" of GPL, NONE.

Even IF there were to be a complete REWRITE (throwing away all the institutional knowledge painfully developed over the last two years and eschewing reasonable performance and tight integration), NOTHING would work.

So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.

How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?

Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)

Here we go again
How is this different from Mambo's stance on GPL?
(if possible keeping a logical debate )

[青山 素子]

Right now, the least painful solutions are the first and second. Until some major security fixes come along (and I don't think changing the password hashing mechanism in the middle of a branch is a good idea - as it does break all bridges for no fix of an existing weakness), holding steady will work fine. If you want to, move to the JH bridge for now. At the least, you can get a bit of time to investigate what you want to do.

Either of the first two are good for the short term, but they are not good long term solutions. That is if my understanding that JH was going to drop development of their bridge is correct.

Correct. The first two solutions will buy you time to do a proper study of what is the best move for you. The point is to not jump to some solution without evaluating its impact on your site.

So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.

Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.

How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?

Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.

I don't believe we checked if there would be a problem with the SMF license at that point.

Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)

Here we go again
How is this different from Mambo's stance on GPL?
(if possible keeping a logical debate )

The Mambo Foundation owns all the code in their core software (and most of the rest is LGPL licensed). They have stated that non-GPL extensions are okay with their software. Of course, there isn't a formal notice in the license itself, but we are considering their public statements to act as such at this time.

[Raul Dias]

So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.

Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.

How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?

Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.

So, if (if) the bridge was GPLed and was using smf_api.php and if (if) smf_api.php were GPLed too.  It would be ok to be used by the Joomla terms, right?

Furthermore, saying they "have no wish nor intent to 'go after anyone regarding compliance and are only seeking 'voluntary compliance'" constitutes a "RIDER" or "AMMENDMENT" to the GPL or the Joomla release, something they have SPECIFICALLY said, they WILL NOT and have NO RIGHTS TO MAKE.* (debatable bull)

Here we go again
How is this different from Mambo's stance on GPL?
(if possible keeping a logical debate )

The Mambo Foundation owns all the code in their core software (and most of the rest is LGPL licensed).

As I pointed before, they dont.
Just to illustrated my point in the 4.6.2 source:
includes/magpierss/*
includes/phpInputFilter/class.inputfilter.php

They have stated that non-GPL extensions are okay with their software. Of course, there isn't a formal notice in the license itself, but we are considering their public statements to act as such at this time.

Yes, but how is that different from Joomla ?

[Thantos]

Yes, but how is that different from Joomla ?

Joomla has said that it is a violation.  With Mambo we only have their word but we are willing to accept that.

Raul let me put it in very plain speech:  Mambo has said that the non-GPL extensions are not a violation of their contract.  We believe them.  We are not going to go digging for possible issues through other people's code.  We'll ask them if the bridge is ok and if we get the thumbsup then we'll proceed.  End of story.

[cferd]

If I've understood both sides correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between what Mambo says and what Joomla says is:

Mambo and the MF, as holders of all the core copyrights, speak as one. So what they say is true for all it's copyright holders.

Joomla and OSM, not being owners of all their code, cannot speak for all their copyright holders.

[青山 素子]

So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.

Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.

How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?

Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.

So, if (if) the bridge was GPLed and was using smf_api.php and if (if) smf_api.php were GPLed too.  It would be ok to be used by the Joomla terms, right?

No it wouldn't, to my understanding. You'd still be accessing internal SMF data in that situation (the SMF context array), which you can't do.

[Raul Dias]

So, what was the viable solution, that is undoable? I missed this point.

Yes. At this time, the work needed to try and get it compliant (if possible) is too great for us.

How should the bridge work in order to be in compliance to the GPL (at least accordling to Joomla developers)?

Paraphrasing the basic information offered to us, we would need to abstract SMF more on the integration hooks, make the bridge only derivative of Joomla!, and not touch any SMF variables, which means adding a bunch of SMF logic into the bridge, which would have to be GPL-licensed.

So, if (if) the bridge was GPLed and was using smf_api.php and if (if) smf_api.php were GPLed too.  It would be ok to be used by the Joomla terms, right?

No it wouldn't, to my understanding. You'd still be accessing internal SMF data in that situation (the SMF context array), which you can't do.

I see.

So, is anyone willing to document/describe how SMF works regarding:
* User authentication
* User sessions
* User Creation
* User Groups/memberships
* Group Creation
* User/Group ACLs

This regarding:
* database usage
* cookies (if any) usage

Without describing the code behind this?

[Raul Dias]

If I've understood both sides correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between what Mambo says and what Joomla says is:
---snip---
Joomla and OSM, not being owners of all their code, cannot speak for all their copyright holders.

That's right. 

So what they are saying is: "We don't mind distributing NGPLCC (NonGPLCompatibleCode) code for Joomla, but as we dont own 100% of its code, we can't respond for those not part of the Joomla Team. Because of that, if you are distributing code NGPLCC you should be aware of that."

--snip--
Mambo and the MF, as holders of all the core copyrights, speak as one. So what they say is true for all it's copyright holders.
--snip--

Almost that. (again I am not trying to raise the SMF issue anymore as Thantos made clear above thats end of story)
Mambo/MF is the copyright holder of all Mambo core code written by Mambo team and contributions.

And the point I made before is that this does not cover 100% of Mambo.

Mambo uses external (in the sense of not developed by Mambo developers) libraries.  As this libraries are not contribution for Mambo, but used by Mambo (see the difference?) the copyright holders of this libraries is not the Mambo/MF, but the libraries authors.

This libraries are basically licensed as:
* BSD
* MIT
* PHP License
* LGPL
* GPL

So this GPL libraries copyright holders have the right to "sue" as the Mambo/MF have, because their work is being violated too.
This is the missed point regarding Mambo.

The same is true for LGPL work too. 
Most people knows that LGPL can be linked to other licenses without a problem.
What most people doesn't know is that a LGPL work becomes GPL when linked to a GPL code.
This means that what I said above regarding the GPL is valid for LGPL libraries too.

This chart explains this matter:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

So, when Mambo/MF says that there is no problem with NGPLCC.
This is not 100% true.  There is a problem as I showed above.

Joomla did the same stating that they "dont care" about it, but made the point clear that they are not the only copyright holders of all code that comes with Joomla.