Question about existing joomla bridge support

[higherauthority]

OK I have read through tons of post and thought I read somewhere that the joomla and smf bridge is no linger being distributed (This I understand)    However I integrated joomla with smf a while ago I was planning on adding a flash chat feature due to high demand from users.

Before I do this and kill my site    are you still offering support. Or am I SOL and should find a new cms that has a legit bridge then integrate the chat?

[Thantos]

We will continue to support sites that already have the bridge.

[higherauthority]

Thanks for the heads up on that

[afonic]

Ostrio,

I was wondering if you could possibly release a .patch file with the changes needed to the bridge to work with 1.0.13? (if it is technically possible of course)

I think this is perfectly legal under GPL and Simplemachines license (correct me if I am wrong) and it solves the problem of current bridge users being unable to upgrade Joomla. Plus you give more time for everyone to consider the options and decide what to do. I think Joomla 1.0.12 to 1.0.13 had an interval of over 100 days so there is quite a chance we could stick to this solution for quite some time.

I know this is probably not something you'll enjoy to do but if for example there is some serious security problem and 1.0.14 comes out there is a good change upgrading using the bridge could be possible but the password changes in 1.0.13 may deny it. Then we'll have no option but close our sites  until further action.

Thanks.

[elfishtroll]

since the Joomla 1.13 password changes were released specifically to break existing bridges ( i.e. create a bright line in the sand) then doing a 'compatibility release' wont fix anything

If the bridge is in violation, because of its non GPL state and dependence on GPL joomla, then a patch file, which is dependent on the bridge would be just as violative.


In any event, the fix is simple, use the joomla.php file from the last version of joomla 1.12 and overwrite the current one.


next, prepare to hand merge the future updates yourself ( read the changelog/diffs) or leave them  undone.

The last three releases from Joomla have been just sloppy and disorganized and for this we cant blame the core devs completely, but the "quality and control guys".

Still, the reasons for introducing major infrastructural changes (itemID's in 10.11-12, password in 10.12-13) in what should be stability/security releases in legacy code are baffling.

Indeed, rather than be the first to update to the latest release(s), I've advised all to wait at least 4 months after any joomla release so as to not be the first on the (chopping) block.

There has been basically no improvement on Joomla (platformwise) since j.010 so we can say we've basically seen the end of this particular fork.

The next thing left is either use Legacy Joomla/Mambo or go to J1.5

[afonic]

First of all, I am legally using the bridge, Ostrio (or SMF) is not allowed to distribute it.

Also, releasing a .patch file to update the bridge files should be legal under the GPL unless there is something I am not aware of.

Last but not least, saying that the 1.0.13 changes were made to break compatibility with bridges and other great (GPL) components like VirtueMart and CB is obviously your own opinion which I think is false.

[elfishtroll]

First of all, I am legally using the bridge, Ostrio (or SMF) is not allowed to distribute it.

Also, releasing a .patch file to update the bridge files should be legal under the GPL unless there is something I am not aware of.
<emphasis and LMAO added >

Last but not least, saying that the 1.0.13 changes were made to break compatibility with bridges and other great (GPL) components like VirtueMart and CB is obviously your own opinion which I think is false.

The 1.013 PASSWORD changes were made to create a line in the sand (the line being Joomla's NEW stance on the GPL)
- previous coders could either claim ignorance of the GPL, its requirements or Joomla's position.

Once these changes were released in 1.013, then BRIDGES WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED. The code is simple, but non-GPL providers would not be free to release their updates, as THEY would be KNOWINGLY IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH JOOMLA'S STATED POSITION.

I'm not surprised you 'think' its false, I'm just glad you've taken that 1st step! A baby's first words are often babble, an idiot's first cognitive expressions similarly so, but we encourage both in the hope of further development!

[afonic]

1) Find me someone from the core team that would say that "yes we changed the password salt to make non GPL components not working". I am not saying that I am 100% sure that this is not the case, but you don't know either, you assume. Making a component available for Joomla 1.0.13 does not mean you are NOW violating the GPL, you always had been in violation nor it can "make a line on the sand".

2) There is a reason I asked for a .patch file. Distribution of a .patch file should not be illegal, even if the distributing the bridge is, AFAIK. Watch out, a .patch file and not an updated package or even a new smf.php, there is a difference.

Bottom line, I am with those that believe that going GPL only was a good decision from the Joomla folks. However up to now non-GPL components were "allowed" so we now get ourself in a situation where many users use those components (like Ostrio's bridge) which are honoring Joomla's license by stopping distribution but want to continue supporting their product for the installed base, which is pretty huge.

[Kindred]

Actually, Joomla announced that the license application is retroactive,

[elfishtroll]

1) Find me someone from the core team that would say that "yes we changed the password salt to make non GPL components not working". I am not saying that I am 100% sure that this is not the case, but you don't know either, you assume.

And how would that help you? Would a 'confession' enable you to see the facts, which even before your eyes you ignore?

Dont  you understand that:

a) the core devs  code with backward compatibility in mind (for all it's dangers, REGISTER GLOBALS EMULATION IS ENABLED BY DEFAULT-a particularly bad setup, as it will register the globals EVEN IF YOU HAVE IT TURNED OFF ON YOUR HOST)

b) The current roadmap for the Mambo fork (Joomla 1.01x) is LEGACY CODE: security and stability changes only - no new infrastructure changes

c) The password hash 'security' changes  add NOTHING to the site security?
Any hacking  program with access to your database already OWNS your system.

Making a component available for Joomla 1.0.13 does not mean you are NOW violating the GPL, you always had been in violation nor it can "make a line on the sand".

who said it does? Why are you stating positions not made so that you can refute them?
What I said was, ( and I'm repeating it here because even water can cut rock if it persists) that the changes were made to break the old bridges.
The GPL ones will be able to move forward, the NON-GPL ones will not.

2) There is a reason I asked for a .patch file. Distribution of a .patch file should not be illegal, even if the distributing the bridge is, AFAIK. Watch out, a .patch file and not an updated package or even a new smf.php, there is a difference.

Perhaps not by your well reasoned legal analysis. Unfortunately other people, several of them lawyers, have not had the benefit of your years of experience and think otherwise.

Bottom line, I am with those that believe that going GPL only was a good decision from the Joomla folks.

Actually the "Joomla folks" did not make that decision, the Joomla core devs did!
The consensus from the rank and file, has for the most part been: "why the f*k couldnt we just have maintained the status quo?"
LOL  you are "with those that believe..." (but do YOU believe?) lol, it'll take more than a talking pig to lead me around!


Ah, I wish I could live in your blissful world