• Welcome to Simple Machines Community Forum. Please login or sign up.
October 17, 2021, 02:14:09 PM

News:

Want to get involved in developing SMF, then why not lend a hand on our github!


Joomla Bridge unavailable?

Started by cferd, June 16, 2007, 12:52:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Omega X

Ugh, the crap that this software has to go through with Joomla.

I wonder how many other plugins have just been deemed "non compatible" because of this.

Orstio

Just so that people rest easy for now -- we may have a solution with a go-between file licensed under LGPL.  This would essentially allow the linking of the bridge to the LGPL file, and the linking of the LGPL to Joomla.

I have yet to restructure and package it, but I have tested the concept, and it functions as expected.

ComputerLady

Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 08:36:48 PM
Just so that people rest easy for now -- we may have a solution with a go-between file licensed under LGPL.  This would essentially allow the linking of the bridge to the LGPL file, and the linking of the LGPL to Joomla.

I have yet to restructure and package it, but I have tested the concept, and it functions as expected.

This sounds like an ideal solution to me... I became an instant convert to the value of SMF after having tried other web forum products. What's more, I see the combination of Joomla and SMF to be an ideal solution for  nonprofit 'community' kind of organizations. That is, they can hold 'virtual' meetings, conduct polls, and so forth thru SMF in addition to discussion with others. Their 'long-term' content for their site can be provided thru Joomla. The critical aspect of simplicity, in that only one set of user records exists AND access rights can easily be defined is needed in such situations. Stand-alone installs, in those instances, would only create confusion and detract from usefulness.

Thanks Orstio, and everyone else at SMF, for looking for a solution to this issue!  :)
The Computer Lady!
Design Works Internet - CEBUG
Custom Web Design & Programming, Video Tutorials

davidsev

Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 09:46:34 AM
I could, for example, release the bridge without an installer, and claim that it is nothing but a useless lump of code that I am distributing under a proprietary license.  It then has no way to interface with Joomla on its own -- it would require the end user to install manually.

Can you do this?
I have no issues with installing by hand, I do have issues with having no bridge...

sektor

Quote from: davidsev on June 20, 2007, 08:29:03 PM
Can you do this?
I have no issues with installing by hand, I do have issues with having no bridge...

Same here...

chaking

Oh lordy I sure hope this gets worked out quickly - I postponed an upgrade to Joomla, and now I can't until I can get a bridge for smf - son of a *&^@#-


Thanks for all the work being done on it though! =)

shen brood

So this is the reason why I can't see the downloadable bridge to Joomla in the downloads section?  I had been using the bridge here for almost 2 years and just a question when will it be available again?

I am forced to use the SMF integration from JoomlaHacks.

Aravot

Don't you have a copy of the bridge in HDD

Chriss Cohn

Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 06:58:04 PM
I see what you mean, however, I am certain the FSF would interpret it as all in the same workflow, and therefore all needing to be GPL.
Why not just ask the Free Software Foundation?
I mean the "boss" of the FSF seems to be a very cool guy from what ive heard and he has the same "ideas" as we do, love great pieces of software for FREE!

I still don't get what this is all about, maybe because im german and my english is not very perfect, so there may be some understanding issues....
I mean no matter if it is joomla or ist SMF, they all have the same thoughts: providing a great pice of software for Free, so why we are fcking around with that damn licences?
Just go to a simple level, why can't "Free" and "Free" match together? Or what are the differences between "Free" and "Free" ? I cant get that into my head - sorry and very confused......

Regards, Christian

Kindred

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).
Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

"Loki is not evil, although he is certainly not a force for good. Loki is... complicated."

shawn122

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).


this is quite the funny post!
SB Creations - http://www.shawnbinda.com

RampantAndroid

Quote from: Orstio on June 17, 2007, 08:36:48 PM
Just so that people rest easy for now -- we may have a solution with a go-between file licensed under LGPL.  This would essentially allow the linking of the bridge to the LGPL file, and the linking of the LGPL to Joomla.

I have yet to restructure and package it, but I have tested the concept, and it functions as expected.

Not to nag...but do you have an ETA on when you think this will be public? I was playing with the Joomlahacks bridge (I'd thought there were two Bridges, only found one...then found this thread.) The joomlahacks one seems OK, a bit convoluted - wanted to try this one as well.

As far as GPL stuff...I see Joomla's move here as stupid. Plenty of open source software interfaces with non-GPL software. Correct me if I am wrong, but by Joomla's standards, using open source software with Windows is wrong...since the software might call a Windows function to create a new thread, get shared memory and a semaphore for it...etc, no?

Quote from: Kindred on June 26, 2007, 02:53:11 PM
IMO, it is a stupid interpretation, and joomla is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

This sums up the way I see it. Maybe I'm missing something though. Personally, I'm not NUTS about open source. Its good, yes - but I also see a bloody good use in pay software - for example, show me an IDE and debugger that is open source and can compete with Visual Studio - KDevelop and GDB don't count - they can't compete. Hell, GDB can't even do a step out!

zwaldowski

This interpretation is stupid, on the part of the folks who made the decision to have the bridge removed.  The whole function of a bridge is to do just what it name implies:  to mediate between two different platforms or systems.  While I understand that the bridge is licensed just as SMF is, but that can be changed, while SMF can not.

There is a question I must ask.  Take this situation hypothetically.  What if SMF (and its bridge) were under GPL and Joomla was under the hybrid, custom license?

------------------------
Help me win an iPod, or maybe a Wii!

Kindred

The bridge is distributed by SMF. It links a non GPL software to the GPL, joomla.  This is the problem, according to Joomla's interpretation.  Because the bridge calls joomla functions, it must be GPL. Because the bridge also calls SMF functions, SMF must be GPL...
it's a vicious circle...

If SMF were GPL (and it's not), then it would be up to the SMF legal team to determine their interpretation of the license.
Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

"Loki is not evil, although he is certainly not a force for good. Loki is... complicated."

cferd

All this talk may be moot, depending on what it is that Orstio is trying to accomplish with the LGPL, but anyway, because the bridge is technically part of Joomla once installed, I agree that it should be GPL. But unless I'm missing something in the licence when reading the bit "EACH OTHER" which would signify something mutual, SMF would not need to be under the GPL. SMF does nothing on it's own in relation to Joomla. It makes no function calls to either J! or the bridge. So IMHO, as the plug-in, SMF should not be considered to be one with Joomla (a single program).

Orstio

QuoteWhile I understand that the bridge is licensed just as SMF is, but that can be changed, while SMF can not.

For those who have been around a few years, they will recall that earlier bridges were GPL.  That's a mistake I won't be making again.

QuoteIt makes no function calls to either J! or the bridge.

Yes, in fact it does, which is part of the problem.  SMF's integration hooks are function calls to the bridge.

davidsev

Quote from: Orstio on June 27, 2007, 05:47:53 PM
For those who have been around a few years, they will recall that earlier bridges were GPL.  That's a mistake I won't be making again.

What went wrong?  Lots of us haven't been here that long....

RampantAndroid

Quote from: davidsev on June 28, 2007, 02:34:33 PM

What went wrong?  Lots of us haven't been here that long....

I bet someone stole his code...changed 2 lines, and redistributed it without giving credit to Orstio...just a guess.

Anyway, any idea on when the bridge might be available again? Thanks!

RA

Chriss Cohn

Quote from: RampantAndroid on June 29, 2007, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: davidsev on June 28, 2007, 02:34:33 PM

What went wrong?  Lots of us haven\'t been here that long....

I bet someone stole his code...changed 2 lines, and redistributed it without giving credit to Orstio...just a guess.
Yes and maybe the guys from Joomlahacks? just a guess also from me...

hughesjr

I would instead think that the problem is that using releasing the bridge GPL means that SMF would also need to be made GPL, which is the problem that Orstio wants to avoid.

I can understand not wanting to release SMF under the GPL, such that the copyright attribution must remain on the page ... so that is where we are.

The LGPL for part of the bridge and the SMF license for the other part should make this work OK ... SMF only calls the SMF part and Joomla only calls the LPGL part .. that would seem to be doable.

Advertisement: