Join the Facebook Fan Page.
Started by cferd, June 16, 2007, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Kindred on July 03, 2007, 10:32:04 AMPersonally, with all of the developers leaving the joomla-ship, I would suggest mambo.
Quote from: redone on July 03, 2007, 03:25:29 PMI 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: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 06:06:58 PMI 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: ComputerLady on July 03, 2007, 07:37:04 PMQuote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 06:06:58 PMI 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!
Quote from: RampantAndroid on July 03, 2007, 09:55:58 PMI 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: Kindred on June 26, 2007, 02:53:11 PMalthough 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).
Quote from: Kindred on July 03, 2007, 01:54:43 PMa 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.
QuoteDoes SMF offer bridges to WordPress, Typo3, Drupal or Plone? I suspect not as each of those subscribe to the same GPL position.
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.
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.
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."
QuoteJoomla! did not change their license. They have been and continue to use the GPL.
QuoteBut they did announce they are committed to compliance with the GNU/GPL license.
QuoteIf SMF tries to bridge to any GPL-compliant CMS these challenges will be faced.
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...)
Quote from: AmyStephen on July 06, 2007, 10:59:57 PMit will continue to be possible to use both SMF and Joomla! and integrate at the template - just like Joomla! org does very successfully now.
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!