SMF Bridge for Joomla! Discontinued

[eibot]

you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

I spend many hours to get the site where it is at the moment!!! This will mean that I loose everything and need to start from scratch??? All my forum posts will be lost? All accounts needs to re-register??

I hope not! I am seriously considering to remove Joomla!

[Peter Duggan]

you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

Some clarification here:

We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.

[Deaks]

you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

Some clarification here:

We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.

thanks i must of missed that bit

[Orstio]

Please clear one thing, I am currently usign Joomla, SMF 1.1.3 and the bridge. May I continue using this, or do I have to remove this as well before getting sued by someone?

The license concern is only with distribution, not with usage.  You have no need to fear about getting sued for using the software if you already have it installed.  It just can't be distributed any longer.

[GravuTrad]

Lets go on mambo so....

does the mambo brigde is ok for mambo 4.6.2?

cause there will be lots of people which will go on it....

Yes, the Mambo bridge is specifically designed for Mambo 4.6.2.

Great, so lets go on conversion of joomla in mambo....

[Dragooon]

you should be able to continue using it for now but I would advise looking at something else maybe mambo.

However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge

I spend many hours to get the site where it is at the moment!!! This will mean that I loose everything and need to start from scratch??? All my forum posts will be lost? All accounts needs to re-register??

I hope not! I am seriously considering to remove Joomla!

No not at all.Unless your MySQL database is there you wont loose your members/boards/posts etc.

[AmyStephen]

The license concern is only with distribution, not with usage.  You have no need to fear about getting sued for using the software if you already have it installed.  It just can't be distributed any longer.

True - the license concern is not for usage; only distribution.

The FSF's comments indicated that combining non-GPL software with any GPL software is a violation of the GPL. Joomla! was *never* mentioned in the correspondence. The FSF's comments were as relevant for Mambo. If the FSF's word is what you are using as justification, then it is as just as illegal to distribute an SMF bridge for Mambo.

From Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

I deeply hope that SMF will rethink this approach. The announcement made on July 24 forces Joomla!/SMF end users to either a) use a CMS they did not freely choose or b) leave their sites vulnerable for the v 1.0.13 security fixes.

The last discussion with Joomla! on the bridge was June 17 - at that time, it was agreed between Johan and Orstio that a workable solution was in front of us.

Again, I urge discussions with Joomla! resume. There are protocols for truly seeking FSF opinion and assistance that we have not explored. We have not tapped SFLC resources that the Joomla! project offered for the express purposes of finding a solution to this very challenge.

Why? That is what I cannot wrap my mind around. Why wouldn't we try to resolve this? It *can* be resolved without changing the license for either product. Why would we simply give up and suggest end users use Mambo, or another CMS? Why?

If SMF no longer wants to continue a relationship with Joomla!, that is *clearly* their choice. But, a reasonable transition period, perhaps six months to a year, would be very much appreciated and there is nothing stopping SMF from providing this time for these people.

Please, for the sake of end users, offer time.
Amy

[palorber]

As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.

Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.&nbsp; The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.&nbsp; This is not legal advice.

Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?

From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla

License Guidelines
Learn more about how Mambo is licensed and how this affects you.

1. What license is Mambo released under?
Mambo is released under the GNU/GPL, Version 2. A copy of this is included with your copy of Mambo and can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html [nofollow]. Unofficial translations can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html. [nofollow]

So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL

[Kindred]

Mambo has specifically stated that the bridge is good with them.

And, Amy, we went through this one the other thread. We (SMF) discussed this as a team.
It is OUR interpretation of the statements from Joomla!, combined with the statements from FSF, that the coding gymnastics to even get close to a bridge (at this time) are not reasonable, if even possible.

If Joomla! finds another solution, we are willing to revisit the consideration, at that time.


As for offering time...  
we can not distribute the bridge as it exists. That is very clear.
Joomla 1.0.13 breaks the bridge. That is clear.
Therefor, people looking for a solution, right now, need to consider some other avenue.

[Oldiesmann]

As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.

Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.&nbsp; The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.&nbsp; This is not legal advice.

Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?

From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla

License Guidelines
Learn more about how Mambo is licensed and how this affects you.

1. What license is Mambo released under?
Mambo is released under the GNU/GPL, Version 2. A copy of this is included with your copy of Mambo and can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html. Unofficial translations can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html.

So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL

Version 2 of the GPL allows developers to grant permission to combine their program with other non-GPL-compatible software:

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

[palorber]

Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Thank you... This clears it up for me

[ormuz]

Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Thank you... This clears it up for me

for me too!

[Rudolf]

So what if someone writes a bridge and releases it as GPL? This wouldn't cause troubles neither with Joomla nor with SMF, right?
The subject says "SMF Bridge for Joomla! discontinued"... maybe someone ill take the effort to write a new bridge and release it as GPL. Though that's hard to imagine, because there are very few people outside of SMF who care to spend time on SMF. (Read my other post in some other topic to better understand what I mean)

[Trekkie101]

Rudolf, been there sadly, orstio looked into that I believe and didn't really mind it being a GPL bridge (If I remember right), however the problem exists again because the bridge is connecting SMF to Joomla which then uses both scripts and does some weirdo thing where its illegal.

However, the whole situation can usually be avoided, use Joomla and SMF, use a link like joomla.org does, and use SMF for your authentication unless ofcourse you need some sort of function that's member restricted by joomla, then theres issues.

Oh I dunno

[Thantos]

The bridge used to be GPL.  I'm not sure of the exact reasonings for changing licenses but I doubt Orstio would go back to a license that failed.

[Joshua Dickerson]

According to the FSF, the bridge's license needs to be GPL compatible as well as the software being bridged (SMF).

[dmwalker]

Having followed the GPL issue regarding Joomla over the past few months, it boggles my mind that the developers here at SMF think the solution is to develop a bridge for Mambo. The issue is the license (GNU/GPL), not whether the CMS is Joomla, Mambo or Drupal. A FAQ at Mambo is meaningless regarding whether you can legally bridge SMF to Mambo or not. I can assure you that there is GPL code in Mambo that was written by copyright holders who are not part of the current team. Your legal risks with Mambo are exactly the same as with any other GPL CMS, including Joomla.

The problem is not with the GPL CMS, the problem is clearly with SMF. The biggest ocean in the open source world is GNU/GPL and compatabile licenses. If you don't want to change your license, then don't bother trying to swim in that ocean. Or should I say, swim at your own risk. phpbb is 2-3 times more popular than smf and they do just fine with a GPL license.

Finally, are you really sure that 100% of the SMF codebase is non-GPL? If not, you could be in for problems in the future.

[Kindred]

dmwalker, you are incorrect on nearly all counts.

1- SMF is not and has never been GPL. Copyright and license to SMF is held 100% by Simplemachines LLC.
2- Mambo copyright is held, 100% by the mambo foundation. There was a discussion about this elsewhere and I'm not going into it here. the Mambo foundation has indicated that they are not interpreting the GPL in the same way... and as they are the sole copyright holder to mambo, they are allowed to do so.

The real problem here is the draconian interpretation of GPL that says "If you don't do what we want you to do, then you can't play with our toys"

there are plenty of non-GPL products that use parts of the Linux GPL code...   why is that allowed while this is not? See conversation with FSF.

[Joshua Dickerson]

dmwalker: the author is the one that holds the rights to their software, not the person(s) that wrote the license. If you were to go by that sense, every copyright and trademark lawyer would be in court right now suing their clients. The author and ONLY the author can say "I will allow this product to be used by this person". The FSF might be a powerful lobby organization that is willing to support authors when it serves the FSF, but that is all they are - a lobby organization.

So, in the end, it has entirely to do with the CMS.

[Route 66 Rambler]

I just spent three weeks hammering together an installation between Joomla, SMF, and G2.  That was before I knew about this little thing.  At least I found this out before I really got to work cataloguing my site into Joomla.  I really didn't like it anyway, Joomla seems to require constant hacking to get anything at all to work.

I have been really happy with the Gallery 2 software, but if it's GPL, I guess I'll be taking that down, too.

Regardless of what everyone says now, with all this sweetness and light,  this being the software world and all,  I'm quite certain that things will get ugly somewhere, at some point.  In my case, HTML works fine, even if it is extra work.  I'm NOT taking down SMF to make my site "legal".  It accounts for over 80% of my traffic.  It's the best forum software, period, and I'm not using these other cobbled-together pieces of junk.  It just means that I will have to do some extra work, and spend some extra money, to avoid the GPL from now on.

It's all well and good to say that this license doesn't apply to end users, but I don't think that will be the interpretation forever.  The tendency on this type of thing in the past has always been to become more and more restrictive, not the other way around.  The fact is, most web software requires at least small amounts of hacking to get it to work in a particular installation.

I have consulted a copyright attorney, and he has advised me NOT to use ANY GPL software on my website, if I am using any other publicly accessible software that is non-GPL.  This is because, when changing code to fit my website's needs, I am creating a "derivative work".  In other words, if I want SMF, he says to avoid GPL for anything else.  I trust a lawyer's interpretation more than a hacker's...
mike