Why the long faces?

[erlend_sh]

I've been kinda confused lately with all these sad announcements about the Joomla! bridge, and all this talk about legal mumbojumbo that I can't be bothered to set myself into. I agree that it's very sad that Orstio's bridge can no longer be used, as he put a whole lot of work into it, not to mention there was always good support to get. Still, all this talk is making it sound like there will be no more bridges in development for Joomla!, while at the same time I'm looking at one right here, which is supposedly highly functional.
I haven't gotten around to testing it myself yet however.

So well, why haven't this bridge been mentioned?..

[laser]

That bridge has been mentioned a few times .... but it's not written by the SMF team which is the point

I'm not up with all the legalese whether this bridge is complying to the licencing or not.

[jack]

Not having seen it (and not intending to see it), I can't say whether or not it is legal under the license that you got Joomla under. Therefore the risk is yours. Just like error messages, licenses have meaning and are important regardless of whether you personally think they are just mumbo-jumbo or not.

There are several ideas floating about to ensure the availability of a legal integration, but none of these are going to come to fruition just yet.

[青山 素子]

I believe that the JoomlaHacks bridge is technically violating the GPL because it uses encrypted code to force a copyright message to appear unless you pay.

[Orstio]

In addition to that, it is in violation of the GPL for the same reason that the bridge supported here is in violation.  Just licensing the bridge under the GPL is not the answer.

[zwaldowski]

By the way, check the announcements.  No more Joomla bridge period.  :-(

[Thantos]

By the way, check the announcements.  No more Joomla bridge period.  :-(

Just to clarify:  Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge.  Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge

[erlend_sh]

By the way, check the announcements.  No more Joomla bridge period.  :-(

Just to clarify:  Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge.  Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge

- Ye thanks for that, that's what confused me

[zwaldowski]

By the way, check the announcements.  No more Joomla bridge period.  :-(

Just to clarify:  Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge.  Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge

I understand that, but an "official" bridge is really the only one that feels safe, especially since SMF produces first-party bridges.

[afonic]

I believe that the JoomlaHacks bridge is technically violating the GPL because it uses encrypted code to force a copyright message to appear unless you pay.

I have asked them to provide me with unencrypted code and they did, so this is not a violation imho. (you CAN encrypt your code as long as you provide it unencrypted as well).

However in terms of simplicity and comparing the bugs and how good it works, Ostrio's bridge is much better.

[青山 素子]

I have asked them to provide me with unencrypted code and they did, so this is not a violation imho. (you CAN encrypt your code as long as you provide it unencrypted as well).

Thanks for the information. It is good to know that.

[flame baiter]

Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge

Erm, uhhh...hope?   

[cferd]

Just to clarify:  Simple Machines won't be pursuing a bridge; however, another group may create a bridge.  Or maybe Joomla! will create a bridge

Is that based on personal knowledge, something you've heard or read, or is it just speculation?

I don't want to jump ship just yet if there's still work being done somewhere on SMF-Joomla.

[flame baiter]

http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,203164.0.html

[cferd]

Thanks for the link, but that only brings me back here.

[Thantos]

I am sorry if I caused confusion.  To my knowledge the Joomla! team doesn't have any plans to create a bridge.  I was only trying to imply that another group could do it if they wanted to spend the time and energy.  For us to do it how we want to do it would be too costly for us.  Another group might find that to be an acceptable cost and go forward with it.

I apologize if my comment made it seem that the Joomla! team indicated that they were going to work on a bridge.

[cferd]

Thanks for clarifying the clarification 

Back to moving forward.

[Thantos]

* Thantos makes a mental note not to try to inject humor into clarifications

[flame baiter]

Yup, thanks for clarification. 

[AmyStephen]

Still, all this talk is making it sound like there will be no more bridges in development for Joomla!, while at the same time I'm looking at one right here, which is supposedly highly functional.

Sadr - You are correct. The JoomlaHacks bridge is a good choice right now if you want to stay with Joomla!.

Eventually, that bridge will have to become compliant - or you could move to a GPL compliant forum, like phpBB3, or you could move to another CMS. Whether or not the distribution of JoomlaHacks bridge violates Joomla!'s license is not SMF's concern because it's not their bridge. End users do *not* violate the GPL by using software. Only those who distribute it, violate the license.

Thanks for raising this valid point!
Amy