Ways forward with no SMF Bridge for Joomla

[afonic]

I can assure you that the SMF bridge does not use/link GPL'd code included within Mambo that is not copyright to Mambo.

Ostrio, what about Joomla 1.5 ?

[Orstio]

Why?
Because the developers of the [L]GPL code used by Mambo can still sue violators.
(This is why I have been saying that this is not just a matter of interpretation of the GPL, the interpretation of the GPL for this "external" copyright owners fo code used by Mambo did not change, just because Mambo says so).

This makes a number of assumptions.

1)  That the extension actually accesses the [L]GPL code.

As I stated above, I can assure you that the bridge does not use the GPL code not owned by Mambo.  There is no issue there, because it is not linked.

2)  That the people who created the LGPL code are going to attempt to hold Mambo 3PDs to the viral nature of the GPL, and that they both believe that their code in the Mambo context becomes GPL with all restrictions of GPL, and also that they interpret the GPL in a similar way to Joomla/FSF.

This is a huge stretch.  First, if they wanted to enforce the GPL, they would not have licensed under the LGPL.  There are obvious reasons for choosing LGPL over GPL, and those would be to allow the use of non-GPL extensions.

There is no lawyer in my country who would take a case where a developer of code who licensed under LGPL is claiming the extreme left-wing view of the GPL because their LGPL code is linked to GPL code, especially when the copyright holder of that GPL code does not take issue with it.  There is no case -- no leg to stand on.

The license debate comes down to the definition of "derivative works".  Joomla believes that all extensions are derivative works, while Mambo does not.  This alone makes a huge difference when interpreting the GPL.

I can assure you that the SMF bridge does not use/link GPL'd code included within Mambo that is not copyright to Mambo.

Ostrio, what about Joomla 1.5 ?

Joomla 1.5 is just as susceptible to Joomla's interpretation as Joomla 1.0.13.

[Raul Dias]

I agree with most of what you said.

The end point does not comes to Mambo, but to the libraries used by Mambo.
Mambo says it is not a dereivate work, which could solve the problem.

But is one author of this libraries says that it is derivative work (because Mambo is derivative work), the "Joomla situation" comes to Mambo (whether Mambo agrees with it or not).  If this is all a matter of the copyright holder interpretation, the interpretation from the libraries authors might not be the same as Mambos interpretation, and this matters.

Otherwise, why isnt Mambo LGPL by now? (maybe they are replacing this libraries and problem soved definitly)

Of course, I dont expect that this libraries authors to really care about this, or even if they do, to spend the time or energy after this.

If you stop in front of a montain and close your eyes, the montain wont disapear.

[Kindred]

but if you stop in front of a molehill and close your eyes, the molehill does not become a mountain.

[AmyStephen]

Is there not at least one license in this *list* of GPL-compatiable licenses that will work for SMF?

There so many GPL environments that SMF has bridges into - WordPress, XOOPS, Joomla!, Mambo, Gallery 2, Gallery, MediaWiki, Coppermine, PostNuke... and that's a quick glance. It seems to me much of SMF's success is based on these great partnerships with GPL software and their communities.

It was SMF's own conversation with the FSF, published here on the SMF forums, that makes it clear each of those bridges violate the terms of GPL. 

I've tried to say it - Raul is trying to explain it to you - there are other copyright holders, authors of software for libraries included in the core of these projects. The authors of those libraries have not granted SMF permission to violate their rights according to the GPL. We are talking about the rights of individuals. To call that point "making a mountain out of a molehill" is disrespect for those copyright holders. Their rights are important, not insignificant.

It's becoming very obvious to me that the bigger question is why should any of these projects and individual copyright holders compromise their ability to protect their own work by allowing SMF to infringe on license stipulations?

The published SMF-FSF conversation was about bridging proprietary software into a GPL project. It was a generic discussion; no specific project was named. It's clear there is violation. SMF held up the FSF as evidence that the SMF bridge is violating Joomla!'s GPL -- without a single mention of Joomla! in the FSF discussion.

It's time for responsible choice. If SMF wants to provide bridges into GPL worlds, then license accordingly! If SMF does not want one of these licenses, then build bridges into software that the SMF license allows or ask projects to change their license.

Tough choice? Well, responsible living is full of tough choices. In the end, that is what makes things work and stops long running conflict. License terms lay out expectations. Within those guidelines, we can choose to participate and comply, or we can choose not to participate.

With respect,
Amy

[anna.young]

Forums are communities, CMSs without Forums are just basic websites with the 'blog' component... and maybe discussbot... just imagine Joomla WITHOUT a Forum...

But I can understand that some people have no concept what 'community' is really all about and what conversation and debate is... they don't understand the difference between the Forum posts and Blog entries...

SMF IS a Forum and its success is based, in my opinion, on providing the community an excellent Open Source tool for creating more communities... and not because they have partnerships with anybody else...  Just the opposite...  It is CMS that REQUIRE those partnerships to survive.

Anna

[elfishtroll]

Is there not at least one license in this *list* of GPL-compatiable licenses that will work for SMF?

There so many GPL environments that SMF has bridges into - WordPress, XOOPS, Joomla!, Mambo, Gallery 2, Gallery, MediaWiki, Coppermine, PostNuke... and that's a quick glance. It seems to me much of SMF's success is based on these great partnerships with GPL software and their communities.

It was SMF's own conversation with the FSF, published here on the SMF forums, that makes it clear each of those bridges violate the terms of GPL. 

I've tried to say it - Raul is trying to explain it to you - there are other copyright holders, authors of software for libraries included in the core of these projects. The authors of those libraries have not granted SMF permission to violate their rights according to the GPL. We are talking about the rights of individuals. To call that point "making a mountain out of a molehill" is disrespect for those copyright holders. Their rights are important, not insignificant.

It's becoming very obvious to me that the bigger question is why should any of these projects and individual copyright holders compromise their ability to protect their own work by allowing SMF to infringe on license stipulations?

The published SMF-FSF conversation was about bridging proprietary software into a GPL project. It was a generic discussion; no specific project was named. It's clear there is violation. SMF held up the FSF as evidence that the SMF bridge is violating Joomla!'s GPL -- without a single mention of Joomla! in the FSF discussion.

It's time for responsible choice. If SMF wants to provide bridges into GPL worlds, then license accordingly! If SMF does not want one of these licenses, then build bridges into software that the SMF license allows or ask projects to change their license.

Tough choice? Well, responsible living is full of tough choices. In the end, that is what makes things work and stops long running conflict. License terms lay out expectations. Within those guidelines, we can choose to participate and comply, or we can choose not to participate.

With respect,
Amy

It's still a mountain out of a molehill.

"OpenSource Matters" but people, reality, Common Sense and ethics do not?


You raise "WordPress, XOOPS, Joomla!, Mambo, Gallery 2, Gallery, MediaWiki, Coppermine, PostNuke"

However, I believe Coppermine has a special relationship as sole owner of thier code, as does Mambo.
I see no PostNuke bridge,  I'm not even gonna dig further to point out further fallacies


You claim, that the WordPress bridge that SMF DOES NOT EVEN HAVE is violative of the GPL while at the same time SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH A LINK TO A JOOMLASACK bridge which is even more violative?

You claim to be PRO CHOICE, but only if YOU choose for OTHERS?

Much of SMF's success is based on these "partnerships" and these communities?
please express as a percentage rather than a vague argumentative quantifier
 

The authors of those libraries have not granted SMF permission to violate their rights according to the GPL. We are talking about the rights of individuals. To call that point....

You should also note, along the same debating skills and tactics shown previously, that "The authors of those libraries have not granted SMF permission to violate their virgin daughters and rip the unborn fetuses from their bellies"

Simply, you state some 'extreme crime' and  "lack of permission" for same to imply that some wrong is being committed.

If you care about freedom, what then of the freedom to do nothing?
I am truly sorry for your past pain, but just as a casual "Hello" at work from work need not rise to the level of a drag down tear out SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT the GPL issues you claim will rend the VERY FABRIC OF HUMAN EXISTENCE AS WE KNOW IT are really, NOT.

Not for the copyright holders, and not for the developers.
But what then, of these poor developers, who wrote these wonderful bits of code, only to see their Kbytes of PHP code RIPPED AND RAPED by the evil conglomerate that is IBM/Microsoft/SMF?

Methinks you doth protest TOO MUCH

Lest your typing and the futility therein spur you to further rash emoting, why not approach those wounded and violated GPLlers and give them the financial backing they lack? (which if they had, they surely would have launched a lawsuit to seek redress for the pain and suffering inflicted upon them in a manner so callous it SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE ! )

[nant]

I usually shy away from responding to these types of posts, not because I lack an opinion or have no interest, but mainly becaue it is a WASTE of effort and time. 

Also, in most of these situations, the exchange of opinions have no solution contributing value - since the gameboard is in a stalemate position.

So, having stated this I am expressing my opinion realizing that it cannot influence in the slightest degree the situation ...

Is there not at least one license in this *list* of GPL-compatiable licenses that will work for SMF?

My interpretation on the question being asked is: "Can't the SMF team change its license to something on this list"?

There so many GPL environments that SMF has bridges into - WordPress, XOOPS, Joomla!, Mambo, Gallery 2, Gallery, MediaWiki, Coppermine, PostNuke... and that's a quick glance. It seems to me much of SMF's success is based on these great partnerships with GPL software and their communities.

It was SMF's own conversation with the FSF, published here on the SMF forums, that makes it clear each of those bridges violate the terms of GPL.

Again my interpretation ... "Why don't the SMF folks stop all these bridges"?

Also, SMF has been around - I would say that newer CMS systems have benefited from SMF integrations and not the other way around.

The published SMF-FSF conversation was about bridging proprietary software into a GPL project. It was a generic discussion; no specific project was named. It's clear there is violation. SMF held up the FSF as evidence that the SMF bridge is violating Joomla!'s GPL -- without a single mention of Joomla! in the FSF discussion.

Nope. The published conversation was about connecting a GPL system with a non compatible GPL system via an intermediate system (aka bridge) using a published API of the GPL system. To fully understand the situation GPL v2 which Joomla is released under is not compatible with GPL v3! This means that in the unlikely (or likely if you want) event that the SMF team decides to release the SMF system under GPL v3 the same stalemate would be present.

Also, as I follow the exchanged emails, my understanding is that even though the SMF system is a standalone system, the FSF folks believe that even if the glue (aka bridge) is released under a GPL scheme it would still be illegal because it would be combining 2 incompatible licenses.

It's time for responsible choice. If SMF wants to provide bridges into GPL worlds, then license accordingly! If SMF does not want one of these licenses, then build bridges into software that the SMF license allows or ask projects to change their license.

Tough choice? Well, responsible living is full of tough choices. In the end, that is what makes things work and stops long running conflict. License terms lay out expectations. Within those guidelines, we can choose to participate and comply, or we can choose not to participate.

Once again ... I read ...
Why are you guys picking on Joomla! ? All bridges to GPL systems are in violation! You should stop all bridges. Clear the field.

Feel free to remove the entire post - as I said it has no added value - no solution indications - a waste of effort.

[Thantos]

Please read: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=190801.0