Anyone insterested in hiring a programmer to bridge SMF and Joomla 1.5?

[carlatf]

Hi,

Is there anyone insterested in hiring a programmer to bridge SMF 1.1.x and Joomla 1.5?.

I thought we could post the petition in joomlancers and split the money of the bridge.

Fireboard is not as great as SMF and I don't want to move to Mambo soo hire someone is the best on to hire someone to do the bridge is the best option.

Best regards,
Carla

[kai920]

Yep, I am interested!

[JoannaGlass]

I am also interested.  What do you think the cost would be?

[locutusweb]

I am interested too. But is this legal?

[carlatf]

I don't think why it wouldn't be legal....

I don't have a clue of how much could it costs...200u$s? I can post an ad to see how much would it be.

Anyone else?

[zigzag]

I might be interested, it's a good idea but how would we deal with things like updates and security issues further down the line?

[青山 素子]

If you all go in as a group for the coding and don't give to anyone else, it shouldn't fall under the distribution clause of the GPL, and is legal. The GPL license only applies when you distribute the code.

Cost will depend on how complex it is. Why not solicit some bids to get an idea?

For updates and security issues, you'd either need to hire someone to make fixes, or do them yourself.

[zigzag]

So even if there's say 3 or 400 of us in the group we still wouldn't be breaching the GPL? If that's the case then maybe this should be posted elsewhere as well to try and generate as much interest as possible and therefore keep the cost to each individual to a minimum.

[青山 素子]

IANAL, so if you are concerned about the legality of things, contact one to get a proper opinion.

[Orstio]

So even if there's say 3 or 400 of us in the group we still wouldn't be breaching the GPL?

You may need to have a legal definition of the group, as a club or co-op.  Everyone involved in the group would need to know that they couldn't share the software with anyone outside the group, because that would constitute distribution.

[gtron]

hmmm... dont really need money but i might have some ideas on how to do this. i have to finish up my current project(this month) and then i'll take a look at the architecture.

[sektor]

What's the status on this?

I'm also interested.
We could use getafreelancer.com to find the appropriate person to do this

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

I find the whole licensing issue conflicts and all of that about as aggravating a thing as I can think of in Open Source.  I don't fully understand why it is that Joomla felt compelled to change their position on the GPL license so that the old way of policing the license had to change and thereby the old bridge policy could still be available.  I know they must have their reasons but I would think that they'd be open to modifying or amending the license in some fashion to open the door for continuation of a long-standing and highly appreciated functionality.  Now it seems like legalese has gotten in the way of functionality.

That said...  whatever it takes to get a working bridge, I'm for it.  I noticed that the guys behind Rockettheme have a PHPbb3 bridge coming for J! 1.5.  I'd love to see them guys look into tackling an SMF 2.0 bridge available for sale, assuming it could legally be done.  I'd pay for a bridge that's as functional as the current bridge without requiring patches to both applications to work.  Otherwise, I guess we can wait and see what Joomlahacks decides to do, whether the license will scare them off or not, or whether they'll still go for the tight integration that can lead to breakages everytime you upgrade Joomla or the board.  Hopefully with J! 1.5 that could be a thing of the past.

While I like the idea behind Fireboard (still a bit behind SMF 1.1.x, much less 2.0 though which answers a lot of our prayers) and I admit PHPbb has improved some with version 3, I still want an SMF 2.0 bridge and think I'm not alone in this regard.  While those that say "Just use Mambo..." or "Just run it unbridged" think they have the right rationale, the roadmap for Joomla 1.5+ is where I want to be with regards to the site CMS'es we use and bridging and wrapping are an integral aspect of how our sites work together with our board.  It is something we don't wish nor want to change..  That said, while I'm not completely and totally sold on everything in SMF 1.xx, I still think it's byfar the best free board out there out of the box and only to get better with 2.0.  I'd hate to have to change to PHPbb3 but unfortunately...  might have to consider it.  :\  Gah...  it's like a bad dream the more I think about it, keep hoping I'll wake up and the bridges for J! 1.x will be back on the site, and the SMF 2.0 bridge will be out soon...  but deep down I know it to be true.

[青山 素子]

I know they must have their reasons but I would think that they'd be open to modifying or amending the license in some fashion to open the door for continuation of a long-standing and highly appreciated functionality.  Now it seems like legalese has gotten in the way of functionality.

The problem is that they aren't the sole copyright holders on the product, so they would have to track down every contributor and get their permission to re-license their contributions. Mambo doesn't have this problem because they require copyright assignment before anything will go into their product.

That said...  whatever it takes to get a working bridge, I'm for it.  I noticed that the guys behind Rockettheme have a PHPbb3 bridge coming for J! 1.5.  I'd love to see them guys look into tackling an SMF 2.0 bridge available for sale, assuming it could legally be done.

You can get around the GPL distribution requirement in the way Orstio described. If they wanted to do it correctly, they could if it was set up correctly (a closed group where "distribution" wouldn't happen).

Otherwise, I guess we can wait and see what Joomlahacks decides to do, whether the license will scare them off or not, or whether they'll still go for the tight integration that can lead to breakages everytime you upgrade Joomla or the board.  Hopefully with J! 1.5 that could be a thing of the past.

Last I know with J! 1.5, they required handing back execution to their software. SMF dies if it detects something that could be a security issue, which breaks J! 1.5. I'm not sure if there ever was a solution to that issue that didn't require code modifications.

Gah...  it's like a bad dream the more I think about it, keep hoping I'll wake up and the bridges for J! 1.x will be back on the site, and the SMF 2.0 bridge will be out soon...  but deep down I know it to be true.

I think a lot of the team felt this way for a long while. It is sad to have to do what we did, but we needed to be respectful of their licensing decision, as we expect others to respect our license.

[Orstio]

Last I know with J! 1.5, they required handing back execution to their software. SMF dies if it detects something that could be a security issue, which breaks J! 1.5. I'm not sure if there ever was a solution to that issue that didn't require code modifications.

A small correction there:  I did have a working model that did not require code modifications.  It also worked and looked great in the Beez template.

[sektor]

Last I know with J! 1.5, they required handing back execution to their software. SMF dies if it detects something that could be a security issue, which breaks J! 1.5. I'm not sure if there ever was a solution to that issue that didn't require code modifications.

A small correction there:  I did have a working model that did not require code modifications.  It also worked and looked great in the Beez template.

[zigzag]

So it could work in the same way as the template clubs do, that way each member pays x amount for say a year's membership and the developer would hopefully earn some money to enable future development of the bridge as new people sign up and old members re-new.

....now we just need to persuade Orstio to do it 

[afonic]

So it could work in the same way as the template clubs do, that way each member pays x amount for say a year's membership and the developer would hopefully earn some money to enable future development of the bridge as new people sign up and old members re-new.

That won't work, it IS redistribution and you would be violating the GPL.

[dukeofgaming]

How about a $$$ suscritpion based club?, it would solve both financing and licensing of the package. =)

[sNiTcH]

this is a nice idea

[j3cubcapt]

I'm in too!

I have about $75 to offer up!

Will

[capeinfo]

I am also very interested!

[afonic]

As I said above, correct me if I am wrong but creating something like a "club" everyone can join for $50 or whatever to get the component is considered redistribution.

[青山 素子]

My guess is that it would depend on the charter of the club. Just as a company is (usually) treated as an individual, you might be able to make a legal entity that could be counted as a single individual. There would likely need to be a special charter and other things, and a lawyer would be the best to consult on how to do this.

[Orstio]

As I said above, correct me if I am wrong but creating something like a "club" everyone can join for $50 or whatever to get the component is considered redistribution.

As M-C pointed out, it would depend on the legal definition of the club.

As far as the current template clubs go, you are correct.  Having people sign up for a period of time, and then leave could bring up some distribution issues.

The club can be considered a single legal entity, and the developer would be doing work in the form of labour, not distribution.  That is why I said that nobody in the club would be able to share the software outside the club.

You are correct to say that people would not be able to join and quit whenever they wanted.  That would create quite a legal issue when trying to work around the terms of distribution.

Getting a lawyer to draft the definition of the club would probably be the most prudent way to go.

[afonic]

Ostrio, could you be interested in continuing development in a club-based environment then?

I guess if you start something like a template club and keep applications open for a limited time and given the price would be fair, many of users would want to join.

[capeinfo]

Has there been any progress on this?  I can ask my lawyer who is an expert in IT law to look at it.

[Benson]

Maybe you should wait for the first release of JFusion.

[dukeofgaming]

I think we should have a list [sticky] of the possible/existing integrations/workarounds for joomla<->smf... this might save lots of pain.

I still support the co-op developing idea, if Orstio already did the work, we all "buy it" and don't redistribute, this might be just something good for SMF [maybe something like koudanashi does {http://forum.bbpixel.com/index.php?act=home&view=product}]... there's a lot of people who wouldnt mind paying for it, I'm among them.

[Directy]

the first apha of Jfusion has been released yesterday....

[serge06]

There is also a Joomla 1.5  bridge available at:
http://demo.gmitc.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8

Has anyone tried it?

[Kindred]

that bridge is not technically legal.... as we have already discussed, in great detail, ANY bridge between Joomla (GPL) and SMF (OS, but not GPL) violates the terms of the Joomla GPL...

Plus...   that bridge won't extract from the zip file.