smf+joomla 1.5

[Orstio]

What i mean is that com_smf from joomlahacks is GPL. So there is no violation in distributing it.

Incorrect.  Function calls are made to SMF, which is not GPL, and data structures are shared in both the bridge and SMF, so there is a violation.

If I download this GPL extension and then connect it to SMF (not GPL compatible), then again there is no license violation since I am not distributing the combined work. Even if you argue that due to the viral nature of the GPL, the combined work must all be GPL, this is moot unless distribution of the combined work occurs.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are.  It doesn't matter if it is together at the time of distribution.  The GPL explicitly states that if it is a combined work at runtime it must all be GPL.

[Kindred]

yes you are.
Please search for the threads in which this was discussed.
Connecting a nonGPL software with a GPL software, where they share data structures and functions (as com_smf does) is not allowed, according to the Joomla and FSF interpretation of the GPL.

Distributing the bridge creates a combined work because com_smf calls SMF-specific (non-GPL) functions and data structures.


Orstio beat me to it...

[JoeP]

Would it be possible for JFusion to generate a SMF cookie and therefore implementing a dual login?

It won't be possible for JFusion to generate it, because you would need to either copy SMF code, which would vioalte the SMF license, or include SMF code, which would violate Joomla's interpretation of the GPL.

There are at least two ways around that, however.  I'm not sure if it fits into your plugin structure, but here it is anyway:

1)  (Not recommended, but already done by other integrations) You can submit the username and password to SMF's Login2 function via $_GET:

http://www.forumurl.com/index.php?action=login2&user=username&passwrd=password

2) You could populate a form upon the event of the JFusion login, and auto-submit the same information as above via $_POST.

I've been struggling with this for several hours now and have hit a bit of a stumbling block... After doing a little reading I figured out how to use CURL to do the login and get the cookie info into a text file on the server, but I cannot seem to be able to figure out how to serve up those cookies to the client.  I know I could use another CURL call to go back to the other page with the newly retrieved cookies, and then serve up the resulting content, but this still doesn't get the cookies onto the client if I'm not mistaken.
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
joe

Update:
Using a modified version of a code snippet from here http://svetlozar.net/page/free-code.html, I now have cookies in an array.  I think that using this to later set the cookies on the client will be fairly straightforward.

[vdrover]

It doesn't matter if it is together at the time of distribution.  The GPL explicitly states that if it is a combined work at runtime it must all be GPL.

I could not find this in the GPL or in the GPL FAQs. Do you have a specific quote?

[vdrover]

So I was doing some more reading. This is stated in the GPL:

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

And this follow-up from the GPL FAQs:

An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that the each program's individual license would grant them.

These both deal with combined works. I don't see where it is illegal to combine a GPL app with a GPL-incompatibe app for my own personal use (i.e. i do not convey the aggregate). Please point this out to me

In reference to plugins, there is this from the FAQs (emphasis mine):

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

This is the bit the FSF uses for their justification of a derived work. Again, the key here is distribution. If I don't distribute com_smf with smf, what's the illegal part?

[Kindred]

if you distribute com_smf at all... (and com_smf only works with SMF and joomla as a combination), then you are in violation.

However, you can do anything you want for your PERSONAL use...

[Orstio]

While I see your point, vdrover, and agree with you, I will say again, as I have in the past, that should it come to the point of litigation, I would not be willing to go to court over what I do for a hobby.  It is fairly apparent that at least some of the people who disagree with your statement above would be willing eager to do just that.  I understand that there are people in this debacle who have their livelihood at stake, and I do sympathize with that.  But, I don't earn anything with the bridge -- I have nothing at stake, nothing to lose, nothing to gain by fighting against the interpretation of those who hold the copyright to that software.

Again, I would rather just pull the bridge, and suggest alternatives than risk going to court over a hobby.  For me, and the SM team, it is a fight not worth fighting when there are alternatives just as, if not more, viable and welcoming than that one.

This debate has been flogged to death several times here already.  No more need to bring back the dead.  This topic is locked.