So I can't give my bridge away?

[cambler]

Let me make sure I have this right.

If I've developed a bridge between Joomla 1.0.15 and SMF 1.1.4 on my own, from scratch, it's not legal for me to publish the code?

Isn't that prior restraint of speech?

Exactly what law am I breaking? I'm not including any Joomla code or SMF code, so I'm not infringing on anyone's copyright.

I'm honestly at a loss here as to what law is being broken. Can anyone clue me in?

[Orstio]

If I've developed a bridge between Joomla 1.0.15 and SMF 1.1.4 on my own, from scratch, it's not legal for me to publish the code?

If you have truly developed it from scratch, without any code from any of the previous bridges licensed under the SMF license, and without any code or even data structures from SMF, and the license under which you release it is compatible with the GPL, then you can distribute it.

Isn't that prior restraint of speech?

Don't confuse software licensing with something that may be in your country's charter of rights, depending in which country you live.

Exactly what law am I breaking? I'm not including any Joomla code or SMF code, so I'm not infringing on anyone's copyright.

It's not about breaking laws.  Software licensing has very little to do with your country's laws.  Copyright is also not the issue.

When you download software, there is always a license attached.

This is the SMF license:

http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php

The SMF license prohibits redistribution of code, whether modified or not.  This makes it a proprietary license.

The license used by Joomla is the GPL.  The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that you can redistribute and modify it all you want, but you can never change the license away from copyleft.

So, to summarize:

1) As long as your code contains no SMF code and no former bridge code, you are not violating the SMF license.

2) As long as your code contains no SMF code and no SMF data structures (e.g. $context, $user_settings), then you are not violating Joomla's interpretation of the GPL.

3) As long as you release your work under a GPL-compatible license as per Joomla's interpretation of "derivative works".

If your code meets those three requirements, you should be fine to go ahead and release it.

[cambler]

Perhaps I'm missing a vital component, but data structures do not enjoy protection in any country on the planet unless they are a trade secret. Since the source is published, even under license, they do not enjoy trade secret status.

I can see your point with respect to actual code and even modified code, but if I make my own data structure that happens to be byte-for-byte identical to a Joomla or SMF structure, the license simply does not apply, as that structure enjoys no protection whatsoever.

If this interpretation is incorrect, I would gladly accept an argument to the contrary that cites specific licensing statute or existing case law in ANY country.

So my position is that if I write a bridge from scratch there is no way I can be violating either license, even if that bridge relies on known structures (again, known - but not the original source). It's not a derivative work nor is it a copy.

All that said, the posturing makes it such that I have absolutely no desire to release my bridge and take the risk, as much as I'd like to float it out there for free.

And that's the real pity, I suppose.

[Orstio]

Perhaps I'm missing a vital component, but data structures do not enjoy protection in any country on the planet unless they are a trade secret. Since the source is published, even under license, they do not enjoy trade secret status.

Again, you are talking about law instead of licensing.  Licensing is a contract, not a law.

While I personally may or may not agree with you, I am not a copyright holder of Joomla code.  Those who do hold copyright do not agree with you:

http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=181173&p=867654&hilit=GPL+%24mainframe#p867654

I can see your point with respect to actual code and even modified code, but if I make my own data structure that happens to be byte-for-byte identical to a Joomla or SMF structure, the license simply does not apply, as that structure enjoys no protection whatsoever.

Correct.

If this interpretation is incorrect, I would gladly accept an argument to the contrary that cites specific licensing statute or existing case law in ANY country.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

All that said, the posturing makes it such that I have absolutely no desire to release my bridge and take the risk, as much as I'd like to float it out there for free.

That would also be the reason why the bridge was pulled in the first place.  It might be fine to distribute, but I don't ever want to have to prove it in court for what I consider to be a hobby.  I'd rather use my spare time for things that are less likely to land me in court.

[forumnoob]

"posturing" is right

for all the bs about non-GPL componnents, there are more than ever in the Joomla Directory (but the developers are contributing more-A LOT MORE to the J! coffers )

all in all, it is what it was, a strong arm twist and a GPL shakedown, there could have been a compromise, but the personal situation between SMF and Joomla had deteriorated way beyond salvage. I can assure you that even if SMF had announced it was going GPL and giving away the 1st born of Orstio, Joomla would still have made the switch <shrug>

Personally, if you release your bridge, do it for free, and somehow manage to donate to Joomla (and perhaps to SMF) no harm will befall you, and you can make some $ on the side from the traffic that your endeavor will attract <shrug>

all in all, the bridge is less important than it was, life is much easier w/o it.

[ilwoody]

Personally, if you release your bridge, do it for free, and somehow manage to donate to Joomla (and perhaps to SMF) no harm will befall you, and you can make some $ on the side from the traffic that your endeavor will attract <shrug>

all in all, the bridge is less important than it was, life is much easier w/o it.

Im not a license expert at all, but I read most of the threads around this issue and Im still a bit confused. So Ive asked this question to Joomla! and Im stil waiting for an answer... Id like to know If I got the problem right or not  from a SMF point of view.

Hello,

I wrote for my site a component that requires a non GPL compatible "library" (the SMF forum..) and I'd like to distribute it under the GPL license (without, of course, including the non-gpl library).

Would you seen it as a "legal" joomla! component ? I use both JOOMLA api and SMF api, so its definetely a combined work.

According to the FSF its possible to distribute a GPL software using a non GPL library.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

But if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the copyright holders of those programs.

Since Joomla! is the only other GPL-covered library I do use, I cannot authorize the exception for my bridge. Would it possible for you to do such a thing, authorizing me to use a non GPL library in my GPL component ?

Thanks in advance for any help/clarification.

My main goal was to write just a tutorial, but I wouldnt mind to simply donate my time to the community and release the bridge "as is", or with a GPL license + extension.

[Kindred]

for all the bs about non-GPL componnents, there are more than ever in the Joomla Directory (but the developers are contributing more-A LOT MORE to the J! coffers )

What other people do is not our concern. Our concern is OUR compliance with license requirements. Joomla made it clear, with their statement, on what their license requirements were.   Since we expect people to uphold the SMF license, we would be hypocritical if we did not uphold other software's requirements.

Personally, if you release your bridge, do it for free, and somehow manage to donate to Joomla (and perhaps to SMF) no harm will befall you, and you can make some $ on the side from the traffic that your endeavor will attract <shrug>

Can you speak for all Joomla copyright holders?


ilwoody, what is comes down to is, regardless of what is going on with other extensions, Joomla made a very clear and specific statement regarding the GPL nature of their software and potential enforcement of their license. In compliance with this, we withdrew the SMF-Joomla bridge. Since there are so many partial holders of the joomla License, it was not possible to get agreement on an "allowance" for an SMF bridge. (which we received for Mambo and several other GPL CMSes)

If you choose to release an SMF-Joomla bridge
1- It can not contain any SMF code. (no redistribution of smf, per smf license)
2- If it uses the SMF data structure to link to Joomla, or uses joomla data structures within SMF, you are in violation of the GPL (per the FSF).
   This may amount to nothing, but POTENTIALLY, you are liable for breaking the joomla license.

[ilwoody]

ilwoody, what is comes down to is, regardless of what is going on with other extensions, Joomla made a very clear and specific statement regarding the GPL nature of their software and potential enforcement of their license. In compliance with this, we withdrew the SMF-Joomla bridge. Since there are so many partial holders of the joomla License, it was not possible to get agreement on an "allowance" for an SMF bridge. (which we received for Mambo and several other GPL CMSes)

just got the answer to the email of my previous message, don't know why but I didn't get the authorization too

If you choose to release an SMF-Joomla bridge
1- It can not contain any SMF code. (no redistribution of smf, per smf license)

but I can use the SMF integration hooks and the SSI functions, right ?

2- If it uses the SMF data structure to link to Joomla, or uses joomla data structures within SMF, you are in violation of the GPL (per the FSF).
   This may amount to nothing, but POTENTIALLY, you are liable for breaking the joomla license.

Yes I do use some SMF global variables within Joomla! .. its hard to do a real bridge without using anything from both programs 

Still, according to the link below

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs

I asked the FSF:

is mentioning in the README that I wouldn't use the free-SMF but at the moment there is not an alternative with a different license, enough to legally release my bridge as GPL ? maybe its just a stupid idea completely out of contest, but at least I tried; Im waiting for an answer, wish me good luck

thanks for you help

[forumnoob]

Kindred is absolutely correct as far as the letter of the law is concerned.

However, there is more to the law than just the letter of the law.
For instance, SMF support tacitly supports Theme Distribution for example.

There is such an initimate connection between an SMF theme and SMF, it is WAAAAAY more than say a Mambo/Joomla theme for example.

i.e. http://www.dzinerstudio.com/ - excellent SMF and TP themes and code. In violation? Definitely. Subject to sanctions? Hardly!

The other thing also, is that Joomla is 90+% Mambo code, similarly GPL, but MAMBO has said they endorse and support NON-GPL integration.

If you can 'sandbox' the very Joomla code, reduce it to a few lines and leave it for 'someone else' <wink,nudge> to supply the little bit extra that makes it fully compatible....

look, the situation is not one that you would bet your 401k money on, but for a side project with a bit of supplemental income, fan worship and the joy of helping others, I'd probably go with it...<shrugs,again>

You wont get a seal of approval or an ironclad guarantee, I'd expect you to be safer releasing your bridge, than walking across a real bridge, but thats just me

as for 'authorization' what do you expect?

it's not theirs to give, in any event, its a religious thing with these people, its not about code -or you for that matter. Venturing into those realms is like getting into politics or abortion discussions

[Kindred]

however... mambo OWNS the rights to their code, and can offer an exemption.
Joomla does not and can not.
(and the mambo exemption can not be extended to Joomla...)

[forumnoob]

again you are correct, but again, thats just PART OF THE PICTURE.

Mambo and Joomla are 98% the SAME IDENTICAL CODE.

Remember that Joomla is just Mambo renamed with a few differences (minor) over the years as the project diverged.

ALL he has to do is CODE FOR MAMBO

Specific JOOMLA specific problem areas would be the 'password creation/salt' issue when creating new user accounts.'


leave code that is specifically Joomla dependent out -

have configuration screens where users can input CONFIGURATION CODE SIMILAR TO ORSTIO'S INTEGRATION HOOKS.

Not only would it be Joomla compatible (via user supplied extensions) it could also be VBulletin,PhpBB ...anything... extensible as well.

sure, users would have to frequent his forums more for Joomla specific tweak information, but what of it? More page views! lol

[Superdaantje]

Mambo and Joomla are 98% the SAME IDENTICAL CODE.

This is for the J! 1.0.* versions.

The J! 1.5* version is a total new Frame Work and so far I know it is not using old Mambo code. J! is using the same GPL license for the new J! 1.5* version.

[forumnoob]

true, but still, not a big deal to bridge or at least, have login synchronization. I was very SMF pulled their bridge (i.e. took their ball and went home) but looking at it for myself, I really wastnt "all that"

Now my approach breaks Orstio's "Do Not Modify Source Files rule"
but other than that, I'm perfectly happy with J1.5 and legacy Mambo/Joomla bridged with SMF/VB and my clients are too

[Kindred]

forumnoob...   you really seem bent on arguing with anything that anyone else says... first the SEO discussion and now this.

Mambo and Joomla are different enough that the mambo bridge will not work with Joomla any more.

And using SMF's integration hooks implies using SMF's data structures....   which, as we have already said is technically a violation of Joomla's approach to the GPL. Distribution of such a bridge would be a violation and (possibly) lead to problems.

[forumnoob]

forumnoob...   you really seem bent on arguing with anything that anyone else says... first the SEO discussion and now this.

Mambo and Joomla are different enough that the mambo bridge will not work with Joomla any more. *

And using SMF's integration hooks implies using SMF's data structures....   which, as we have already said is technically a violation of Joomla's approach to the GPL. Distribution of such a bridge would be a violation and (possibly) lead to problems.

I do not know what you are talking about, so that makes two of us!
To be clear, I am not talking about 'the bridge' but 'a bridge' or 'bridging in general'

Since reading the first time didnt help, I dont know what my typing it again will do, but here it goes (again)

for legacy mambo and Joomla, the code is 90% the same, he/she/you can write a bridge coding for Mambo, then coding an 'exception bridge' for Joomla
(think of it as coding for proper browsers, then writing an IE hack for the nonstandard yet ubiquitous IE)

As for J1.5, you can just do a limited database bridge if you dont want to navigate the MVC methodology

"forumnoob...   you really seem bent on arguing with anything that anyone else says... first the SEO discussion and now this."

what SEO discussion are you talking about?
btw, if you wanted a forum where everyone agrees with you and panders to your expression, maybe you should be at the OTHER SMF forum? (Suckup Machines Forums?)

[Superdaantje]

Ok... for the old J! version the code is in some parts identical to Mambo. But there difference are getting bigger and bigger with the new releases.

And there is an big difference between the interpretation off the GPL license between J! and mambo (Mambo owns all off here code and J! not). One off the major reasons is that not all code off  J! 1.0.* is written off the J! team. This is discussed many times.

There for an J! Bridge (all ready mentioned several post above :
1- It can not contain any SMF code. (no redistribution of SMF, per SMF license)
2- If it uses the SMF data structure to link to J!, or uses J! data structures within SMF, you are in violation of the GPL (per the FSF).
This may amount to nothing, but POTENTIALLY, you are liable for breaking the J! license.

So when writing an Bridge that is not violating the J! and SMF Licence there is noting wrong with it

[Eliana Tamerin]

Technically, you're not violating the license unless you distribute your modifications. So you can use a bridge that uses SMF hooks, you just can't distribute it or explain how to do so to anybody else.

[forumnoob]

Technically, you're not violating the license unless you distribute your modifications. So you can use a bridge that uses SMF hooks, you just can't distribute it or explain how to do so to anybody else.

^ Thats just F.U.D. bull****** ( Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).

The situation and issue is a whole lot more nuanced than that.

SMF pulled THEIR bridge because of politics and pissy personality conflicts - sure there where "license issues" ,letter of the law and all that, thats as good a reason to pull the bridge as it is to divorce your wife of three years 'cause you caught her smiling with the pool boy, or evicting a faithfully paying tenant of 10 years because they were late with the rent once.

common sense demands compromise and none was forthcoming in this case.

Being associated with a high profile project like Joomla was a GOOD THING for SMF.
The name of of the game is EYEBALLS EYEBALLS EYEBALLS - SMF is actually better than VBulletin and IPB in quite a few categories, now everyday, 2,000 people wont even get a chance to know it, as when they visit the Joomla forums (and others now) they will see PhpBB  - NOT -SMF...


Not that the SMF/Joomla bridge debacle hasn't benefited me financially.. I expect I've probably done 10 or so $100 ten minute jobs, helping people  stuck with a now abandoned bridge iron out the wrinkles with the later  versions of Joomla.

No doubt Orstio earned $ from this as well-surely if I had a large site dependent on this working, I would shell out some $$ to have him or someone do some 'custom' work to get me going.

Maybe thats why the naysayers trumpet so -keep up the FUD so the Golden Goose of proprietary 'bridge knowledge' doesnt lay eggs for someone else!

If someone comes up with a better bridge - or -any- let them do so and /or distribute at their peril or praise and enough of the bs chitchat

to this day you can see Joomla/SMF bridges on the highly moderated  Joomla Extensions Directory (also tons of commercial, encrypted, proprietary and non-GPL products)

too much is made of this. Distribute your bridge young man, help the struggling noobs!

lol

[Eliana Tamerin]

I'm not saying that I don't support the idea of a good joomla/SMF bridge. I'd just suggest that you don't distribute it on SMF (not that it would be allowed). I would probably use one myself, even if it was breaking the license because, quite frankly, I am sick of Joomla (and other companies like this) telling us what we can and cannot use. Open source is open source, whether or not 'everybody' can distribute it or not. I would happily refer someone to simplemachines.org if it meant more people would use it.

[Orstio]

Technically, you're not violating the license unless you distribute your modifications. So you can use a bridge that uses SMF hooks, you just can't distribute it or explain how to do so to anybody else.

Technically, you're not violating the SMF license unless you distribute modified files licensed under the SMF license.  Distributing just the modifications, or the instructions explaining how to perform the modifications is fine by the SMF license.

Additionally, using the SMF integration hooks doesn't make any changes to any SMF code, so the SMF license doesn't necessarily apply.

Maybe thats why the naysayers trumpet so -keep up the FUD so the Golden Goose of proprietary 'bridge knowledge' doesnt lay eggs for someone else!

You know, not that long ago, I posted a bit of wisdom about the difference between knowledge and software....  If it's knowledge you want; ask, and I will do what I can to help.