How about a Mambo Template Club
-
-
- James Spencer
- Preeminent Rocketeer
- Posts: 46340
- Thanks: 50
-
This is my basic summary.
Joomla! has been always been GPL but allowed proprietary extensions so that meant
-encrypted code
-no distribution after purchase
However, Joomla! "recently" consulted the GPL lawyers after the concerns in their back of the minds finally came to the surface. These lawyers stated that these proprietary extensions where considered to be deriviative work (using the Joomla! code/framework) to function. And as Joomla! is GPL, deriviatve work must be GPL.
There are lots of specifics of what is considered deriviatve work and separate.
GPL only affects distribution. I shall take RocketWerx as an example as it will be GPL.
1. Andy/team makes commerical RokComponent which is GPl
2. Andy charges $50 for RokComponent to download
However, Bob, the person who download RokComponent for his $50 can then distribute this free.
This is what is worrying the 3rd party devs as they believe that all their work will be on www.joomlacomps4free.com and will become broke.
So can devs still sell commerical extenions...Yes but it must be GPL.
The general model for GPL is based on that your customers will want to stay with the devs due to updates and support etc...
That is the generally jist of the situation and hopefully I illustrated correctly in my relatively few lines
- Last Edit: 17 years 10 months ago by James Spencer.
- James Spencer / Developer & Support / Hull, UK
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
@James. You forgot to put how there is a perception that OSM has threatened legal action if the 'voluntary compliance' isn't met. This is the reason why commercial devs are thinking about moving away. No one wants to work in an environment of potential litigation at any time.
@Peter. If you stay with J1.0 you can still use Jom Res no probs. Vince has said he will continue bug fixes and support for current versions.
@Robert. What if a customer has a dispute with a GPL developer? Same situation.
EDIT: change a 'fact' to correctly reflect aht it is a perception - Last Edit: 17 years 10 months ago by Daniel Chapman.
-
www.ninjoomla.com
- The Ninjoomla Open Source Extension Club
Over 50 open source extensions and 100 videos to you build the site you want.
-
-
-
- Andy Miller
- Preeminent Rocketeer
- Posts: 9919
- Thanks: 96
- Web Kahuna
- Daniel, to my knowledge OSM has never threatened legal action for non-compliance. That is the whole purpose of voluntary compliance. If there was legal action intended, it would not be voluntary compliance but rather mandatory compliance with legal enforcement. I believe the message was stated saying that GPL such that it is, all copyright holders (commiters) have the ability to do so. That's just control GPL offers, but OSM never said it would do so.
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
Then yet again I potentially stand corrected.
In which case OSM
1. should make it clearer beause that is exactly what -everyone- is thinking. (except Damo)
2. Get the OSM/Joomla people on the forums who are saying it's a possibility to stop.
3. Get the OSM president to stop reccomending people consult their lawyer - why do we need one if there no threat of legal action? - Last Edit: 17 years 10 months ago by Daniel Chapman.
-
www.ninjoomla.com
- The Ninjoomla Open Source Extension Club
Over 50 open source extensions and 100 videos to you build the site you want.
-
-
-
- Robert D. Wagers
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1545
- Thanks: 0
- Full-Time Cancer Fighter!
-
@Robert. What if a customer has a dispute with a GPL developer? Same situation.
Not the same issue at all.
If something is provided for free (like extensions), then if it doesn't work for them or they do not receive adequate support, one cannot sue or ask for a third party (Joomla) to arbitrate an issue in which they suffered no damages.
Because if one pays for a commercial product, there is a certain implied liability on the developer that GPL developers do not have to comply to. - "Everyone has to get knocked-down every once-in-a-while, otherwise you'll never learn how to get-back-up!
"
A quote attributed to my Grandpa Wagers
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
Except that GPL doesn't mean free of cost. Most gpl stuff is free of cost now, but it doesn't need to be.
Expect to see plenty of paid GPL stuff pop up soon. In which case it is a commercial issue you are discussing.
Except that the GPL explicitly offers no support or warranty so you have even less legal grounding with GPL.
I need to get out of this discussion. cya. - Last Edit: 17 years 10 months ago by Daniel Chapman.
-
www.ninjoomla.com
- The Ninjoomla Open Source Extension Club
Over 50 open source extensions and 100 videos to you build the site you want.
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
I know I said I was out but I need to clarify why people have this perception of a threat.
Some examples:
Andy Miller wrote:Daniel, to my knowledge OSM has never threatened legal action for non-compliance. That is the whole purpose of voluntary compliance. If there was legal action intended, it would not be voluntary compliance but rather mandatory compliance with legal enforcement. I believe the message was stated saying that GPL such that it is, all copyright holders (commiters) have the ability to do so. That's just control GPL offers, but OSM never said it would do so.
Sounds good but...
forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,181172....65462.html#msg865462
Chris Davenport wrote:Secondly, we said that we don't want to sue anyone. We want to educate, not litigate. But if a dev persists in breaking the terms of the GPL despite all our efforts, then we might sue. If we do it will be absolutely the last resort. Devs have plenty of time to come into compliance, but they should not think that our patience will be infinite and we will never take action.
Regards,
Chris.
From the OSM president's blog...
opensourcesociology.blogspot.com/2007/06...compliance-mean.html
Elin wrote:In adopting the voluntary compliance approach, the core team and OSM are saying that legal actions will be the very last resort, only after strong efforts (reflecting variety of approaches) to achieve compliance have failed.
Very last resort yes, but still something it is possible to resort to.
It means you can't continue business 'as is' without eventually either capitulating or getting sued. Because the last resort will be reached eventually if you refuse to comply. - Last Edit: 17 years 10 months ago by Daniel Chapman.
-
www.ninjoomla.com
- The Ninjoomla Open Source Extension Club
Over 50 open source extensions and 100 videos to you build the site you want.
-
-
-
- Andy Miller
- Preeminent Rocketeer
- Posts: 9919
- Thanks: 96
- Web Kahuna
- I don't think these are contradictory.... we don't intend to litigate, we don't expect to litigate, we expect folks to comply voluntarily. We've never said joomla/OSM will actively go after violaters. But, here's the important part, if we explicitly state in paper or electronic form, that we will NEVER go after people, then that's the same as saying, it's ok to break the license. It's a subtle difference, but it speaks magnitudes I think..
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
And without that assurance that you will never go after people, the possibility exists.
So those who don't shift to GPL either have to leave or live with that possibility and risk.
I can't see any other options. -
www.ninjoomla.com
- The Ninjoomla Open Source Extension Club
Over 50 open source extensions and 100 videos to you build the site you want.
-
-
-
- James Spencer
- Preeminent Rocketeer
- Posts: 46340
- Thanks: 50
-
Has anyone from the "opposing" team actually consulted some "proper" legal advise in which a substantial opposing view to that of OSM's legal advise?
Just a thought
- James Spencer / Developer & Support / Hull, UK
-
Time to create page: 0.063 seconds