Must Joomla Extensions all be GNU/GPL? Have your say.
-
-
- Andrew Eddie
- Rocketeer
- Posts: 71
- Thanks: 0
- I can probably help you out with ACL if I knew what you needed. RokACL is in the RocketWerx joomlacode project SVN but it's only for 1.5 at the moment and still a bit rough around the edges. A port to 1.0 is not out of the question though (I have a little experience in making forward compatible components).
- Andrew Eddie
<><
The Art of Joomla - A Joomla Magazine - www.theartofjoomla.com
JXtended - Empowering the Web - jxtended.com
-
-
-
Daniel Chapman wrote:
Overall I am happy with the result.
[text deleted]
Both have announcements on their site that they are no longer distributing their components due to this issue.
It took me a while to absorb's Andrew's strategical reasoning whereby Joomla! could be lost to (stolen by) purely commercial interests, but finally I think I do see why ALL code in an "open" project has to be open -- the code, and only the code.
So... the challenge is what it always was with Open Source: find a way to make mere ownership of the code seem painfully inadequate.
I've purchased, and actively use, a couple of commercial extensions. Here's what seems sane to me: I'm going to encourage the developer to adopt the "commercial GPL" approach that Andrew+Andy apparently intend to take, and further I'm going to pledge that if they remain as committed to development as they have been so far, they can count on my money.
If you agree, do the same. - Last Edit: 17 years 5 months ago by .
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
The site in question is still under Dev and I hadn't even installed the component yet as I am still working on the template. So it's not a -huge- loss. JACL might be able to fit the bill and save you the effort.
Mind you, if you were considering a 1.12 port anyway and wanted a test subject I will gladly help you out. ;D
I doubt 1.12 will vanish overnight, because it will take a while for all the major components to make the transition to 1.5.
I personally think it's a bit premature of them, I can see a lot of opportunities here for protecting distribution while still being a reasonably good GPL citizen if you absolutely had to. Copyrighted CSS/images in the app, an external or JS Admin interface with a GPL core components. Things that are too much trouble to remove and it is -cheaper- to just buy it for $40 than spend 3 hours @$30-$100p/h (developer rates) coding them out. -
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
-
spacewalk wrote:
If you agree, do the same.
Lol, I am about to become a commercial developer myself soon, so it would be more than a little hypocritical if I refused to support other devs while expecting people to support me.
I usually pay when I can, even when I don't have to. I am one of the rare people who actually donates for stuff that they use on a regular basis.
Being a cheapskate usually leaves you worse off than donating. I have gotten a lot of 'hidden extras' from people I donated to willingly and in almost every case they were worth more than I gave.
I also return the favour and anyone who donates more than the minimum to get my modules gets (even $1 more) gets a grab bag of my as yet unreleased stuff.
So I will still pay for components that I use regularly even if they go GPL.
The only thing that might change is that I might add to it if I see the need to. -
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
- Just out of curiosity, they've pulled and and gone where?
-
-
-
Daniel Chapman wrote:
spacewalk wrote:If you agree, do the same....
Being a cheapskate usually leaves you worse off than donating.
...
Clever, the way you slipped in the Secret of the Universe there. But don't worry, no one will pay any attention.
-
-
-
- Amy Stephen
- Rocketeer
- Posts: 79
- Thanks: 0
-
Andy Miller wrote:
no worries.. Hopefully this will answer folks questions..
Do you think? hehehe!
Andy - I am blown away! Thanks to you and to the Joomla! core team and OSM board for having the intelligence and conviction and courage to do what is right for Joomla!'s future. The "death thread" was a real learning experience and I am 100% certain you guys did the right thing!
Respect.
Andrew Eddie We are so fortunate to have you still coaching and guiding and reassuring us. You are still a leader for us. Nothing but respect for you, too.
Everyone Digg that story and get the word out! We have some work to do building community and learning how to support Joomla! and our developers financially. But, we are on our way!
All together, as a whole,
Amy
- ~*~ OpenSourceCommunity.org ~*~
-
-
-
- Daniel Chapman
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1258
- Thanks: 0
-
An interesting question was raised elsewhere.
---everything below is a paraphrase of the original posts and I haven't checked any references yet
3 of the Google Summer of Code projects, are non GPL projects.
Microformats are W3C Patent Policy. Dublin Core is DCMI licence. GeoRSS is Creative Commons. None of these are GPL-approved. Even if Charl (the current Microformats SoC participant) was to utilise the template overrides, the fact the bar is set at all PHP being GPLed should mean he has to shut down his project.Microformats are W3C Patent Policy. Dublin Core is DCMI licence. GeoRSS is Creative Commons. None of these are GPL-approved. Even if Charl (the current Microformats SoC participant) was to utilise the template overrides, the fact the bar is set at all PHP being GPLed should mean he has to shut down his project.
They are Summer of Code projects, so Joomla!/OSM is getting money out of being non-GPL compliant in this respect, essentially annuling their latest position statement.
Regardless of how the code turns out for these particular SoC projects (hack or extension - CMTP), somebody forgot to check the licences before go-ahead.
MIT may allow use in GPL and commercial systems, but from the GPL-onlyism standpoint, since it's not pure GPL, it should be rejected. In other words, in order to obtain the code needed for mapping, the licence within the final Joomla! geomap SoC will be both MIT and GPL, instead of pure GPL as the MIT licence will 'infect' the GPL-onlyism and allow a potential commercialisation (of the mapping architecture.. maybe even more, depending what gets modded to do it) since it's MIT.
EDIT:
I was asked by the quoted person to revise the quote to
What problems are there with enforcing GPL amongst Joomla?
* There's more licences in the open source bazaar than just GPL.
* Some of those licences are currently used by Joomla and the entire third party community to develop functionality that isn't inside the Core. Google's Summer of Code is part of this third party development pool.
* Some of these licences do not sit well with a GPL-only position statement, such as the W3C Patent Policy[1] and the MIT licence[2], the latter primarily because of commercialisation of MIT material inside Joomla!. As OSM has recieved direction from the FSF and SFLC that non-GPL work is not welcome, this harms the overall development of the Joomla! product by enforcing GPL-friendly functionality alone.
[1] www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html
[2] www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_htm...IncompatibleLicenses
When the gentleman's agreement was in place, as it is currently with Mambo, nobody was harmed. Now anyone licencing a work that isn't GPL-friendly whilst working on functionality for Joomla! will be harmed with this new policy direction.
This limitation on GPL licencing limits free, open source, open standards development as much it may hurt the current commercial developers amongst Joomla! as there is no way to predict what new functionality has a GPL-friendly licence. Considering cellular media is one of the growing areas for the web, having Joomla! not talk to Nokia cellular media licenced under the Nokia Open Source License limits the adoption as to where Joomla! can grow. - Last Edit: 17 years 5 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.
-
-
-
- Andrew Eddie
- Rocketeer
- Posts: 71
- Thanks: 0
-
I think there is some mis-understanding between using a "standard", and the code that is written to interpret the "standard". Where was that brought up (because I'm mentoring the GIS one -> geoRSS)?
I can write GPL code to interpret data based on an open, closed, whatever std. Sounds like someone is adding up wrong. - Andrew Eddie
<><
The Art of Joomla - A Joomla Magazine - www.theartofjoomla.com
JXtended - Empowering the Web - jxtended.com
-
-
-
- Andy Miller
- Preeminent Rocketeer
- Posts: 9919
- Thanks: 96
- Web Kahuna
-
Best bring these up in the joomla forums, i know nothing about them, what i do know is the joomla core team, and I have had the privilege of knowing them for many years. There are a lot of 'tin foil hats' in our community that are quick to assume that there's secret undercover stuff going on with joomla and that we (in the hood wearing, secret handshaking, innner circle - that's a joke btw) have ulterior motives and are out to get certain people. This is complete BS, we love Joomla, we put tonnes of hours of our free time into the project just to make it better for everyone else. Certain people are quick to attack us which quite frankly considering all we do is downright insulting, rather than giving us the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not getting at you Daniel, but i know where you got that post, and I know the attitudes of those folks, and it really gets my goat sometimes.
-
Time to create page: 0.065 seconds