Advertisement:

Author Topic: Joomla Bridge unavailable?  (Read 82645 times)

Offline AmyStephen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2007, 10:27:55 AM »
Orstio -

Look - I am *not* here to defend or explain or convert anyone. If you don't like the GPL or the FSF, fine. That's okay with me! But, please don't bother to "dispel myths" for me, either. I support the Joomla! copyright holders right to establish their own licensing guidelines, just as I support SMF's rights to license as they choose.

For example, both e107 and Mambo are GPL, but choose to allow third party extensions that are not GPL-compatible.  As the copyright holders, that is their choice; not Joomla's, nor Drupal's, nor Typo3's, nor FSF's.

Orstio, it is the right of each individual copyright holder to enforce the license. Even just one of them. Regardless of Joomla's or Drupal's "official" position - it only requires one individual copyright holder to act. It doesn't take the entire group to agree. Joomla!'s announcement can be viewed as a courtesy. Truly, it didn't change a thing. Even the developers for a 3rd party library included in core could act to enforce the GPL. A developer who contributed code years ago can enforce the GPL.  Anyone who is a copyright holder for the software can enforce the GPL. 

That is true for any GPL'ed software - doesn't really matter what is posted in a forum FAQ. People are skating on thin ice if they think otherwise.

++++

Now, to point: an SMF bridge is doable in a GPL environment. You have already demonstrated how and Johan concurred. That approach will work with any GPL environment - be it Drupal or WordPress or Joomla! or Mambo.

Why not move forward since there appears to be an agreement that your proposed SMF bridge will work with the Joomla! license? What is stopping this? Licensing issues are not in your way. So, what is?

Amy :)

Orstio

  • Guest
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2007, 03:49:20 PM »
Quote
Look - I am *not* here to defend or explain or convert anyone. If you don't like the GPL or the FSF, fine. That's okay with me! But, please don't bother to "dispel myths" for me, either.

I don't dispell the myth of the unknown copyright holders for you, Amy.  I am well aware that you have both the knowledge and intelligence to understand the FUD of the unknown copyright holders (That sounds like the title of a bad pulp fiction novel, doesn't it?  ;D).  I am also certain that you understand the legal obligations of those copyright holders, if any do in fact exist.  Please don't misread my posts as disrespect towards you on a personal level.  I think you know that is not the case.  We definitely do not agree on our views of software licensing and what that means for the protection of end users, but I do respect your opinion on the matter.

I dispell the myth for the unwitting readers of this topic, who may actually believe that there are unknown copyright holders.

Quote
Orstio, it is the right of each individual copyright holder to enforce the license. Even just one of them. Regardless of Joomla's or Drupal's "official" position - it only requires one individual copyright holder to act. It doesn't take the entire group to agree. Joomla!'s announcement can be viewed as a courtesy. Truly, it didn't change a thing. Even the developers for a 3rd party library included in core could act to enforce the GPL. A developer who contributed code years ago can enforce the GPL.  Anyone who is a copyright holder for the software can enforce the GPL. 

That is true for any GPL'ed software - doesn't really matter what is posted in a forum FAQ. People are skating on thin ice if they think otherwise.

Right, and as I pointed out two posts ago, it is not Joomla/OSM's responsibility to enforce the license for those people who may not even exist.  Again, not a single third party developer has been contacted by any copyright holder, other than OSM's announcement.  All this talk of copyright holders who are not a part of Joomla/OSM is ridiculous, and true FUD.  If a copyright holder wishes to exercise rights in regards to the license, that copyright holder will need to come forward and make that claim -- that is their individual legal obligation, and OSMs announcement does not cover that for them.  I really hate repeating myself, especially to the same person, time and again, so please don't bring up the unknown copyright holders (Darth Vader) again.  That myth is put to rest here.  There is no Darth Vader lurking in the Joomla shadows, nor in the shadows of any other CMS.  There is absolutely no need for fear of any unknown copyright holder.

Joomla's announcement can be viewed as a courtesy:  You are absolutely correct there.  It definitely gave third party developers a lot of time to consider whether they should continue working with Joomla 1.5 before its release, or move on to other CMSs and work with their clients to migrate.

Quote
Now, to point: an SMF bridge is doable in a GPL environment. You have already demonstrated how and Johan concurred. That approach will work with any GPL environment - be it Drupal or WordPress or Joomla! or Mambo.

Why not move forward since there appears to be an agreement that your proposed SMF bridge will work with the Joomla! license? What is stopping this? Licensing issues are not in your way. So, what is?

I'll point out that the date on my posts (and Johan's) there precedes the date of the core team talking about how templates, and even the use of things as essential as $mainframe and $database would render work "derivitive".  This would mean using $mainframe in the LGPL file would be unacceptable, as it would make the LGPL file a GPL release (viral nature of the GPL), and that GPL release would link directly to the bridge (read: violation).  So, I'd be left with a simplest solution of not one, but two layers of libraries, one GPL, one LGPL, and then the bridge. 

This is unacceptable from a performance standpoint.  There are bridged sites much larger than the forum at joomla.org that would simply choke on the extra code and RAM required.  There are a small group who complain about the extra load time now -- well it would get far worse with the added layers of communication between redundant files.  It also adds several times more complexity to the entire system.  More complexity without more functionality just means that there is more to go wrong.

So, you're right, it is doable in most cases, but impractical in all cases.  It adds two layers of pure bloat, that cost the end user.  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the Free Software movement?  I always thought it was supposed to make things better for the end user, not worse. 

It is more responsible to suggest to these users that they test other CMSs than to tell them they can use a bridge that contains redundant code that will slow down their website and use more system resources to dodge the issue of an interpretation of a license.

So, to answer your question, I have been moving forward, with other CMSs.

Again, I am going to suggest to those who want the power of SMF alongside a CMS, please check out Mambo, e107, Xoops, and iGaming.  I will continue to work with other CMSs as well, to ensure that we have a broad range of CMS options from which to choose.  I will also be working diligently to ensure that at least some of these options will be available for the release of SMF 2.0, which will add some terrific template layer options to ease visual integration and W3C compliance even better, something for which I'm certain many have been looking forward.

Offline AmyStephen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2007, 05:33:28 PM »
Thanks much, Orstio.

The Joomla! copyright holders - the Joomla! core team and OSM Board - the ones who are writing the core Joomla! code and running the Joomla! project - are in 100% complete agreement - to comply with the GPL. This is also the recommendation provided them by their legal counsel - Eben Moglen and others at the Software Freedom Law Center.  I am completely lost on the "unknown copyright holders" issue! I have honestly not heard that discussed nor have I tried to raise the issue. I will tell you - "unknown copyright holders" are not driving this! The Joomla! copyright holders decided.

Theirs is not an unusual stance. It is the normal stance - it is the same position that Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, and Plone take. If you think Joomla! is interpreting the GPL is some wacky way - ask yourself this - why would there be a presumed need to have an FAQ diminishing the impact of the GPL like Mambo has? Or, why would there be a desire for a rider to weaken the GPL?

Those familiar with the GPL understand Joomla! is simply bringing it's environment into compliance.

As far as third party developers go, Orstio, check out Andrew Eddie. In the past, he has released proprietary licensed extensions and is now adapting his business to be GPL compliant. It can be done and still money can be made. There are many 3PDs in Drupal who make lots of money. In fact, just yesterday Dries Buytaert wrote another blog about how there are not ENOUGH Drupal developers to meet demand.

OK. Thanks very much for recognizing that you and I respect one another. That means a lot to me and I know it's true from my end. I try not to overstate or under represent or spread FUD or add confusion. I believe this can work and I know after this transition period passes, it will be okay.

You did discover a way to bridge to Joomla! and still meet the license requirements of both SMF and Joomla!. We don't know for certain what performance differences there will be because we haven't tested it yet. I strongly suspect any differences will be negligible and/or capable of fine tuning.

HOWEVER, it's your choice to proceed or not proceed.  But, please do me one favor - if you choose not to bridge, I got your back, Orstio. That is your choice and no one can or should try to force you to do anything against your will! But, please do not represent this decision as a licensing issue. We honestly know the license is not in the way.

All right, you know where to reach me! ;) All the best, Orstio,
Amy  :)

Offline RampantAndroid

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2007, 09:56:13 PM »
I would honestly love to see a Joomla Bridge either way. I heartily agree with Oristo's complaints about layers on top of layers - furthermore, I think GPL is screwed up for this specific requirement...in many respects, it degrades my views of open source....

But even so, haven't mucked about in PHP for a good 1.5 years, I've taken code written by others that is literall 10x longer than need be, with 15-20x more variables and function calls than needed, and still seen no serious improvement from simplifying it; I'm willing to bet the addition of the LGPL layer will show some slowdown, but not a serious one - most people will probably not notice.

As I compare Mambo current to Joomla Current, I don't see many differences - perhaps if I dug down into security issues I might..but when I compare Joomla 1.5 to Mambo, I think that Joomla looks more promising.

Offline cferd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2007, 10:12:57 PM »
What I'm finding ridiculous about all this to the point of being downright hilarious is how seemingly, in the eyes of the license holders, Open Source by any other name is NOT Open Source.

Orstio

  • Guest
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #65 on: July 08, 2007, 10:45:55 PM »
Adding only the LGPL layer as I first suggested is still acceptable as far as performance is concerned.  It is not in terms of full compliance with the Joomla interpretation of the GPL, however.

The issue comes with the use of the Joomla API. That can't be done in a LGPL environment. It must be GPL according to the latest I've read from Joomla.

So, it is not just a LGPL layer. It first needs to be a GPL layer that essentially copies Joomla's $mainframe, $database, $my, etc. into new objects that can be used in the LGPL environment. This would still technically violate the Joomla interpretation of the GPL, but the file (and API variables) would be created by me, and therefore copyright by me, and I seriously doubt I would ever take legal action against myself for it. ;)

Then, there is something else that hasn't been discussed a whole lot, because most people haven't been able to get through the thought process this far yet: That is, the installer. Using Joomla's component installer could theoretically render the work derivitive as well, as it would require the Joomla installation structure in order to work. So, I would also need to produce some sort of GUI installer for the bridge that would not use the Joomla component installer, and a bridge admin panel that would not use the Joomla admin panel.

If you read my previous post, this is doable in most situations, but impractical in all situations. If you look at sites like these, for example:

http://www.40konline.com/mos/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=861
http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=88888914
http://www.cmcrossroads.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,180/

There is a good chance they would not be able to handle the doubling up of the Joomla API on top of what is already done there without significant loss of performance.

Quote
As I compare Mambo current to Joomla Current, I don't see many differences

Then you should do more reading:

http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/showthread.php?t=6239

Mambo 4.6.2 is already a nice step ahead of the Mambo 4.5.x family, and 4.7 is coming up soon. The SMF bridge for Mambo 4.6.2 already uses the power of the Mambo authenticator mambots, and when Mambo 4.7 becomes public, I plan to use every bit of added power that will bring as well.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 11:25:27 PM by Orstio »

Offline AmyStephen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2007, 11:57:53 AM »
Adding only the LGPL layer as I first suggested is still acceptable as far as performance is concerned.  It is not in terms of full compliance with the Joomla interpretation of the GPL, however.

The issue comes with the use of the Joomla API. That can't be done in a LGPL environment. It must be GPL according to the latest I've read from Joomla.

But, isn't that exactly the solution you proposed to Johan and that he agree with?

How about posting this question and getting some focus back on this, Orstio? Like we tried to do before when you got agreement. Let's at least see if we can at least nail down what the technical issue is, if any. Use the GPL Questions - Developer Related Forum.

Back to Mambo From what I am reading, the individual copyright holders for Mambo are many of the same people who are also individual copyright holders for Joomla!. It is certainly claimed that their rights exist in Mambo in the same fashion as their rights exist in Joomla!. Here is that discussion, again.

As you have stated, SMF is very concerned about complying with licensing requirements. So much so, that the existing bridge was removed from Joomla!'s JED. But, if you are really concerned about violating licensing, we are going to have to overcome the same hurdles for Joomla! as are needed for Mambo. Individuals own copyright. No one can simply take away their rights because of a fork.

Like it or not, Joomla! and Mambo are like parents in a divorce, forever tied together because of the children.  ;)

But, I'm not worried, Orstio - I am confident a bridge from SMF to a GPL'ed environment is doable. This challenge could end up opening lots of doors for SMF into many GPL worlds - like Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, etc.

Again, let's hold judgement on performance issues for actual testing. You are pretty dang good at what you do!

Amy :)

Offline endi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2007, 02:45:56 PM »
I don't fully agree with the behavior Joomla! is having about licensing, on their side.

But, whatever they say, the FSF states very clearly which licenses comply with the viral copyleft requirement of the GPL, and the LGPL is one of them. I think there's no room for discussion on that point. If the Joomla! license is the literal GNU GPL, then it does NOT forbid you to write the module/component files (as limited as you wish them to be) under LGPL, and the rest under the SMF license.

Read:
hxxp:www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ [nonactive]

Offline Chriss Cohn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Gender: Male
  • who does not go with the time, goes with the time
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2007, 05:37:53 PM »
From a more technically view, "how much" would the performance-drop be, lets say in percent, if you using a "bridge for the bridge"?
More than 25%? If yes i will change everything immediatly to Mambo.
Joomla! or better the "holders" could than go to hell IMO - what they have done is so bad:
Changing the interpretation of the license and removed the rider <- self-kill attempt


Regards, Christian

Offline RampantAndroid

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2007, 05:47:42 PM »
Like it or not, Joomla! and Mambo are like parents in a divorce, forever tied together because of the children.  ;)

But, I'm not worried, Orstio - I am confident a bridge from SMF to a GPL'ed environment is doable. This challenge could end up opening lots of doors for SMF into many GPL worlds - like Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, etc.

Again, let's hold judgement on performance issues for actual testing. You are pretty dang good at what you do!

While I agree that I'd love to leave the final verdict up to a test...a complete test is hard, AFAIK: While a single person would be able to run the code in multiple tests and time it and compare the results...the problem really arises not with 10 users hitting the bridge, but with 50+ - as the number of calls on the server climb, so will the load times. Essentially, it's something like trying to run a 3D DirectX game inside of Linux using WINE...both the bridge and WINE translate function calls, added extra (unnecessary) complexity and inflating load times.

I would still love to see a proper bridge that made use of the Joomla admin panel...but at what cost is it still worth it? Perhaps someone should write up a post/guide detailing how to make your SMF template look similar to your Joomla! site so you can put the forums at yoursite.tld\forums...

Regarding Jooma vs. Mambo: How do the changes for Joomla 1.5 stack up against Mambo 4.7, other than moving the code further apart from eachother - I see Mambo 4.7 promises some admin CP changes...removal of Javascript (as in the drop down menus?) I don't think I truly see what the overall path each Joomla and Mambo have - not how they are different now, but how will they differ in a year and beyond?

Orstio

  • Guest
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #70 on: July 09, 2007, 06:08:51 PM »
Quote
Back to Mambo From what I am reading, the individual copyright holders for Mambo are many of the same people who are also individual copyright holders for Joomla!. It is certainly claimed that their rights exist in Mambo in the same fashion as their rights exist in Joomla!. Here is that discussion, again.

As you have stated, SMF is very concerned about complying with licensing requirements. So much so, that the existing bridge was removed from Joomla!'s JED. But, if you are really concerned about violating licensing, we are going to have to overcome the same hurdles for Joomla! as are needed for Mambo. Individuals own copyright. No one can simply take away their rights because of a fork.

I really hate repeating myself, so I'm just going to quote it:

Quote from: Orstio
That would be an incorrect and uneducated statement. Miro signed over full copyright of all Mambo code (and other things) to the Mambo Foundation in December of 2005, several months after the Joomla fork. Miro no longer exists, so there would be nobody left to be sued, were it the case. IOW, Miro signed off the copyright that anyone at Joomla had prior. Miro can't be sued for this action, because it doesn't exist anymore, and the opportunity to sue has long passed. (read: People who worked for Mambo/Miro before December 2005 might still have copyright on Joomla code because it was forked before the sign-over, but not on current Mambo code. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing to be owned by a corporate entity after all?)

There are only two libraries left in Mambo 4.6 that are not either owned by the Mambo Foundation, nor under LGPL, and there is no chance that those two libraries are used directly by any third party developers, so absolutely no worries there. The Mambo Foundation has made their position clear, and the code, other than those two libraries which will never be used by third parties, is either LGPL, or owned solely by the Mambo Foundation.

So, no, they do not have the same copyright holders, and no, the same issues do not apply. Other than statements made by Elpie, who is probably the only person left there that actually knows anything about Mambo, anything said about Mambo at joomla.org is pure unsubstantiated FUD.

Quote
Like it or not, Joomla! and Mambo are like parents in a divorce, forever tied together because of the children.

I see that quite differently. I would say that Miro is the dead parent of both Mambo and Joomla. One took what it could and left before Miro kicked the bucket, and the other stuck around to earn the inheritance.

Quote
But, I'm not worried, Orstio - I am confident a bridge from SMF to a GPL'ed environment is doable. This challenge could end up opening lots of doors for SMF into many GPL worlds - like Drupal, WordPress, Typo3, etc.

There are already many GPL worlds open, without the need to add multiple layers of redundant code.

Have you read what they said about the issue at e107? It is also a GPL product.

And of course, there are those CMSs so disgusted by the whole situation, they are relicensing their products under a more Free license and discontinuing anything related to Joomla.

Quote
Again, let's hold judgement on performance issues for actual testing. You are pretty dang good at what you do!

Yes, I am. And I'll continue doing it with CMSs that interpret their license in such a way that gives developers the Freedom to choose their own license, and the Freedom to code without multiple redundant layers.

Offline AmyStephen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #71 on: July 09, 2007, 07:07:39 PM »
Quote from: Orstio
That would be an incorrect and uneducated statement. Miro signed over full copyright of all Mambo code (and other things) to the Mambo Foundation in December of 2005, several months after the Joomla fork.

Well, Orstio, lol, no matter how many times you repeat that, some don't feel that is true. Neither of us are copyright holders - neither of us know - but, we can at least admit we are hearing some conflicting reports here. I would not want to accuse anyone of FUD because I don't like to falsely accuse people of things of which I am not certain.

A bridge between these two products is possible, your proposal was reviewed and approved by Joomla!. You are *free* to use the license you use for SMF. Joomla!'s license is *not* in the way.

OK. If you have questions and you want to re-confirm your prior plan to bridge SMF to Joomla!, use the GPL Questions - Developer Related Questions thread. I am certain you can get this resolved quickly.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. I am certain the right things will happen and that all will lead healthy and productive lives. If there is something I can help with, please contact me. You know how to do so.

All the best, Orstio,
Amy :)

Orstio

  • Guest
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #72 on: July 09, 2007, 07:36:41 PM »
Quote
Well, Orstio, lol, no matter how many times you repeat that, some don't feel that is true.

Yes, and that is rebutted only two posts later by Elpie.

I'll take the freedom of quoting on the matter for those reading here:

Quote from: Elpie
I do, however, know that those who contributed to the Mambo code signed a copyright agreement with Miro International Pty Ltd. This was legally assigned to the Mambo Foundation, Inc, who holds the copyright in Mambo from 2000 on. The signed copies are on file.
While you are correct in saying there are other copyright holders to some Mambo code (perhaps not as many as you may think) the fact remains that the Licensing Guidelines were approved by the team members who were part of Mambo in 2004 when it was introduced and each and every person who has contributed since has implicitly accepted the Licensing Guidelines. Strangely, I am unaware of any who have disagreed with the Guidelines. Those who did not want to accept the way in which license in the Mambo code is enforced would, I assume, have just not contributed. Nobody forced them to accept the Licensing Guidelines but, having done so, nobody has the right to change their minds about them further down the track.

Offline cferd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #73 on: July 09, 2007, 07:49:31 PM »
Quote
I see that quite differently. I would say that Miro is the dead parent of both Mambo and Joomla. One took what it could and left before Miro kicked the bucket, and the other stuck around to earn the inheritance.
I've read that Miro merely changed its name to Rice Studios.

I can't help but wonder, since they're still involved with Mambo, how much of the Joomla code are they still holding a copyright to, and have they in any way had a say on the matter at hand.

Offline Omega X

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Gender: Male
  • Its Ok. Some people just need a wake up B**** slap
    • Boston Guild [BG]
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #74 on: July 09, 2007, 07:50:35 PM »
Wow, I go away for a while and come back to stuff still hitting the fan. In the end, this will cost Joomla a ton of support both open source and proprietary.

This whole thing is the reason why Mozilla adopted multiple licenses instead of latching on to just GPL.

Offline AmyStephen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2007, 10:54:54 PM »

Yes, and that is rebutted only two posts later by Elpie.

Ortsio -

People who write code have copyright. You know that to be true.

The agreement the Mambo developers signed gave Miro joint copyright. But, the authors, themselves, also kept copyright and still hold copyright. Miro turned over copyright to the Mambo Foundation. That "transfer" did not include the author's copyrights, just Miro's.

For some reason, you seem unwilling to believe anyone but Elpie. That's okay. Now, reread Elpie's post closely. You will not see her denying what I just said. Ask her if you don't believe me!

Then, once you find Elpie isn't denying the authors their rightful copyright, reread the entire thread. Try to do so without hoping for a certain message to "win." Just try to understand.

Then, listen to me. I've always been upfront and honest with you. I know you and the SMF group care very much about following licensing guidelines. You found a way to bridge to Joomla! and be compliant with the GPL. That same process will be required to be compliant with the GPL for Mambo, as well. But, you shouldn't fret or worry because you know how to do it.

Many people are overreacting to this licensing situation. But, one piece of software at a time, if we set emotion aside, we can find our way through.

Amy

Offline danayel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #76 on: July 10, 2007, 01:39:01 AM »
As far as third party developers go, Orstio, hxxp:opensourcecommunity.org/2007/07/07/joomla-andrew-eddie-new-life-it-commercial-gpl-business [nonactive]. In the past, he has released proprietary licensed extensions and is now adapting his business to be GPL compliant. It can be done and still money can be made. There are many 3PDs in Drupal who make lots of money. In fact, just yesterday Dries Buytaert hxxp:buytaert.net/on-hiring-drupal-talent [nonactive] about how there are not ENOUGH Drupal developers to meet demand.

Hi Amy, I just had to register and log in for a second to rebutt something here.

That quote is not regarding extension developers one iota, it is regarding large companies with a site based on Drupal who are looking for people to work on their site in house. 

It is also not people making money off open source. It is about companies who's primary business is something else saving money by using an open source CMS.

What you are in effect suggesting is that 3pds should give up their businesses and go work for an company unrelated to joomla at all and spend their time managing their website. 

huh?  That is not a a solid business solution while using open source at all. You are in effect advocating indenturing yourself to a company instead of working for yourself.   90% of the 'making money with os' solutions I have seen you post were exactly this. Go work for a company that makes their money elsewhere and get paid for fixing/supporting their website.

In effect every time you post a link like the one above you are reinforcing the statement that the GPL inhibits developers earning money independently, not supporting it.

Andrew is going into business with Andy, and Andy let it slip that initially he planned to release the extensions under non GPL licenses. They are going to go GPL not through choice it seems. (though I could be wrong)

Quote
A bridge between these two products is possible, your proposal was reviewed and approved by Joomla!.  You are *free* to use the license you use for SMF. Joomla!'s license is *not* in the way.

Except that as Joomla/OSM seems to keep repeating they are not the sole copyright holders and thus the second copyright holder on the grassy knoll which they claim to be protecting us from, can in theory step in and claim that the lgpl bridge is in fact in violation of their code and sue SMF.

If Joomla/OSM is as powerless as they claim, then they can't very well selectively immunize people against GPL virus prosecution without being able to offer that same protection to everyone.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 02:35:23 AM by danayel »

Offline Elpie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #77 on: July 10, 2007, 08:09:02 AM »
I've read that Miro merely changed its name to Rice Studios.

I can't help but wonder, since they're still involved with Mambo, how much of the Joomla code are they still holding a copyright to, and have they in any way had a say on the matter at hand.

The company that changed its name to Rice Studios was NOT Miro International Pty Ltd, the company that had owned copyright in Mambo. Different company, different owners. Miro International ceased to exist in December 2005. Miro has had no involvement with Mambo since that time as they did not exist!
Mambo is completely free of any corporate influence and has been since the end of 2005.

Offline Elpie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #78 on: July 10, 2007, 08:37:03 AM »
Well, after being a member here for 18 months its rather sad that my first posts have to be made in response to inaccuracies being bandied about as "truth".

Neither of us are copyright holders - neither of us know - but, we can at least admit we are hearing some conflicting reports here. I would not want to accuse anyone of FUD because I don't like to falsely accuse people of things of which I am not certain.

Huh? How does this statement correlate to the following statement Amy?

People who write code have copyright. You know that to be true.

The agreement the Mambo developers signed gave Miro joint copyright. But, the authors, themselves, also kept copyright and still hold copyright. Miro turned over copyright to the Mambo Foundation. That "transfer" did not include the author's copyrights, just Miro's.

I know you are an intelligent woman Amy. However, I wasn't aware that you are also an Intellectual Property lawyer. More specifically, I was unaware that you were party to the assignments of copyright, the deeds of transfer, or even the original agreements.  Added to this, you would need to have an understanding of both contract law and Australian copyright law - do you?
If not, then kindly refrain from making *statements* about something you have already stated you know nothing about.


Offline AmyStephen

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Joomla Bridge unavailable?
« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2007, 11:16:01 AM »
Well, after being a member here for 18 months its rather sad that my first posts have to be made in response to inaccuracies being bandied about as "truth".

Neither of us are copyright holders - neither of us know - but, we can at least admit we are hearing some conflicting reports here. I would not want to accuse anyone of FUD because I don't like to falsely accuse people of things of which I am not certain.

Huh? How does this statement correlate to the following statement Amy?

People who write code have copyright. You know that to be true.

The agreement the Mambo developers signed gave Miro joint copyright. But, the authors, themselves, also kept copyright and still hold copyright. Miro turned over copyright to the Mambo Foundation. That "transfer" did not include the author's copyrights, just Miro's.

I know you are an intelligent woman Amy. However, I wasn't aware that you are also an Intellectual Property lawyer. More specifically, I was unaware that you were party to the assignments of copyright, the deeds of transfer, or even the original agreements.  Added to this, you would need to have an understanding of both contract law and Australian copyright law - do you?
If not, then kindly refrain from making *statements* about something you have already stated you know nothing about.



Elpie -

There is no reason for sarcasm, it only further clouds the issue. Your post did not provide any meaningful information. If you want to clarify the question, please do so. Go ahead and correct me, if you believe I am wrong.

You have stated a few times that Miro passed copyright to Mambo Foundation. That is understood. But what I have not seen you mention or confirm is that the original authors also continue to hold their copyright.

Is that true or false?

Thanks.
Amy :)