SMF Bridge for Joomla! Discontinued

[Joshua Dickerson]

Just because the Joomla! and Gallery are both GPL, doesn't mean they interpret their licenses the same way. I don't know the Gallery license, but it might have a caveat for non-GPL licensed software. Consulting a lawyer is a good idea too.

SMF isn't against the GPL. We just don't conform to some people's interpretation of what it is and what the world should be.

[Orstio]

So what if someone writes a bridge and releases it as GPL? This wouldn't cause troubles neither with Joomla nor with SMF, right?
The subject says "SMF Bridge for Joomla! discontinued"... maybe someone ill take the effort to write a new bridge and release it as GPL. Though that's hard to imagine, because there are very few people outside of SMF who care to spend time on SMF. (Read my other post in some other topic to better understand what I mean)

No.  As it says in the email from the FSF:

No. The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.  Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

The bridge, no matter under which license it is released, cannot derive from (connect to) SMF so long as SMF's license is not compatible with Joomla's.  According to the email, it would violate both the GPL and the SMF license in doing so.

[Route 66 Rambler]

I so far have not been able to bring myself to un-install the Gallery 2 software.  I am waiting a little longer to see how things shake out, and also, at some point BEFORE a lawsuit, there is generally a "cease-and-desist" order, to prove good faith on their part, at allowing you to comply.

If or when that day comes, I will use that "cease and desist" time period to move to something else.  There are a few different gallery-type mods for SMF that work OK, but for my needs, Gallery 2 is the SMF of that world for me.  The two combined are awesome.  I'm thinking TinyPortal on top is probably all I need, to catalogue the huge amount of HTML and image stuff I have, into a CMS of some sort that makes sense, not just to install and use, but to live with, in an operational sense.

I am not trying to start some sort of hysteria here, or cause a ruckus.  Just pointing out that a license is exactly that, permission on how a work is to be used.  Regardless of how it is worded, it is up to the license holders to determine when or if prosecution will proceed.

Most likely, whether or not a suit has any merit,  J***** and others like them probably have a heck of a lot more money at their disposal than I do.  And that's the civil litigation system, nothing to be done about it, in the short term.  If a threat is made, I will have to stop.  No choice, due to financial considerations.

To clarify what I was saying earlier about my attorney's interpretation:

The hacking of the code to get the software to work in my installation, in the most basic and literal interpretation, creates a "derivative" or "combined" work (my site's content and programming, combined with the "J***** codebase.  When someone clicks on a link that uses this combination, now I am "distributing" the code to an end-user.

This is only one possible way to look at it, and in my view, it's not a very defensible or practical viewpoint.  But when is the legal world ever practical?  And defense is simply a matter of dollars and cents, at least in the US.  I ain't got what they got, probably ain't ever going to catch 'em, either.  Which means that THEY call the shots, not me.

My job in this kind of thing is simply to dodge bullets, provide content, and obey the masters.
mike

[Rudolf]

There is a solution to all the license compatibility issues.
SimpleMachines should develop it's own CMS. No, I am not saying that the developers of the "Simple Machines Forum" software should start to write a CMS. Start it as a new project, with it's own developers and support staff.
If I understand correctly then none of the team members get paid, so the only issues are to find the time and the resources to run the project. The resources are: people (free), hardware and software to run an official website and time.

Who says that Simple Machines LLC can have only one software product?

Anyway, it must be the hot my computer produces that makes me hallucinate.

[Kindred]

have you looked at TinyPortal?

[Rudolf]

Yes, and I didn't liked. Every time I did it broke my forum. It is hardly a CMS.

[Trekkie101]

Try the SSI Grab Message mod, I made a basic CMS with that one function, pages, links, you name it

Otherwise, I quite like snews, but then I like simple stuff.

[Route 66 Rambler]

I have looked at TP and I'm going to be trying it out starting tonight.  From what I've seen, it's got most everything you need, and the added bonus of the SMF database already in place.

TinyPortal isn't a CMS by itself, but when combined with the capabilities that are already there in the SMF package, especially with a G2 bridge,  you're getting pretty close to a CMS...

What started out as my original web site is now going to become the information archive for the forum.  The forum kind of took over my site.  So I think the TinyPortal makes sense as a way to tie my existing website information into the forum.

For what it is worth, I think that the SMF team should look at throwing in behind the TP folks, helping to iron out compatibility issues like Rudolf mentions, to create a new type of CMS, which is really what it amounts to anyway, from what I can tell.

If all you want is a forum, it's all good.  But if you want to move up to a normal web site, or a CMS, then you add in the TP, and BOOM!  It's CMS, baby, YEAH!

You'd have something then that would kick that booty when it comes to simplicity and ease of install, especially when compared to the effort it takes just to get one of the other forum packages to stay up and running, to say nothing of the constant screwing around that J***** takes.  And the overhead on the system seems to be a lot less, also.

I can't wait...  evil hee hee.     ok, I have to wait(at least till tonight), have to run errands etc., but maybe tomorrow I'll be in a different place, website-wise.
mike

[metallica48423]

i think the only sure-fire prescription for this problem is time. 

Simplemachines is not the only developer being forced to cease development on a project due to the issue at hand.

Just give it time.

And don't think for a second we didn't try everything we could to alleviate the situation.  Fact is, ignoring this could have meant litigation being filed against SMF.  How does that help any of our members out?  How does that help the image of simplemachines AND the image of every user of SMF software?  Not at all. 

[GravuTrad]

As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.

Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.

Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?

No.&nbsp; The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it.&nbsp; Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.&nbsp; This is not legal advice.

Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?

From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla

License Guidelines
Learn more about how Mambo is licensed and how this affects you.

1. What license is Mambo released under?
Mambo is released under the GNU/GPL, Version 2. A copy of this is included with your copy of Mambo and can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html. Unofficial translations can also be found at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html.

So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL

Version 2 of the GPL allows developers to grant permission to combine their program with other non-GPL-compatible software:

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).

Oldiesmann is completely in the truth, it's that joomla purely don't want authorize combination or would purely see the code of smf free.

Bad idea of them cause they will lost lots of users with their next version of joomla (no more smf bridge so...)

So if someone could say us where to find a joomla to mambo converter, it will be super cool! thanks for advance of your answer.

[AmyStephen]

According to the FSF, the bridge's license needs to be GPL compatible as well as the software being bridged (SMF).

GroundUp -

Really, that is not what the FSF concluded.

If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.

This is not impossible - it is doable. I urge Joomla! and SMF to get back to talking to one another.

From Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

Joomla! is not rushing this - we can take the time that is needed to make it work for everyone.

Please, consider the end users! Please provide the v 1.0.13 updates so people's websites are not vulnerable and give them time. That way people are not forced into choices and can freely choose.

Thanks,
Amy

[Kirby]

A bridge links Joomla! to an external application so that they can exchange data and cooperate. On the Joomla! side of the bridge, the bridge is treated just like a component, module, or plugin; it must comply with the GPL unless it is a separate work (and some bridges might indeed be separate works).

If the external application is separate enough from Joomla! that it is a separate work under copyright law, it may be licensed under whatever license the holder of its copyright sees fit.

[karlbenson]

^ I was just about to paste that EXACT same bit into here.

I know some users are EXTREMELY frustrated and bordering on angry at the decision.

But its not like the SMF guys (and Joomla guys) haven't tried to resolve the problem.
I'm sure they are actively continuing to look for alternatives, but the bridge as it stands clearly MUST be licensed under GPL.

Therefore it must immediately be taken down from distribution.

[Thantos]

If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.

Sorry but exec is not an option.  I would suspect that any reasonable PHP developer would agree with me that the line about exec is utter BS.  In a PHP environment it just doesn't work.  Sorry but parrotting BS from another source doesn't make it true or useful.

[karlbenson]

Thantos, if we had karma, you'd get +1 karma for that.
(sidenote: your 10 away from the 10k posts)

[AmyStephen]

If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.

Sorry but exec is not an option.  I would suspect that any reasonable PHP developer would agree with me that the line about exec is utter BS.  In a PHP environment it just doesn't work.  Sorry but parrotting BS from another source doesn't make it true or useful.

Thantos -

OK - call it what you will.

Will you *please* consider supporting v 1.0.13 so that Joomla!/SMF users can update their software for the security enhancements? Then, announce an ending date for the bridge that provides for a safe transition.

Will SMF do that, please?

Amy

[karlbenson]

We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0).

I'm sure they would provide support if they could.  Unfortunately the GPL makes no provision for 'transition' time.

[Kindred]

amystephen,

We can not legally do so. To distribute a bridge at this point would be to specifically go against the position that Joomla and the FSF have taken and violate the license they have agreed on.

Once again, we discussed this both with joomla and as a team. There is no current solution and we CAN NOT distribute the bridge. We would love to continue supporting and distributing the bridge, but as karlbenson says, there is no provision or exclusion for "transition".

[AmyStephen]

We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0).

I'm sure they would provide support if they could.  Unfortunately the GPL makes no provision for 'transition' time.

That is a HUGE relief to hear because Joomla! WILL make provision for the time, they say so in their announcement!

From Joomla!'s GPL Announcement: It's a long, slow road.  We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations.

Six months would be great. Joomla! is not rushing this. In a sense, it is the same "word of mouth" Mambo is giving.

So, yes, there is provision for time.

Will SMF *please* support Joomla! v 1.0.13 so that Joomla!/SMF users can secure their websites and there can be some time for good solutions. It would be very much appreciated.

Amy

[AmyStephen]

amystephen,

We can not legally do so. To distribute a bridge at this point would be to specifically go against the position that Joomla and the FSF have taken and violate the license they have agreed on.

Once again, we discussed this both with joomla and as a team. There is no current solution and we CAN NOT distribute the bridge. We would love to continue supporting and distributing the bridge, but as karlbenson says, there is no provision or exclusion for "transition".

Kindred -

It is no different at all from Mambo. Joomla! and Mambo both use the GPL. You heard the opinion from FSF about the GPL - not about Joomla!. Mambo is "overlooking" what the FSF says. Joomla! has made it clear they are not rushing this.

You are in the same legal position with both.

Now, I do urge you to get back to talking to Joomla!. The very last discussion with Joomla! was between Orstio and Johan on June 17 and the talks were very promising. Johan offered to take Orstio's plan and share it with the SFLC - there has been no discussion since then. It is not clear what happened!

Please, provide a transition period. And, if you want a long-term relationship, get back in there and talk.

I recognize this is difficult but, honestly, you guys are the ones who are rushing this, no one else. Slow it down so that we can all work together and  come up with good solutions.

Amy