SMF Bridge for Joomla! Discontinued

[elfishtroll]

But the user wouldn't have PPB (i.e. SMF) unless they were licensed to use the PPB code anyway. The distributor hasn't given away, or modified any code from PPB... just function calls to code within PPB. Just like if I write a program that makes a call to some windows system function, I haven't given the user any windows code, or the right to use the windows code... I've just given them something that would work for them IF they already had a licensed copy of windows. Do you understand my confusion?

The same concept boggles my mind as well.
Also, as far as 'linking' code etc.
If I distribute code that does not work ( the user has to download and install a patch or modifier - distributed separately, wouldnt that be better?

or, instead of distributing the complete code, distribute the delta to modify the target code to something else?

it seems to me that the whole solution to this thing is NOT as Asphyx and others are helpfully trying to represent as a technical problem, just needing us to 'get our heads together' but a POLITICAL problem. Nothing is automatically kosher or can be made so, pending a specific exception.

The more complex the interface,  the more the resulting union is a new derived work!

[TrueSatan]

@ MikeC801

It's a difficult area but one of the differences is that Operating Systems licensing has to include exceptions such that the systems can run applications whereas a bridge seeks to, in effect and with varying levels of success, make two products act as one and may need extra licensing exceptions so to do as that was not the original intent of either of the two products.

It all depends on the particulars of the license in question.

@ elfishtroll

It's far worse than a political problem...it's a legal one.

Note that when Microsoft offers patches it also offers extra licenses to go with them.

[MikeC801]

@ MikeC801

It's a difficult area but one of the differences is that Operating Systems licensing has to grant exceptions such that the systems can run applications whereas a bridge seeks to, in effect and with varying levels of success, make two products act as one and may need extra licensing exceptions so to do.

It all depends on the particulars of the license in question.

Still confusing... why doesn't Joomla! view itself as the "operating system" of a website... and let people write applications that can be based off of it. Make the exceptions like Microsoft! I think Microsoft is happy to have a lot of software out there that runs on its system... means it is actually USEFUL to a lot of people when there are so many applications out there allowed to run on it.

To me, a bridge is an interface between two useful software packages.. not necessarily making two softwares act as one. Joomla and SMF still very much retain unique and separate functionality even when bridged.

[M3g4d37h]

Motoko -

We can't continue at this point because the way the bridge works violates Joomla!'s software license and could get us sued.

I want to *try* to ease concerns about being "sued."

Eben Moglen has been general counsel for the Free Software Foundation for many years. I encourage you to read his article entitled Enforcing the GNU GPL if you have time or interest. This is a piece from that article:

In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

It is going to take time to get compliance with the GPL for Joomla!. These words are not rhetoric, it's an approach that has worked well for the enforcing the GPL for years. There is no intent to sue, the desire is to bring compliance with the license. And, that is not going to happen over night.

Given your comment about possibly getting sued, it dawned on me you might not understand this and for me, the possibility of getting sued would bring sleepless nights. So, I just wanted to share this article.

Amy

All legal mumbo-jumbo (or should I say Joomla-Jumbo?) aside, this attitude is nothing new, and I'm not surprised that team members have left the J! team.

What this *does* do is paint the J! crew in the same light as some of these commercial/proprietary companis -- And not just to me, as evidenced by the postings here.

I too went with J! during the great rift, but I should have saw this coming long ago.

For me, it's this simple -- SMF is much more integral to my sites than J! is.  So when all the dust settles and nothing has changed (which is based upon the inflexibility from J! that is seen from J! on their forums), I will dump J! for a competing piece of Open Source CMS software.

It's a shame how people can take a perfectly good thing that works perfectly well, then break it.

If open source means this is what we get, I'd rather pay and do whatever the hell I want with it.  I say that strictly as a consumer.

Amy, please don't reply.  There's no need for you to expound the same thing again and again to me.  I get it.

[青山 素子]

Still confusing... why doesn't Joomla! view itself as the "operating system" of a website... and let people write applications that can be based off of it. Make the exceptions like Microsoft! I think Microsoft is happy to have a lot of software out there that runs on its system... means it is actually USEFUL to a lot of people when there are so many applications out there allowed to run on it.

The problem is, and this has been said multiple times, they don't own all the code in their software, so they can't change the license on the package as a whole.

[joomla]

I'm not surprised that team members have left the J! team.

ONE person left, just to set the record straight. Marko was also not able to attend our summit where we thrashed out this issue before releasing to the public.

In any case, it's a free world, and I hope you find a open source CMS that suits your needs.

It's a shame how people can take a perfectly good thing that works perfectly well, then break it.

You might like to look into what is 'broken'. When you do, you will see the reasons were based on concern for you, the end users website security. In any case, the bridge was not pulled due to the changes in 1.0.13 Joomla, so I think this is taking this thread off topic.

All the best.

[metallica48423]

lets please not this degenerate into finger pointing.  The issue at hand isn't a he-said she-said, it is a simple (read: complex) legality that needs worked out.  I'd hate to see such an important topic locked.

Thank you.

[TrueSatan]

@ MikeC801

As Motoko-chan says they (Joomla) simply don't have the option to do as you suggest.

Supposing even that they did there are still more problems with your suggestion.

why doesn't Joomla! view itself as the "operating system" of a website

The term "Operating System has a complex legal definition and Joomla doesn't even come close to meeting that definition.

Even if Motoko-chan's point didn't already rule the idea out (which it does) then if they even could do such a thing it would seem to run contrary to their apparent wish to enforce a particular licensing on all 3pd development.

To me, a bridge is an interface between two useful software packages.. not necessarily making two softwares act as one. Joomla and SMF still very much retain unique and separate functionality even when bridged.

I would wish you great good fortune if you were to have to defend your definition of a bridge in legal circles...you'd need it. The danger being that it would be all too easy to put forward another definition or definitions that would be considerably less helpful to your cause.

All said and done the bridge has gone the way of the one at Tacoma Narrows http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bridge/meetsusp.html and this is becoming a rather hypothetical discussion.

[MikeC801]

@TrueSatan

You tell me... how are they made one if they can still operate separately, and run out of separate web directories, and off of separate databases, and maintain their own distinct code? Doesn't seem so "one" to me... "bridged"... yes... "wrapped"... sure... "one"... nope.

[TrueSatan]

It's not clear cut though...separate is a compromised term in a bridge as there is some sharing. As we have seen ad nauseum there's enough sharing to cause a licensing problem.

As soon as you get into anything that is at all a muddying of terms then it's something to keep away from lawyers.

BTW I'm not a lawyer however I'm a business accountant who has had to undergo formal legal training in licensing and copyright law as part of his qualifications and knows when to run a mile from taking a legal route when the outcome isn't clear cut.

[AmyStephen]

@ AmyStephen

I feel I must take issue with a point you keep repeating...

< snip >

Mambo can grant such exceptions...it's their code.

You have repeatedly said that the case of the Joomla bridge is the same as that of the Mambo bridge...as the above clearly shows the two cases are not the same at all.

Given those points, I see why you must take issue - I am clearly not communicating well. My apologies.

Agreed upon fact: SMF engaged FSF in an email exchange about building a bridge a specific way between a non-GPL and GPL environment. The FSF indicated that doing so would result in an infraction of the GPL.

Understand: The FSF's comments were relevant to *any* of the bridges between SMF and GPL environments. FSF's comments were not for one specific CMS. No CMS was named in the email. Each bridge violates the GPL.

However: Some projects indicated they will *permit* the violation of the GPL without seeking enforcement.

That is all I have said.

My hope was to see the SMF and Joomla! teams reconnect to try to find a solution. They are doing that, now! Let's see how it works out!

Hope that helps, if not, please me know!
Amy

[TrueSatan]

No Amy...you're still saying that there is a violation where there is none.

Each bridge violates the GPL.

No it doesn't...where an exception has been granted by the copyright holder there is no violation taking place. Likewise the following is also incorrect as by permitting they grant an exception and thus no violation takes place.

Some projects indicated they will *permit* the violation of the GPL without seeking enforcement.

We all need to be very careful about claiming anything to be a violation of licensing...I trust everyone can agree on that. In this context if an exception (or permit) is in place then there can be no violation of licensing as the terms of the GPL are modified by that/those exception(s) or permit(s) from the copyright holder(s).

[anna.young]

...

However: Some projects indicated they will *permit* the violation of the GPL without seeking enforcement.

...
Hope that helps, if not, please me know!
Amy

I agree with Truesatan

I understand that 'some projects' who own 100% of the code granted an 'exception' and NOT 'permission to violate the GPL', therefore your statements are misleading Amy.

All J! needs to do is contact ALL code owners in order to grant that exception.  This would be the simplest direction for J! to take...  Were any steps taken by J! in that direction?

Anna

[Joshua Dickerson]

Joomla! can still grant an exception as far as I see it. They just need to get permission from those that have submitted code.

[joomla]

Joomla! can still grant an exception as far as I see it. They just need to get permission from those that have submitted code.

That is not possible. ie Physically, not possible to locate all code contributors.

[TrueSatan]

 Are the code contributors so different from those who contributed to Mambo?

I'm surprised that Joomla didn't put in place some possibility to grant licencing variances within agreed limits when accepting code from contributors...a considerable oversight IMHO. Such structures aren't unusual in the commercial world and often form part of contracts.

[joomla]

We are a GPL project, and intend to stay that way.. free from riders/exceptions etc..

[TrueSatan]

So even if you could contact the code contributors, as groundup suggested, you appear now to be saying that you wouldn't be prepared so to do...that you wouldn't be willing to ask them to allow you to grant exceptions? If that is the case your reply to groundup appears to be factually correct but incomplete in a way that was somewhat misleading.

[Asphyx]

But the user wouldn't have PPB (i.e. SMF) unless they were licensed to use the PPB code anyway.

If you do not have the right to distribute every code that your GPL code uses then you can not use them or make them GPL.

If you are violating license directly or encouraging, enabling a license violation of the GPL product you are still violating...

From the GPL:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

If Joomla was LGPL then this wouldn't be an issue...
If Joomla owned all of the code they could LGPL and this wouldn't be an issue...

You keep trying to break a law by proxy when you say a User has rights to use that program...yes as a USER!
But you used that program as a developer! You wrote the derivative book and you gave them the gun that is smoking. YOU are in violation for Joining the proprietary to the GPL!

Proprietary can only be joined to LGPL. It is totally forbidden to facilitate it's use with GPL!

Until someone wants to get in touch with the literally 100's of developers who have worked on Joomla/Mambo over the last 17 years and then try to find some 10-20 folks who wrote a GPL library 16 years ago and then dropped off the face of the earth there is no way for Joomla to give you an exemption until all of that code hets replaced!

Anyone here willing to find all of them?
No pay involved...after all it's GPL!

[joomla]

#1 It's NOT POSSIBLE to contact all the contributors.
#2 We have no desire to grant exceptions to the GPL. Joomla is what is it today because it is GPL. We intend to endure it stays that way.

Hope it helps.