Flash and Joomla News by Eyezberg

Joomla! goes GPL - again

GPL? What is that? If you don't know, you didn't pay attention during the installation process of your website. It is the license Joomla comes under. Some things you will want to know about this license, in order to understand what this post (and long discussions) are all about.
1. Software licensed as GPL is free in the meaning of: you can change it as you need, there is no charge for it (the software itself).
2. You are allowed to charge for the distribution of the software (the actual download, or sending it out on CD).
3. As the software itself is free, anyone who has a copy is allowed to distribute it, charging for this or not.

Joomla has always been released under this license. For a long time, ever since Mambo which still supports this, there was a policy of allowing commercial, even encrypted extensions to co-exist with Joomla. In the SVN code for 1.5, there even was a rider added for around 12 months, which recently was removed again.
The problem is that any limitation imposed on the distribution of an extensions makes it non-GPL. Same goes for encrypted code.
Most, if not all, commercial extensions are thus released under other licenses, which are not compatible with the GPL.
These extensions use calls to the Joomla API to run.

Recently one of the main developpers and projects leaders, after removing this rider, declared
a. that the rider was added illegaly as not all code contributors (thus license holders) were informed and asked for approval
b. that this rider should never have been added as it was not compliant with the GPL
c. that all extensions are to be considered as derivative works, and thus need to use the GPL license too
d. that Joomla will seek to enforce compliance within the community from now on.

This was started by a simple forum post, inviting developers and users to contribute their ideas and feelings about this.
The biggest thread ever in Joomla history started, went on and on for about 2 months reaching almost 2000 posts, and almost no core developer participated, or tried to clarify Joomlas intentions.
When the thread started to become really a bit much to manage, and pressure from both users and devs rose to certainly unexpected levels asking for a clear statement about the idea behind this "back to GPL but we've always been GPL", all of a sudden, apparently after recieving legal advice from the FSF, first there was a blog about this, and then 2 pages of posts/replies from Core members finally answering some of the questions.
The thread was then closed, shortly after some subforums opened for everything GPL related - the dicsussions still go on.
Posts were censored, threads closed.
Saka and Predator left the Core team because they do not agree with this change of policy.
Some working group members left also.
The Joomal Commercial Developers Alliance (JCD-A) was created.
So much for the last 2-3 months.

What is the problems for the developers of commercial extensions?
They can still sell their extension even if it's GPL.
But: they couldn't encrypt important parts of it anymore, and they can't keep anyone who has obtained a copy of their product from redistributing it for free!
This basically means they can't  protect their work if they want to comply fully with the license.

What is the resulting problem for end users?
Two possible answers:
1. popular commercial extensions continue to be sold as currently, in breach of the license, and they're fine because not the user must comply with the license, but the developer -each dev is responsible for his own license and enforcing it. But at some point Joomla / OSM could decide to enforce the GPL and have them close shop by legal means.
2. to avoid this issue, dev's decide they can't reasonably make an income with support and memberships instead of selling individual copies of their scripts, and stop development for Joomla, which thus looses much of it's capacities and interest.
3. devs decide to change their business model to comply, do not make enoughincome anymore and are forced to quit.

What do I think about all this? ...

1. Decisions as important as this should be a)better prepared, b)better communicated, c)better explained to everybody BEFORE discussions start. It has happened before in just the same way when the core dev team split from Mambo and created Joomla...
2. The rider, which made third party developers (3PD) think they were fine, existed for over a year. It was writen by an FSF lawyer. This preson must've been commissioned by someone from core to write this up for them. So questions: if Joomla was to be GPL always, as it includes third party GPL libraries, it needs to have a GPL license too, so this rider was a bad idea right away and should've never even been added. How can such an important modification make it's way into the SVN code without the core members knowing? How come no-one reacted for over a year? Why this sudden and quick reaction of removal now? Why no contact with the 3PD before anything was done?
At least some points were more or less clarified by Jick who stood up for his involvement: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,183784.0.html - thank you, much appreciated and exactly as it should've been communicted in the first place.

3. Everyone seemed and still seems to agree on the fact that one of the major strong points of Joomla is the wealth of extensions that are available, both free and commercial. When the split from Mambo was made, 3PD were encouraged to join forces with the core to build a new strong community. They contributed both free extensions, time to support users on the forums, some even more time for example in the working groups or Joomla Extensions site (JED) maintainance etc.
Now core members and pro-GPL users start saying those developers don't give anything back to Joomla, which is just plain nonsense.
Even if they didn't contribute anything on the forums as support, did never provide any bug reports, did not also offer free extensions, didn't donate part of their income, ... they'd still give to Joomla with their commercial extension as these increase the interest in Joomla itself and help spread the word about it's usefullness and capacities.
pasamios blog about GPL business models

4. I can understand the good it does to Joomla to be GPL (there is no such thing as "pure GPL" or "100% GPL", it's either dead or alive). You can use libraries provided by other developers, can re-use code from other GPL software etc etc...
I can not understand that considering the importance of the features provided by 3PD, there is nothing concrete done for them. And if there is, it is not being done now, at the same time as this was made public. Lots of energy is lost which could've moved 1.5 closer to Release Candidate. What I see is blogs offering examples of possible business models, which I wouldn't consider if I was selling extensions under non-GPl licenses. I see MANY references to lawyers and legal advice, but I do not see any concrete help telling developers what is needed to make compliant extensions (code-wise, not license). No details about what FSF considers, in the Joomla context, as derivative works. No acknowledgement of what 3PDs have contributed. No legal guidelines, no code help to maybe avoid having to go GPL... you'll each have to sort this on your own.
robs blog post

5. Who buys the most commercial extensions? Individual site owners, or website creators who sell solutions to clients and take advantage of existing extensions, which generally are quite inexpensive compared to the many development hours which would be requiered to code them, and fullfill many niche needs otherwise unavailable? Imho, I would think site integrators are the main business potential for 3PD, as they'll either buy multiple licenses for their clients, or developer licenses allowing them to re-use the same extension multiple times. These persons are the ones, with the devs themselves, who have the most to loose in this affair. Whom will they support, Joomla which is the basis of the sites they create, or the extensions which add the needed functionality to sell the site in the end? No more directories, hotel reservation systems, car selling, advanced private messaging etc etc..? Time will tell.

6. Templates were exempted from this need to comply, apparently the only thing which would have to be GPL is the index.php file with the calls to the Joomla API, the rest being considered as data and not code. Suggestion to 3PD: code your components for example in such a way that you can provide a GPL index.php main file which features all the calls to the Joomla API, and make the proprietary rest of the component interact with this file only so you can keep it commercial?!
Louis take on templates

Maybe this post could be a way to achieve this, but it does look a bit cumbersome and much more code than a "simple" extension currently needs (to non-coder eyes), and it needs for example CURL which not all users have.

7. What is the main problem made clear by all this mess? Communication, or rather the continuing lack of it. No global goal stated for the development of Joomla despite asking this various times during the last 2+ years (target user base, expected functionality...). No precise roadmap with some milestones with at least an ETA (which can always be revised, but at least gives dev's something to work towards, and users something to look forward to). No advance notice about important things in discussion internally. So there is nothing you can at least sligthly rely on. (hey, it's Open Source, you get all this for free.. so what? does free have to mean sloppy management?). 3PD left without help so far, and the problem for users might be that some do release as GPL in the future, but then are faced with the same dilema as with Joomla: the code is free, so you have no right to expect support or updates. Don't like the extension? Just find another one..
 
What now? Well, I'm not posting on the forums anymore, I am sick and tired of all those endless discussions. If you still have questions, you can use either the User GPL forum or the Developer forum. If you already have an opinion, you can add it here.

A post by grisbald that pretty much sums up what I think is here.

The only rays of hope that this will be settled in a manner convenient to both GPL advocating core and commercial extension developers sometime in the future are:
- reassurance for non-GPL going GPL that no other "versions" of the same extensions are featured on the extensions site and support request go to the original dev's site, thus removing visibility for rebrands
- aims to reach a complete separation of Joomla CMS and framework API in version 2.0 so that the API could be licensed as LGPL...

Let's see what happens. 

Comments (6) >>

Show/Hide comments

Elpie said:

My personal opinion only Eyez... This is the second time in less than two years that we have seen censorship, bannings, closing down of discussions, and misinformation that has divided an active, progressive community. The Joomla team didn't give a damn about the wider community when they picked up their ball and decided to start their own game with the fork from Mambo. Users were just *told* the developers had left the building. The community of users were invited into the new home to help build it. Having built it, with the first real Joomla release just around the corner, Joomla is now telling some of those "guests" that they are no longer welcome unless they accept new house rules. And for those who question the new rules, its "goodbye, go away, get legal advice or whatever, but shut the door behind you when you leave please". Good leaders communicate and listen. They set a direction and get buy-in from the people they have around them. Joomla could have avoided a lot of angst, if only they truly believed in community spirit and in the goodwill of their thousands of users. There was no need to take a parental attitude and dictate house rules. With some real leadership skills and a willingness to show respect for their users they could have got where they wanted to go and taken the community with them. The problem is not with what they have done, it is with how they have done it. Twice now - I wonder how many people will stay the distance to see in a third?

June 28, 2007 | url

HarryB said:

For a sane and rational discussion of the current state of affairs at Joomla!. I 've tired of seeing folks being constantly reminded in some not so subtle ways that if they show any empathy at all for the non-GPL developers and their users, they are somehow being rude to the Joomlla! core and "volunteers" and are not really welcome at the Joomla! forums any more. Regards, HarryB

June 29, 2007 | url

Bruno said:

Excellent Article and well written in simple English so everyone can understand the situation, the above two comments are valid and makes you wonder how the fork from Mambo was done in a way that makes you wonder how the majority of the joomla core team confront situations. I think that once joomla 1.5 goes stable then a nice long fork will be stuck in the bum of the joomla core team. Simple language to describe poor leadership and communication qualities from people that lack the abilities to manage.

June 30, 2007 | url

Mark said:

I agree with all of the comments here, I've just dropped a number of components I have had in build for commercial release because of this decision. I agree it smells of the Mambo fork times. I am now looking at alternative frameworks for applications in PHP, but I also wonder how this will all work. I can develop a component for Mambo, which will work equally well on Joomla, on Mambo I can release on any license I wish due to the rider...which still exists. The component will ofcourse work on Joomla (1.5 excluded). So I can legitimately market the component on Mambo and if users decided to use it on Joomla, what can I do to stop them.....nothing. Where is the line ?

July 04, 2007 | url

Eric said:

A few months ago I was reading through a forum on a topic and saw that a senior joomla guru had clearly given a cold brush off to someone who asked a simple question that could have been answered in one sentence, but he said, "Go read the manual." instead. I called him on it politely, saying why not just answer the question, and was banned from the forum for a month. I guess the core can do no wrong. Their GPL ploy will harm joomla and it's users, not help it. I would hate to see this happen. Joomla has so much potential because of all the great extensions, and their programmers deserve to be rewarded for their work. I bet the hard-core of the core don't depend on joomla for a living. I can't see that they are protecting joomla with this in any way. Joomla isn't harmed by proprietary extensions in any way. Question: Is an extension really derivative of Joomla if it doesn't actually include in its own code any of the code from joomla? I would think not. That would be like saying a Sony CD player is derivative of Ford's design for a Ford vehicle because it has to attach itself to the car's power supply for a stereo system. Maybe this is the answer: what is the legal definition of "derivative"? Doesn't that mean it has to take a part of another "work" and alter that part, rather than merely accessing it unaltered? I can see that a component or module that hacks/alters core files could be in a sense derivative, but not one that merely uses core files without altering them. Any thoughts?

July 16, 2007

zuzu said:

hello! Testing A few months ago I was reading through a forum on a topic and saw that a senior joomla guru had clearly given a cold brush off to someone who asked a simple question that could have been answered in one sentence, but he said, "Go read the manual." instead. I called him on it politely, saying why not just answer the question, and was banned from the forum for a month. I guess the core can do no wrong. Their GPL ploy will harm joomla and it's users, not help it. I would hate to see this happen. Joomla has so much potential because of all the great extensions, and their programmers deserve to be rewarded for their work. I bet the hard-core of the core don't depend on joomla for a living. I can't see that they are protecting joomla with this in any way. Joomla isn't harmed by proprietary extensions in any way. Question: Is an extension really derivative of Joomla if it doesn't actually include in its own code any of the code from joomla? I would think not. That would be like saying a Sony CD player is derivative of Ford's design for a Ford vehicle because it has to attach itself to the car's power supply for a stereo system. Maybe this is the answer: what is the legal definition of "derivative"? Doesn't that mean it has to take a part of another "work" and alter that part, rather than merely accessing it unaltered? I can see that a component or module that hacks/alters core files could be in a sense derivative, but not one that merely uses core files without altering them. Any thoughts?

July 22, 2007 | url

Write comment

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment