Sat 14 Jul 2007 |
Another case of the Stupids
Written by Louis Landry
Today, a third party developer (and potentially more than one) received some demands from Barrie North such as:
Barrie North writes: " Your license violates the GPL as defined by the recent Joomla core team decision. You must have a GPL compatible license."
Barrie North writes: " Additionally, please provide me with the source code of your extensions as is required by the GPL license and the Joomla core team."
The statements made in the email are utter nonsense, and carry an undercurrent of fear, uncertainty and doubt to new heights of ridiculousness. The Core Team urges anyone who may have received, or who receives in future, a similar message to take it for what it is ... a grain of salt from a misguided shaker.
Let's talk facts for a few moments.
To state that the GNU GPL is defined by the Joomla! Core Team is patently absurd. The GNU GPL is self-defined and for an understanding of how it may or may not affect you, you must take into account variances in copyright law for the jurisdiction in which you live.
The recent Joomla! Core Team decision was a decision about the licensing of Joomla! -- not third party developers. Is there a potential impact on third party developers? Absolutely there is. Is the sky falling down as some would have us believe? NO!
- Firstly, as an end user you cannot demand source code for a work. If a GNU GPL license violation occurs, only the upstream copyright holders (Developers with contributed code, etc.) can demand compliance with their license. What this means is that an upstream copyright holder can revoke the license granted and force them to either comply or stop distribution.
- Secondly, it seems the writer of the above email fails to understand the nuances of the situation. As the Joomla! team has previously stated and evidently the writer refuses to accept, just because an extension developer releases a work which may violate the Joomla! license does not automatically make it a GNU GPL released extension. What it means is that the extension developer has violated the Joomla! license. No one has the right or authority to make demands of the extension developer in this manner because his license has not been violated.
- Thirdly, remarks such as these assume that the work in question is in fact a derivative work of Joomla!. In the email above, the writer states, "You must have a GPL compatible license." which is true if the work in question is a derivative of Joomla!. The Joomla! Core Team has stated that we believe most extensions are derivative works and thus are subject to the terms of the Joomla! license, however we cannot make blanket statements on the matter. The writer seems to have done the research in this particular case to determine that the extension in question is in fact a derivative work which is particularly interesting given that Mr North is a listed member of the JCD-A which believes, "we assert that our extensions are not derivative of Joomla! and that they can be released under non-GPL compatible licenses".
- Lastly, the Joomla! Core Team would like to thank those of you out there who have managed to keep a level head and have endeavored to understand the situation instead of succumbing to the rumor mongering that some would have us believe. Joomla! is a wonderful project with a wonderful community. It is really sad that I am even forced to address this situation as the whole episode is tantamount to an insult to the intelligence of developers and users of Joomla! and all GPL licensed software.
There has been an enormous effort to vilify the Joomla! Core Team for attempting to inform the Joomla! community about the nuances and impacts of the license Joomla! is released under. This is the same license that all previous releases of Joomla! have been licensed under. It is really unfortunate that certain people want to attack a group of unpaid volunteers over something as basic as helping people understand our license.
Note:
I would be glad to post the entire text of the email sent if granted permission from the author. If any of you would like to see the email in its entirety I suggest you ask Mr. North himself.
Edit:
Those of you wondering about the title of this post I would direct you to my previous post title: Fighting the Stupids
Edit2:
Several people have asked for the email headers from the specific email and have questioned whether or not the mail was sent by Barrie. Here they are in all their glory (with the exception of the references to the receiving party as that is irrelevant).
Delivered-To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Received: by 10.142.116.8 with SMTP id o8cs130580wfc; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.92.7 with SMTP id p7mr587508agb.1184255504424; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Received: from perth.directrouter.com (perth.directrouter.com [72.249.48.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o29si22957061elf.2007.07.12.08.51.44; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 72.249.48.2 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) Received: from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ([xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx] helo=[192.168.1.102]) by perth.directrouter.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >) id 1I90xC-0003Pf-T9 for This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:51:43 -0500 Message-ID: < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:51:36 -0400 From: Barrie North < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Reply-To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Subject: Your license violates the GPL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - perth.directrouter.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - xxxxxx.xxx X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - joomlashack.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir:
Not to mention that I have received personal communication from Barrie that he indeed composed and sent the email. I hope that can be put to rest.
As to the full contents of the email, I have asked Barrie for permission in the same email exchange for me to post the full contents and have yet to receive a response. I would love to be able to post it in its entirety but choose to not do so until he has stated he is alright with doing so.
I will go a step further in saying that there are good people at Joomlashack. No one should judge the company (or any group for that matter) by the actions or intentions of one member. I in no way believe or assume that the entirety of the JCD-A supports this action more than I believe or assume that the entirety of Joomlashack supports this action.
Also, I will take this opportunity to communicate clearly with the community yet again that, "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. We are very much aware that a lot of people make their living around Joomla!, and we are sensitive to producing sudden disruptions in livelihoods."
I am truly sorry for having to do this, but I had no idea how many people had received this and if any third party developer had told me that a mail like this was received no matter who they were, I would have acted in the same way.
I want to make it extremely clear, no one has the legal right to demand source code of a work. The only demand that can be made is for license compliance and even then only by someone whose license you violate.
2007-07-14 01:55:09
2007-07-14 04:05:03
Ignoring Barrie's actions, there seems to be some double standards developing as to how one can comment/discuss/debate on the Joomla site.
2007-07-14 04:21:30
Perhaps a detailed, situational FAQ is in order? That way, various entities in various situations (developers, end users...) can find answers easily.
2007-07-14 06:35:26
I vote the next post in this series be titled 'Ignore the Stupids'...and they might just go away......
2007-07-14 06:47:04
2007-07-14 07:21:04
Phil - You are right. There *are* double standards in this community. A small group contributes - and a WHOLE BUNCH OF US, myself included, get to take FULL advantage of the software provided us free, as in beer and free, as in liberty! How fair is that? We don't pay for it and we don't have to help with it and we don't even have to say thank you. Now, shut your mouth! The double standard works for me just fine!
2007-07-14 08:03:11
I understand that the coreteam has to answer to these attacks, and Louis thanks for that.
In the meantime I'm enjoying working with Joomla! everyday and am in happy anticipation off 1.5.
2007-07-14 08:55:26
2007-07-14 09:29:50
Still, I can understand the frustration that would lead someone to do something silly like that - not least of which is the heavy-handed censorship currently going on in the forums that stifle any attempts to ask for accountability from the core team, no matter how innocently such requests are worded.
Amy, that was very rude. Phil made a very valid point, which you failed to counter by telling him to 'shut his mouth'. This used to be a great community. Now it is falling apart.
2007-07-14 09:31:31
I would also like to offer some words of caution. Everyone is ignorant (stupid to put it more harshly) about something. The trouble is that we don't all admit this and attempt to limit our deficiencies.
While I sympathize with your frustrations it is important to not allow snowballs of ignorance to get turned into an avalanche of discontent by engaging in any exchanges that could injure someone's pride and thus arouse resentment. Negative emotions within any organization (especially volunteer organizations) can become a cancer and cancer is deadly. :?
2007-07-14 09:42:11
jk
2007-07-14 09:52:25
I understand and agree with your sentiments. This is the very reason that the Joomla! team has not historically stated anything like this. I can also assure you that regardless of whatever anyone else says (and I am sure they will) the very last thing I wanted to do was make this post today. I personally would like nothing more than to let all of these things stay behind us as we continue building the project I/we all love.
I would love nothing more than to spend my time working on the code base and building "cool stuff" instead of having to constantly fight misinformation and answer questions from frantic developers who think they are under attack for some silly reason.
The sad truth, however is that this is not the first instance of something like this. Far from it. Generally we as a team "let it go" and turn a blind eye to them and assume that most people will see through it. In this particular instance I have no idea how many people received similar emails or demands in other forms. The demands were made citing the Joomla! Core Team , and I cannot in good conscious allow that sort of message run rampant.
I will also say that from even a cursory glance for the person involved in this email it appears the arousal of resentment ship sailed quite some time ago. I regret sincerely that it has come to this, but given the circumstances I felt it was necessary.
As for the title of the post, If you read the first post entitled: "Fighting the Stupids" you will see I am in fact talking about a fictitious disease and referencing the slogan of a bookstore. It is tongue in cheek and honestly if we can't have a little fun with words -- why are we taking ourselves so seriously?
@Phil:
I appreciate your comments and can understand why you feel that way, but the level of disrespect that had been encountered towards our moderators even to the point of publishing home phone numbers of three such moderators -- two of them women, with a message to harass them we felt there was little choice.
The reason that individual was able to pull that off knowing that the post would get deleted was because he/she knew that there were a lot of people who had subscribed to that particular thread and were getting email notifications.
It is abhorrent and while I agree that an adult dialog and discourse would be better, I am not willing to subject anyone to that sort of inane behavior and I would not expect the forum moderators to subject themselves to it either.
As for ignoring the actions mentioned in the post above ... I think it is unfortunate that you do, but that is your prerogative.
Louis
2007-07-14 10:03:42
Kirk....well said indeed! Amy, your comment to me simply had the effect that Kirk describes. It wasn't discussion, it was attack - something I've not tried to engage in.
Louis...please don't tar me with the same brush as those who misbehave! Those who resort to such petty comments and behaviour as you describe are difficult to deal with and my sympathy goes to the moderators. My argument has always been about the notion of 'community' and that the community (as a group) should get the opportunity to discuss and debate...not for users to have to post and then engage in conversations that the are exclusively between moderator/s and one user. But I'm repeating myself as I have said that in the forum. I'll end it there.
2007-07-14 10:19:29
Louise, thank you for your explanation. I can understand that you get upset about things like that, certainly when it comes from an esteemed member like Barrie North.
And those attacks on the moderators, horrible, I hope the IP addresses of those attackers are banned.
But I have to agree that certainly the core team should not call people stupid, we can derive at that conclusion ourselves. I think it lowers you to their level. I know it is hard, but please think about it in the future.
2007-07-14 10:36:09
We let open discussions go on for over 2 months before putting in the system that is now in place. We tried our absolute best to keep the conversation productive and civil but some members of the community repeatedly demonstrated that they were unable to handle the responsibilities that come with participating in an open discussion. I honestly don't see what else we could have done, the conversation took a severe dive in civility and basic demonstrations of respect and consideration. I don't know if you followed the discussion for the 2 months before the announcement was made but from your reaction here I assume you did not follow it very closely or you have a much higher tolerance for the inane than most people I know.
Regardless of that, I agree with you completely, the community should get the opportunity to discuss and debate about this topic. We gave them the opportunity to do that and they demonstrated that they could not handle it. People say we are violating the communities trust by moderating the issue so heavily, I think you should look at it from our perspective. We trusted the community to be civil, to act like adults, and to engage in discussion in the topic in a reasonable manner. They violated the trust that we placed in them and until they can redeem themselves and show that they deserve that trust again, I see no point in changing the policy. But, that is just my personal opinion and when it comes down to it, it isn't my decision.
Kind regards,
Rob Schley
2007-07-14 11:42:09
Barrie is a grown up. He is supposed to be running a serious company. We all understand that like all developers he needs to find a way to operate within the terms of the gpl. I cannot begin to imagine what he was thinking with such an email. I can only hope that he sent it only to this one developer and did not spam all of the small commercial developers.
2007-07-14 13:17:37
For me it's simple, I don't use encrypted extensions, because I can't and regardless of whether they are GPL or commercial or FOSS or whatever acronym, they just go against my own feeling of open source, and because I am using Joomla and extensions in the defense industry, I cannot use encrypted software. One 3PD respected this of me and released the source code to me, but others have not, so I couldn't use them.
2007-07-14 13:26:13
Thank you.
2007-07-14 13:29:35
I receive Barries emails (promotionals). I did not receive this.
Could you kindly provide the full text for all to judge?
Additionally, if you would provide the 'headers' of the email, this matter could be put to rest immediatly.
2007-07-14 13:31:42
Thank you
2007-07-14 13:39:04
Calling people Stupid, even tongue in check, is acting in just the way (incivil, insulting) you justify the closing of all GPL discussions with.
There is talk about an email, which "someone" recieved, without the full content of that mail, and assumptions about *possible* other people who may have recieved it also (trying to imply this was a large-scale action when in fact the mail was just sent to one particular dev), without ANY backing up or evidence this is true.
If you can post a few lines, out of context, from a mail which you weren't the recipient of (what about privacy?), you may as well post the whole mail so everyone can understand why it would've been sent, and what the reasons for above quote may have been in the context of the whole mail. As-is, it's worthless and just FUD.
Will the person who recieved this mail step forward and tell us why he felt the need to forward private correspondence to a third person?
There was absolutely no need to name any person or business, except if you want to damage them personally. The point could've been made just the same without these details. It's the same as posting moderator phone numbers on the forum, don't you think?
"Firstly, as an end user you cannot demand source code for a work." is wrong, if the code in question is GPL, the author has the obligation to provide it to anyone.
rob, as I said before: it is because you let the opne discussions go on for 2 months WITHOUT core intervention mostly, so that everyone was more and more worried every day, that posts started to go out of line! And it was not "the community" that demonstrated open discussion is not possible, it was a few people, for which now over 100.000 have to bear the consequences of your decision... It's overgeneralization to put everyone into your "they" bag, and "redemption"? Are you serious? That would have to come from everyone, mods included... I think the dev's felt as much of their trust in Joomla violated as you maybe because of some uncivil posts.
Elin, where did you read that "like all developers he needs to find a way to operate within the terms of the gpl"? Are you now wanting to force dev's to code GPL-licensed work only?
2007-07-14 13:43:59
Secondly, without seeing the entire email it's difficult to judge those comments because they may well have been taken out of context. I'm not trying to pour scorn on Louis's post but I'd really prefer to read the whole email for myself, I certainly haven't seen a copy of it.
I myself have already received an email with a similar content to that alleged above but from a different source, and as we're in the mood for quoting private emails here's the content of that message: "I really love your product but because of this violation I will have to pass. I am also sending this information to the proper authorities......I will not send this to anyone , nor talk negative about Jomres if you remove your blocks (encryptions) and stop charging for Jomres.". Personally, I don't respond well to blackmail, so he was politely told to go away.
I understand thererfore the feelings of the unnamed dev that Louis quotes and want to assure him that if he's content that his code is not derivative of Joomla then he doesn't need to respond to any emails that say otherwise and instead should refer their correspondents to the GPL. If he'd like he's welcome to join us at the JCD-A where this was discussed to death before we made our statement.
Finally, can I remind everybody that this is still, just, software. It doesn't matter how many hours we put into it at the end of the day it's just a bunch of code and life's too short to get so upset, so can everybody please keep some perspective? Statements like "Now, shut your mouth! The double standard works for me just fine!" are rude, ignorant and don't deserve a place on this forum.
2007-07-14 14:02:01
2007-07-14 14:11:24
"“Firstly, as an end user you cannot demand source code for a work.†is wrong, if the code in question is GPL, the author has the obligation to provide it to anyone."
That is partially correct and partially incorrect. According to the terms of the GPL, yes, the author has the obligation to provide source code to the work but it is not up to the user to enforce the terms of the license.
I will try to illustrate, lets call the user Bob, the developer who is not distributing the source code Jack, and an upstream developer of the work that Jack's code is based on, Jose.
Bob is the recipient of some code that is a derivative of a GPL work (just entertain the idea for the sake of the illustration, regardless of how you feel on the issue). Jack does not want to give the code to Bob. But, the terms of the GPL that Jack agreed to when using the work that Jose created says he must distribute source code to the people he distributes his work (that is based on Jose's work) to.
The license violation actually occurs between Jack and Jose, thus Jose can tell Jack to either distribute in a compliant way or stop distributing. Bob can complain if he wants but he has limited legal right to demand the source code from Jack, the user never gets rights to enforce the license, only the upstream developers do. The license agreement that mandates that Jack must distribute the code that he produces based on Jose's work was executed between Jack and Jose--not Jose and Bob.
It is a very common misunderstanding and one that I did not understand fully until just recently.
====
I did not say the dev's feeling are invalid or unwarranted, I was simply pointing out that it is not a one way street. As for the use of redemption, that was probably a bit strong, I would really just prefer that everyone starts acting like adults again.
Kind regards,
Rob Schley
Edit: to clarify the example
2007-07-14 14:28:40
Joe - I hardly know what to say to you, my friend. How can you possibly equate warning other 3PDs that they are not required to hand over their non-GPL programs in the name of Joomla! with someone publishing personal contact information for moderators? I do *not* understand that sense of right and wrong. Not even kind of.
Listen. The decision has been made. It's time, now, for each person to make their free choice. If you are in - get in here! Be a part of this and help make things happen. But, if you can't get behind where Joomla! is going, fine! Move on. But, no more attacks on this community. We've had enough.
2007-07-14 14:34:53
You are right, I should have said "like all Joomla! third party developers he needs to find a way to operate in compliance with Joomla!'s gpl license." This can mean many different things, from licensing as gpl to producing a stand alone product to trying to develop a code based solution to waiting for a copyright holder to take action and then fighting it. I'm sure there are other approaches as well.
2007-07-14 14:57:55
Phil I understand the frustrations encountered in the GPL semi-moderated discussion forum. Maybe you missed it but the free reply threads that existed before exhibited a very immature nature on the part of some posters. If the Community had acted in a more adult manner then the steps taken would not have been needed. Many posters showed they were not capable of acting in an adult manner and therefore the right to freely post was limited to adult only replies. If the users had showed an ability to police themselves in an adult manner then there would be no need to take those drastic actions.
@ the topic at hand...
We must remember how easy it is to spoof emails as someone else in this day and age. I don't know Barrie personally and his affiliation with the JCD-A seems to conflict with the opinions expressed in this email. I would caution everyone to be careful in accusing anyone based on a electronicaly derived communication.
While a cynic could argue that this type of act might be a means to drive people into the JCD-A group to increase the disgruntled developer's groups numbers. We should not be making such accusations until proof of exactly where this email emanated from has been discerned.
I think innocent until proven guilty should apply here.
I think the point Louis made was the proper one in regards to no one can force a 3PD into GPL compliance at all. Not even the Joomla Devs can force someone to release Source code for their project. the rights of Joomla/OSM are merely related to enforcing the nature in which a project is distributed.
when a license violation is encountered the only thing that the license holder can truly enforce is a stop to that distribution.
This email is an obvious attempt at diseminating FUD or worse an attempt from some unscrupulous person who wishes to resell someone else's code thinking that they can make a killing by feeding off the many fears that are being passed around. Truth is whoever sent this email I hope will be the first person brought to court on this subject. Not for license violation but for Blackmail!
2007-07-14 15:45:07
If someone is doing things to falsely accuse Barrie and set the Joomla! core team to take action, it is equally as horrible as publishing contact information for the moderators. Why attack our community this way?
This is madness.
2007-07-14 15:51:05
As Aspyx said, "innocent until proven guilty should apply here". Before I personally read the email, read it under the context it was written, and verify the sender, I would take both, your announcement and this blog post, with a grain of salt.
2007-07-14 16:40:08
A solution to at least SOME of this has really been available for awhile, and only one person here has mentioned it. Why is there no SITUATIONAL FAQ, created and endorsed by an actual third party legal authority?? The main cause of this supposed 'case of the stupids' (which by the way, IS a bit immature - two wrongs don't make a right) is that whenever there's a vacuum of information ("I cannot answer that because I'm not a lawyer"...or..."that's a legal issue I won't answer") people are going to try and fill it with their own interpretations. I understand the reluctance and wisdom of not offering legal advice when you're not a lawyer - but in the absence of any one definitive answer to some basic questions people had after 67+ pages of posts, what would you expect??
The Foundation has legal counsel on tap, and there are other recognized authorities in the industry that can answer the questions people have; why aren't we working TOGETHER to have them respond and answer these questions in a neutral atmosphere?
Now, have some developers been spreading misinformation, whether intentionally or unintentionally? Sure, I've seen it myself. And are core members and volunteers doing the same thing? I've seen that too. You're seeing an example here; I'd have to say, that when you publish excerpts of an email out of context and expect others to judge a persons intent on it - then yes, absolutely you are further obfuscating the issues.
You accuse North of stating that "Joomla defines the GNU GPL" but that is not what he wrote. You quote him as stating that "Your license violates the GPL as defined by the recent Joomla core team decision. You must have a GPL compatible license.", which reads to me NOT that Joomla defines GNU GPL but that the SITUATION he is stating was defined by the recent core team decision.
Of course without seeing the full email, we'll never really be able to tell, will we? Stuff like this soles nothing and only serves to further 'draw sides'...
If you want a real solution we need to fill these voids with authoritative information. Perhaps start with a WIKI, with definitions of the terms being used (upstream developer, derivative works, etc.) and then go into some really easy basic illustrations of the GPL in practice. Once you've built a foundation of understanding, get into more involved questions from users/devs/3pds. This is not an easy landscape to understand and EVERYONE (including me) cna benefit from the educational resources.
Damn it people, the very name of this project is based on the English spelling of the Swahili word jumla meaning "all together" or "as a whole". It was chosen to reflect the commitment of the development team and community to the project! The online world is watching this closer than you think between Diggs and slashdots...let's get our act together and stop sniping.
While I personally support the Core Devs decision to support GPL, I have to say as someone who has been here since just before he fork (not as long as many here but still long enough to have a history!) I am definitely LESS supportive of the WAY the decision is being handled and implemented.
And while I understand WHY it's not being handled all that well - it's a big, complex and multidisciplined issue for a medium sized group of volunteers in a non profit - I don't see that ANY 'side' has a lock on handling it well. It's time to round up the community and call for sanity, civility and start acting like the team we started out as.
2007-07-14 16:47:13
you're making this more complicated than I meant it. If I buy or even "get" a GPL extension, as an end-user, I am free to ask for the source code, and it must be provided to me. Yes? Quote from GPL FAQs: "Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL..." (note: users!)
Amy, did you read what I wrote? I only equated using words such as "stupid" and personal attacks (naming people on an official blog) to what is forbidden in the forum rules and used as reason for closing off the GPL discussions?! Nothing else. This IS certainly wrong.
I've been a part of this for a long time now, and when I did not agree with decisions taken or statements made, I have always said so, not to everyone's liking for sure, so I do not intend to leave now because I do not agree with how this is handled (not the fact Joomla wants to enforce it's license, that's fine, but how the whole thing was first not communicated about, and then put out as a "fait accompli", then closed of to simple opinion statements talked to death by all mods instead of open discussion, and so far no help provided and no solutions offered other than "either comply or leave, seek legal advice"). As an end-user, I want and need some of the now commercial non-GPL extensions I use, and don't want them see go away. And I also don't want to switch CMS just because no effort is made to accomodate everyone. Is there a good reason *not* to do anything (like making the API LGPL) ?
I have never "attacked this community", I have expressed my disagreement with Core decisions and or how they are communicated (or not). I intend to keep doing so.
2007-07-14 17:00:55
The decision has been made. I don't disagree with the "feel" of your message. However, I think it would be fair to say that there were mistakes made by many, many, MANY of us.
I disagree, though, that answers are unavailable. Answers some people *want* are not available. But, the direction is clear. There is little else to say to people who wish to distribute J! extensions *except* comply with the GPL, or seek legal counsel to make certain your license choice is advisable. What more could be said? What more could be expected?
Now, people have to decide if they want to try to adapt to this difference in our community or not. I sincerely hope 3PDs will choose to stay, to try a GPL-compliant license and work with and trust the community to ensure they are still able to stay in business. I will do what I can to support them. I know many of us will do our very best.
That's where we are. We are at the individual person decision point. There are no more questions. The information is available. It's time to choose.
Joe - you are my friend and you are a friend to our community. I have never doubted that.
2007-07-14 17:29:10
Then I read the replies, and thought: "Where do people muster all this anger and irritation, and why do they bother?". I, for one, have no problems in admitting that I haven't quite understood all the nuances of the licensing issues yet, and I'm not alone. The problem is that people like me will always exist! Joomla! is attracting new users every hour (isn't it great?), both novices and professionals, and they will all have the same questions about licensing. The questions will never stop, trust me!
My point is: I have seen so many angry and annoyed posts lately, and I don't like the smell of it. In my, perhaps naive, head the Joomla! community is one of the best out there, with the most professional and nicest people, and I would hate to see it all go sour over licensing issues. Even Amy is pissed! No offense, Amy. Why can't we all be friends and fight for world peace and everlasting happiness? Kidding... :roll:
Of course, I understand that this is an important issue, but I'll hate to see people leave because of it. You with me?
Stian
2007-07-14 17:51:59
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,190577.msg902713.html#msg902713
2007-07-14 18:10:45
I 2nd that! As far as I can see he is pointing at what the REAL problem is: not the licensing in itself, but the failure (as far as us nitwits is concerned) in communicating what the actual licensing issue is, or something like that :?
Stian
2007-07-14 18:23:55
@eyezberg, @kaizen, providing legal advice for each extension is an impossible mission, the Core Team did his best trying to find legal advice and forwarding it. Is that legal advice applicable to any extension? No, it isn't, hence the unwanted "ask a lawyer" response. I am a lawyer and I tried to write some FAQs about the GPL. It was impossible for me to follow all the different patterns implied. Which is the only valid legal advice then? The license and a strict interpretation. If someone wants to play on a court or put their business in risk, is up to him/her and individualised legal advice is required (with international, IP, civil, consumers, etc, laws and technical analysis of both apps).
As a note, I have seen a lot of comments about app X accepting non GPL extensions but if you ask the copyright holder the same things we are asking the Core Team, the response would be exactly the same as app X is not the only copyright holder and only owns a joint copyright.
We need a solution and I am sure it will come sooner or later. It will be sooner if we work together. But to work together we need at least two parties willing to work on it.
2007-07-14 18:36:09
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,186865.0.html
2007-07-14 18:57:15
Of course it would be nice a common ground to develop a solution. Jinx said that the devs are open to seek a LGPL solution and may be some 3PDs would help too. Remember that they are non paid volunteers
This kind of solution won't be accepted by all, I am sure, because there will be some restrictions yet. We have seen how Joomla! was being distributed along with privative extensions and if this is just about money or about how can I productize your work even if you don't want me to do so we are not going to get any agreement, I guess.
2007-07-14 19:08:45
@ibnhafsun - to say that providing legal advice for each extension is impossible is also to declare that in fact NO ONE could know what is compliant and non-compliant, in which case why the change from status quo? Why declare that certain extensions may or may not be compliant without giving specific guidelines for what constitutes compliance - in plain English (or the native language of your choice of course
C'mon guys and gals, we created a CMS from nothing, took it through a fork and turned it into one the most popular and active open source projects on the planet! NOTHING IS *IMPOSSIBLE*, we simply need to stop flinging poo like a bunch of monkeys and evolve to the point where we are working together with mutual respect towards an actual solution to the misinformation and misinterpretations.
(My apologies to any Creationists offended by the proceeding remark - please insert your favorite deity...)
In short, your a lawyer - you found it impossible to interpret the GPL in this application to provide a FAQ. So how would you expect a bunch of NON ESQUIRES to do any better in THEIR interpretations? Given these conclusions, wouldn't the priorities for any coming together or understanding be the definitions of terms and some examples?
@eyezberg again - while I am flattered, I think the link you provided is an even more important read than my post. While I read many a LOOOONG thread on the subject, this one pager spoke volumes - thanks for pointing it out.
2007-07-14 19:15:51
I've never encountered a commercial extension distributed with Joomla, what are you refering to?
The problem is, Jinx did indeed hint at the possibility of making parts of the API LGPL eventually, but hasn't said anything since, and Louis said just the opposite in his reply in the linked thread ("I can also tell you that I personally have no intentions of modifying the Joomla! core code base for the sole purpose of facilitating proprietary extensions."), so apparently these points of view are contradictory, what are we to think now..?
2007-07-14 19:41:18
And if I were Louis, I´d think exactly the same, even more after seeing some behaviours. Don´t you think so?
The proprietary devs try to protect their work to make money with proprietary licenses and that´s fine if they want to do so, and Louis or any developer releasing their work under the GPL try to protect their work to give us the four kinds of freedom. Remember, the GPL is not intended to give us the freedom to do whatever we want to do... If you want it don´t use the GPL.
Is the best license? It depends on your intentions and expectatives but, anyway, it was not our choice as Miro released Mambo under the GPL and all the subsequent works were contributed under the same license, including code copied from other GPLed apps.
Are we going to blame a GPL developer for releasing their work under the GPL and not a propietary developer? Do it if you want, but don´t count me in. Both, from a legal perspective, has the same rights and is up to them how they manage their IP. I will respect both.
So, even if Joomla! doesn´t accept a LGPL solution you are free to code it and distribute it and blah blah blah. Isn´t the GPL great?
However I am sure it won´t be so hard to get there if there is a will. Of course, if I were a business trying to make some money I´d try to find the cheapest solution. I am not, so I am open to find the best solution for all parties involved, the best solution for the project. If it is an "official" solution, nice. If it is not, nice too: that´s the power of the GPL.
2007-07-14 19:53:45
Please, if you don't want to support Joomla! anymore, which is your full right, leave. If you're all such hard working, excellent developers, starting your own CMS will be a minor investment.
Your actions and behaviour are a threat against Joomla! and Open Source in general.
2007-07-14 20:28:21
Also, all comments must be approved before they are visible. This is the way it has always been. Sometimes they are approved quickly, sometimes, it takes a while. Regardless of how long it takes for them to be approved, they are still published in the order that they were received.
Thank you,
Rob Schley
2007-07-14 20:29:09
1. One does not have to look hard to find examples of sales of packages that have priorietary extensions preinstalled in Joomla!.
2. Don't mix up Louis talking about what he wants to spend his time on and licensing policies from the Core Team. Jinx's statement was, I believe about the framework not the CMS.
@Robert
What we know for sure is that extensions released under GPL or GPL compliant licenses are compliant. For the vast majority of extension developers that continues to mean that the best, simplest, most cost effective and least risky approach continues to be to license under GPL.
Approximately 15% of extensions in the JED are "commercial" and we don't yet know how many of those may be commercial gpl compliant. However, for that small number of developers, including a number who release large and expensive extensions it is going to be the case that only an examination of the source code and how it interacts with Joomla! is going to be the only way to determine whether or not it is a derived work.
Each developer is going to have to do a cost/benefit analysis about this in order to determine how to proceed.
2007-07-14 20:34:01
"If I buy or even “get†a GPL extension, as an end-user, I am free to ask for the source code, and it must be provided to me. Yes? Quote from GPL FAQs: “Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL…†(note: users!)"
That is completely correct. However, the particular question was who has the right to enforce those terms. That is what I was clarifying in my previous posts.
Regards,
Rob Schley
2007-07-14 21:13:50
1. Check out Drupal's policy (http://drupal.org/node/7765) on 3PD licensing of modules. "Please note that all code which is committed into the Drupal CVS repository must be covered under the terms of the GNU General Public License." If it's on Drupal's site, it's GPL. Period. That is 100% of the licensing guidelines from Drupal.
2. Maybe Joomla! should just say that, too, if simplicity is what people want. Instead, they have recommended legal guidance if you want to license with a non-GPL compatible license.
3. For those objecting to Joomla! recommending you have such advice, Mambo's FAQ is similar: "Third party developers should therefore always obtain their own legal advice as to whether their licensing model is appropriate given the way that their software interacts with Mambo or other software licensed by third parties." http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/showthread.php?t=5922
4. Joe - The Core CMS will continue to be GPL like it always has been; the API, itself, will be LGPL. That has been consistently stated.
5. Robert - Elin is (as she has done for us for in so many other functional areas) organizing information into an easy to understand FAQ for everyone http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,183756.0.html. @Joe - you look in there, you will see clear statements on the future API licensing.
There is no reason for further debate. Their decision has been made. We get the Joomla! application for free, as in beer and free, as in liberty. What we do not get is licensing rights over their work. With that in mind, it's time for each of us to choose. Do you want to join with us, or not? I hope you trust our community to make it work.
2007-07-14 23:20:08
2007-07-14 23:23:24
2007-07-15 00:06:37
Mr. North not only admitted to the act, but fully expected the email to be shared as per his original post on the JCD-A forums. That post has now been edited to drastically change the context from the original post, to not include the statement that his intent was for the email to be shared, but to specifically state now that the email was a private email.
If anyone should want clarity I would suggest you give up on the idea, as clarity has been demonstrated to be frequently changing, which would equate to being actually non-existent.
2007-07-15 00:44:31
The rest of us value those developers who are out there figuring out ways to work with Joomla! and producing useful tools for those of us who actually have websites to run. We do not use people as pawns. The idea that someone would deliberately seek to get a young developer in trouble with his employer is appalling to me. The idea that this person would actually boast about having done so in a public forum is shocking.
All along we have known that there were a small number "big" developers and a large number of "small" developers. That one of the big--the ones who actually have the resources to hire intellectual property lawyers among other things-- would deliberately attack one of the small is so far beyond the pale that I cannot even express my disappointment.
2007-07-15 00:55:24
His part in a fear campaign, now positively identified, sees ole Elmer with no clothes on. The alliance would do well to distance itself from this disaster, as to me Mr North seems to have been a driving force of negativity throughout.
Personally an apology for this idiocy should be a requirement. I don't want your version of clarity Mr North I want to hear you say you're sorry.
We're waiting.
2007-07-15 02:31:44
Louis said "...there are good people at Joomlashack", in my opinion implying that Mr. North is not a good person. I would like to go on record as saying that Mr. North is a very good person who, as far as I know, has given more to this community than anyone other end user. You may disagree with him on this issue, and you may disagree with his methods of getting his point across, but shame on you for implying that he is not a good person. I see your blog post as nothing more than a personal attack on Mr. North, and not merely an attempt to "educate". Certainly his is not the first e-mail sent to a 3PD demanding source code. Why did you choose to point out his e-mail in this post and not the others? For that matter, why was it necessary to even use his name?
2007-07-15 02:41:53
Whatever the reason was for his email, this seems to be a public flogging that wouldn't occur elsewhere on the Joomla site, so why is it happening here?
2007-07-15 04:25:19
2007-07-15 04:50:34
http://www.joomlashack.com/joomlashack/about-us/
I haven't forgotten how Joomlashack got here in the first place.
_Casey
2007-07-15 05:05:45
"A person’s life just got turned upside-down..."
With all due respect, Andrew, a lot of people's lives have been turned upside down in the past month or two. Whether you agree with them or not, the 3PD's (of whom, I am not one) see the core team's recent decision as a threat to their livelihoods.
"Louis/Joomla! have done the right thing making people aware that they don’t have to put up with it. I would have done the same on my watch in this project."
Would you have done it with all of the previous similar e-mails sent to 3PD's, or would you also have waited until someone as high-profile as Mr. North sent such an e-mail? I personally believe that Louis' message could have been communicated without the need for the personal attack on Mr. North.
I am not debating whether or not Mr. North's (or anyone of the other people to have sent similar e-mails requesting source code) actions were right or wrong. My only point is that this blog post is a blatant personal attack on Mr. North. It was an attempt to humiliate him and damage his reputation in the community more than it was an attempt to "educate". If it were purely an attempt to "educate", then there would be no need to drag Mr. North's name through the mud.
2007-07-15 05:26:34
I think forking away from Mambo qualifies me as having walked that path before.
2007-07-15 05:34:47
"I think forking away from Mambo qualifies me as having walked that path before."
I know who you are, and I know that you were the project leader of Mambo/Joomla during the split. In fact, I have a lot of respect for you and all that you have done, much like I have great respect for every person who has contributed to Joomla. However, I'm not sure I understand your point. Would you care to explain what you mean? I'm not trying to be rude to you. I sincerely just do not understand your point.
Thanks!
2007-07-15 05:53:13
2007-07-15 14:06:49
You say above there were / are other examples of similar shared (spammed) misinformation. Simple question: why didn't you bring these incidents to the attention of this community?
Before you come back to defend your 'friend' take a step back and consider just what your boss has been doing. It's here in black and white.
2007-07-15 14:36:25
I'm not sure how defending my friend makes me "an apologist for this behaviour"? I have not said whether or not I agree with or condone his behavior. That is no my intent in posting in this thread.
For you to say that Mr. North is not a victim of a personal attack here is mind blowing to me. This blog post is a transparent attack against Mr. North.
By the way, just a point of clarification, I am not an employee of JoomlaShack.
2007-07-15 15:43:54
@Jon
Please ensure you engage in thorough fact checking before you make any further comments, or at least provide a real name and URL rather than hide behind anonymity.
2007-07-15 16:14:20
@ Mr North, if I am wrong in suggesting that Wasseem Sadiq and Dean Marshall have tendered resignations I hereby sincerely apologise.
Now if you stated some untruths in an ill-conceived email what would you do? I'd certainly hope you wouldn't try and spin the situation and threaten.
Still waiting ... (what for?) Still waiting for an explanation and apology.
2007-07-15 17:46:09
I know not, who or what a 'Jon' is - nor where he gets his information. I can confirm that I have been a PART-TIME CONTRACTOR with JoomlaShack for fifteen or so months and that I have decided to part company with 'the shack' at the end of this month (amicably).
I would refute any insinuation that this is because my own views and that of Barrie or anyone else in JoomlaShack are at odds on the GPL issue. The GPL issues, the Joomla teams handling of this situation and their decision to pre-emptively 'protect us' from an apparently non-existent threat are certainly factors.
Also though I have my own business interests to take care of - I am taking time out to re-assess where I personally am and where I want to be. The JoomlaSphere has not become the place it was originally intended to be.
I thank you for your interest in my personal affairs - but I'd appreciate you not publishing my business far and wide before I myself do so.
For anyone who wants to read my thoughts on the situation and clarification of my reasons for leaving JoomlaShack then please visit:
http://www.deanmarshall.co.uk/
Dean Marshall
2007-07-15 19:59:59
Any more comments about internal affairs of a company will be deleted. This post is not about Joomlashack. It is not about the employees or members of Joomlashack. It is about unwarranted, inaccurate and misleading emails being sent to third party developers for the apparent purpose of a fear campaign.
@Dean, I am very sorry you were dragged into this. It is unfair and inappropriate.
@Jon, this is not the place for that sort of thing. Frustration is one thing, asking for an apology is one thing ... but don't drag people into this that don't deserve it.
2007-07-15 20:18:36
I am indeed the Cory you are thinking of, but to be clear, I am not an employee of JoomlaShack. I am an independent freelancer who does part-time freelance work for JoomlaShack. I am proud to consider myself a part of their team, because they have consistently produced top-quality work and given so much back to the Joomla community.
I am not defending Mr. North because of my work with JoomlaShack as a freelancer. I have nothing to gain from that. In fact, I see my decision to speak out as a risk, because I am defending someone whom people like yourself seem all too eager to vilify without even an attempt at understanding his point of view ("I don’t want your version of clarity Mr North I want to hear you say you’re sorry." - Jon).
Not only do you wish to drag Mr. North's name through the mud, but you also seem willing to attack his business and people who are involved in his business over an e-mail that he sent regarding an issue over which you and he disagree. So, in defending Mr. North, I have put myself out there and made myself vulnerable to attacks from people like you.
Why do I defend Mr. North? I defend him because I consider him a friend. Not only a friend to myself, but a friend to this entire community. He has given much to the Joomla community over the last 21 months, and he deserves our thanks for that.
I will repeat myself, just so we're clear. I am not trying to condone or defend Mr. North's actions in this case. I am trying to defend his character, which I know to be solid.
One more point, them I am (hopefully) done responding to this thread. I have the utmost respect for the core team and for every individual who has in some way, shape, or form contributed to this great project and community. I have been a part of this community for almost 4 years since the Mambo days, and I have seen a lot of ups and downs in that time. I certainly see this as a down time, and my hope is that there can be level-headed, reasonable attempts at reconciliation, and an attempt to find a solution that will satisfy people on both sides of the issue. There are no good guys or bad guys here, only people who believe one side or the other on a very divisive issue. People with beliefs on both sides of the issue have contributed greatly to what Joomla is today, and I hope that both sides recognize that and are able to find compromise.
2007-07-15 20:25:11
I was writing my post while yours was being posted, so I didn't read it first. Hopefully, I didn't break your rule about the internal affairs of a company. Rather, I was writing about my own personal affairs (which, as you pointed out, I should not have had to do).
Thanks,
Cory
2007-07-16 05:01:42
Yes, it was OpenSourceMatters.
So, trying to figure out what do (at least some) 3rd party developers of proprietary extensions want I came to conclusion that they would like to turn general idea behind this project to something else.
They are following the path of some very intelligent stock mammals pictured in Orwell's 1984. They would like to add something to this clear statement, which is also a rule protected by the GPL.
What would they like to add? Something like "...but proprietary 3rd party developers matter more". Well, you don't! The idea reaches further than you, me or even The Joomla! project itself.
I don't expect you to understand this. I merely ask you to stop your misinformation. I do admit that you use some smart and cunning techniques to achieve your goals. Beware not to kill your host in the process. Joomla! Community already suffers from your deeds and who knows how it will reflect on Joomla!'s future.
I believe that most of you still have given more to the project than inflicted harm. Back out.
It is said repeatedly that GPL will put you out of business, destroy lifehoods and so on. You seem to blame Core, Foundation, lawyers and community for this. You are business man so tell me how sane is businessman which doesn't know environment his doing business in. How respectful employer, father man can he be?! Joomla! license was GPL from the start. It did not change a bit whether Core made recent statement or not. You did know that. You couldn't miss it!
GPL is what put you in business in first place. Joomla! being open source is on of major reasons of its popularity. And it is Joomla! popularity that keeps your business spinning.
Last question: Would you be where you are if there were no free sources of knowledge and no open source to study and develop? Taking it away is not cutting of branches below you so nobody can reach you. It is cutting of the tree you are sitting on!
2007-07-16 05:07:42
2007-07-16 05:44:25
I agree my last post is emotional, but it doesn't provide false or deformed information and doesn't insult anyone.
2007-07-16 11:38:01
I don't appreciate my private business being broadcast on this or any other forum. I have for a long time been a dedicated member of this community, I help out at Joomla events, I'd like to think that over the years I've helped a fair few people on their Joomla journeys and this is what I get?
Allied to this fact I don't have a clue who Jon is - he's not someone I know or have ever (to my knowledge) spoken with!
It is true that I have been a member of the Joomlashack team for the best part of two years, and it is also true that I have decided to go my own separate way, however I do not appreciate that this information has been broadcast on the Joomla.org site - I did inform one or two people in the strictest of confidence that I might be looking for projects to get involved in, if any of those people (you know who you are) have gone and spread my private business around the community then shame on you!! I feel extremely let down by people who I thought were friends within the community.
I'd like to now make ABSOLUTELY clear that my decision to leave Joomlashack has NOTHING to do with the recent Joomla licensing issue, I empathise with the commercial developer community but at the same time I understand the need for the Joomla core to clarify it's commitment to Joomla's GNU/GPL License.
Although I don't agree with Barrie North's decision in this matter with regards to the way he's conducted himself over this email communication - knowing Barrie as I do I'd suggest that however naieve the decision it would have been taken in utter frustration on Barrie's Behalf.
Waseem Sadiq
2007-07-16 14:39:11
My last post was not directed to you...just the general direction of where this thread is headed
2007-07-16 16:08:22
I think you are confusing 1984 with Animal Farm. But you are right, Animal Farm is an appropriate tale for this issue, but probably not in the way you think. While George Orwell was a great believer in communism, and would heartily approve of the ideals behind opensource (and no, I'm not equating opensource with communism!), these books are telling tales of how such ideals can go bad in practice.
One of the themes in Animal Farm is how divisions are bad, and people encouraging and leveraging these divisions for their own benefit can corrupt the very things they claim to uphold. Much like this whole avoidable Joomla fiasco. We need to heal this community, and this community includes everyone.
Animal Farm: a story where the animals overthrow the oppressive farmers and set up a true egalitarian ideal. The pigs stand forward as leaders of the community as they are more knowledgeable, and develop this further. In-fighting breaks out amongst the pigs, and some are thrown out of the community. The remaining pigs become harsher and more self-serving and subvert the ideals the community believed in until they are indistinguishable from those they overthrew, while in the process the remainder of the community are much worse off.
If anyone is potentially being thrown out of this community it is the proprietary developers.
Proprietary developers and GPL developers are very different animals. But in the egalitarian ideal, none should be outcast, all are equal. Proprietary developers are not asking to "matter more" just fighting against those who think they should no longer matter at all.
And it's in this fighting, in this fundamental assumption that there will be winners and losers, where the ideals of the community are lost whoever wins. Let us focus on how we can work together going forward together. Please.
2007-07-16 17:40:43
I was certainly surprised by Barry's email as it represents a new low in the reaction of community members to an issue that has been known to exist for years. The factors making it worthy of such a public review have already been commented on here and I agree.
We left the Mambo community because we felt there was a political land-grab going on. I don't understand how anything has changed for 3PDs with the recent public discussion of the derivative work question. This is NOT a political land-grab nor is it an ideological debate of why you should be giving your code away. Open-source means Free as in Freedom and that is not up for debate. Please ask yourself if you have you ever really believed it.
2007-07-16 21:54:30
Louis, if this post is "not about the employees or members of Joomlashack", why did you have to name one of them? This is not to forum, but has maybe even higher exposure. From Forum rules:
"Keep all commentary civil, and be courteous at all times. Constructive criticism is welcome, but insults directed towards other users or the site admins will not be tolerated. Coarse/insulting language will not be tolerated." Stupids x2 ?!
"This is not the place to settle a commercial disagreement for custom development or to be a 'wall of shame'. Any posts deemed to be of this nature will be removed. Settle your disputes in private please." Does the above mean the official blog IS such a place??
2007-07-17 04:22:37
2007-07-17 07:00:38
I can only refer to your ORIGINAL post on the jcd-a forums where you state you sent the email with every intent and knowledge that the email was going to be shared with the Joomla! Devs. You come out and actually state this as fact ( I have the screen shot of it) . You have now edited the post ( and perhaps edited it again since I saw it, but who cares after the first one where context and content are drastically changed, who wants to quibble over trivialities such as the actual TRUTH eh?
Re: The uncensored thread: RE Another case of the Stupids
reply#10 on: Today at 08:12:36PM
QUOTE:
"@all
I did indeed send a single email to a single 3PD developer* currently selling extensions that carry a non-GPL compatible license.
His extension is derivative (according to the core team). As such (according to the core team) his extension must have a GPL compatible license.
The developer in question (as I understand) is an employee of an OSM board member.
Quote
"It is our opinion that most extensions are derivative works of Joomla! and must be licensed under the GNU GPL." -Core Team statement
Quote
"You must have a GPL compatible license"-Quote from my email.
You can parse the email ad nauseum, but ultimately the developer (according to the core) has a derivative extension and a license that is non-GPL compliant.
"What it means is that the extension developer has violated the Joomla! license"-Louis's above blog
My point exactly. Because of the close nature of the connection between the dev and the core, I fully expected the developer in question to forward the email to the license holder (Joomla). I would also fully expect Joomla to ensure the developers compliance, especially as the dev is so closely tied to OSM.
Rather than engage in personal attacks based on a private email addressing a legal license issue, I would have hoped that the core would use that time to investigate the violation of their license by someone so close to the OSM board.
Barrie North
"
END QUOTE
So let us all look at the real reason why Barrie North did this. Draw your own conclusions, but please don't paint Barrie North as a victim. Please think of the developer he sent this to. That is the true victim. And in a greater sense we have all been made a victim by this email, because precious time has been taken away from all of us to deal with such a petty, malicious and ill conceived act against others.