Sat 27 Dec 2008 |
JED to be GPL Only by July 2009
Written by Lorenzo Garcia
About Joomla! and the GPL
The Joomla Project is a GPL community, which means not just that a particular Free and Open Source license is used for Joomla software, but also that we believe in the mission and values behind that license. These include collaboration, community, and freedom. The GPL license embodies these values.
The Joomla Extensions Directory and the GPL
The Joomla Extensions Directory (JED) is important for many reasons: it makes it easier for users to find extensions, and it helps support the development of a vibrant and healthy commercial and non-commercial development community around Joomla. However, it may also be unintentionally undermining our support of the GPL by including extensions and other applications that run counter to it.
After careful thought and reflection, the Joomla Project has determined that the Joomla! Extensions Directory should be a community resource that fully embodies the project's values.
What Change Are We Making?
Starting on 1 March 2009 only Joomla! extensions licensed under the GNU GPL will be accepted into the JED. After another three months, from 1 July 2009, such extensions will no longer be listed in the JED. Under the same schedule, all encrypted or encoded extensions, whether or not they are GPL licensed, will also be excluded. Third party developers are a valued part of our community and in order to make this transition as easy as possible for them we selected a long notification period. This change is designed to strengthen the project's active commitment to its core mission, vision and values as articulated in September 2008.
Timeline
- June 15th 2007: Joomla! confirmed that both Joomla! 1.0 and Joomla! 1.5 are released under the pure GNU GPL.
- March 1st 2009: Only Joomla! extensions licensed under the GNU GPL will be accepted into the JED.
- July 1st: 2009: Only Joomla! extensions licensed under the GNU GPL will be listed in the JED.
Why Wait Six Months?
We understand this will be a difficult process for some developers, and we feel a responsibility to give ample notice. We want to make sure our developers have enough time to make adjustments to their product marketing and business structure, if necessary, in order to maintain their listing in the directory.
The GPL and Commercial Developers
Does this mean there will be no more commercial extensions in the JED? No.
Prohibiting commercial distribution would violate the GNU GPL and the Joomla community values of equality and freedom. Commercial extensions with the GNU GPL license and that are not encrypted are welcomed and encouraged in the JED. Today 17% of the extensions in the JED (22% of 1.5 Native extensions) are commercial, and many of those are already licensed using the GNU GPL. Among 1.5 native commercial extensions 35% are licensed using GNU GPL.
The JED Supports Developers
The Joomla team is strongly committed to supporting both commercial and non-commercial Joomla developers. We have implemented some policy changes to enhance our support for developers. We think that the best place to get an extension is from the original developer of that extension. Therefore we will not link to collections of GPL extensions that are not submitted by the original developer. These are not requirements of the GPL license but rather fall in line with our "forking" guidelines that no direct copies or minor-changed copies of JED-listed projects will be listed. We support the original project developer whenever possible to maintain the integrity of the listings and support developers who are building and innovating on the Joomla platform.
To have a forked project listed in the JED it must meet our requirements:
- Significant change
Forked project must represent a significant code improvement, either in features or security and structure.
- Intent to develop and support
Forked project must exhibit an intent to develop and support the new product.
- Unique name
We do not allow forked projects by new developers to build on the name of the original developer without permission.
- Unique version structure
Version numbering must clearly indicate a new project.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What Options Do Developers Have?
The project supports developers who are building and innovating on the Joomla platform. We are committed to providing the information and help that developers need in order to relicense (or to license for the first time, if there is no current license). The JED editors and members of the Core Team and Open Source Matters board are ready to advise or assist any developer who would like this help.If you have any questions about licensing or want help, then you can contact OSM with the following email address This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or the JED editors at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Developers not currently using the GNU GPL may choose to switch from their current licensing to the GNU GPL or to no longer participate in the JED.
- What if I have some GPL and some non-GPL extensions?
This policy refers only to those extensions listed in the JED. Your GPL extensions are permitted to be listed on the JED but your non-GPL extensions are not.
- Where can I get information about how to license my product using the GNU GPL?
Every copy of Joomla includes a copy of the GNU GPL with instructions for licensing in the license.php file. Instructions are also available from the Free Software Foundation.
All you need to do is add two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License. (Free Software Foundation)
- Can I use GPL v3 to license my extension?
Yes. In particular, you may need to use GPLv3 if you rely on certain third party libraries or APIs for your extension.
- What GPL version is Joomla! licensed under?
Joomla! is licensed under GPL version 2 or later.
- What does this mean for enforcement of the Joomla! license more generally?
Enforcement of the Joomla! license is a separate issue from the policies of the JED.
- Isn't the JED itself built on a non-GPL extension?
The current version of the JED built on Joomla 1.5 uses a GNU GPL extension, Mosets Tree for Joomla! 1.5.
- What if I think my extension doesn't violate the Joomla! license?
This is a policy in favor of software freedom and the mission, vision and values of the Joomla! Project, not one about technical issues in licensing.
- Can I use a GPL compatible license?
The JED will only list extensions licensed using the GNU GPL.
- Why are only GNU GPL licensed extensions being listed?
The simple answer is, making the JED a GPL only resource is the easiest and most practical solution. It frees the JED team from having to investigate or worry about licensing issues. It frees OSM from having to create and maintain a list of one or more acceptable licenses. When you break it down, other licenses were created because they opposed one or more parts of the GPL. The only license that truly embodies the spirit of the GPL is the GPL. Throughout the Open Source world, there is plenty of disagreement over what that spirit is and there is even more disagreement over what licenses are compatible and incompatible. In the end, our list of compatible licenses might be very different from yours. Our list of licenses that share the spirit of the GPL will most certainly be different than yours. So, we could waste months of time researching a list and debating which licenses should be included and excluded or we can make it simple and easy to understand for the community, the developers, and the JED team so that we can use those precious months to focus on the real point of this project: making great software.
- Can I use libraries in my GPL extension that are GPL compatible?
Yes.
___
Update 29-Dec-08 22:00 CET - We have added 2 new questions to the FAQ and simplified the answer for "Can I use a GPL compatible license?", this since we follow up this answer with new questions.
2008-12-27 17:19:32
Why exclude encrypted extensions? Encrypted extensions can still be licenced GNU/GPL.
2008-12-27 17:24:18
Encrypting Source, as long as the source code is made available, is a freedom provided by the GPL License, but the JED restricts. (I never encrypt)
Licensing with a GPL Compatible licenses, is a freedom the GPL license allows, but the JED restricts.
So its ok for Joomla 1.5 to taint the GPL by using LGPL and PHP Licenses in its libraries - but not for other developers to use compatible licenses.
Smacks of not being fair...
2008-12-27 17:36:32
2008-12-27 17:38:57
Here's an option: What is the process for a peaceful fork of the Joomla Project?
Maybe those you don't wish to be part of the Joomla community any longer need a viable roadmap on how to continue their own commercial efforts without getting in OSM's way? Just a thought.
2008-12-27 18:44:12
Developers are free to use libraries with licenses compatible with the GPL in their extensions. It's true that
we have one php licensed library and it will be either relicensed or gone from the Joomla! codebase before July 1.
@John
You can peacefully fork by downloading the code base, finding a name, and setting up your own distribution site. That's all there is too it, and that right is guaranteed by the GPL. Just don't remove the licensing or copyright information and make sure to respect our trademark.
2008-12-27 18:46:10
No one is saying that encrypted extensions cannot be licensed under the GNU/GPL nor that they cannot be distributed. The JED team is stating that as a matter of policy, not legality, the Joomla project is going to cease to list them.
@John
I would encourage anyone who wants to do that to look in real terms at what it takes to manage an open source project. All that has to be done to fork is to abide by the license and trademark terms of the Joomla project from a legal standpoint, but from a workload standpoint... the commitment is not small.
Also, this is not a fight taken to anyone. This is not directed at anyone. It is part of a much larger commitment to the values of our project.
2008-12-27 18:51:36
Prohibiting GPL-compatible extensions also violates those values. Personally I dislike the GPL because it is too restrictive. I like the Expat license because it gives TOTAL freedom whilst retaining the author's copyright. But you are going to remove my free open source extensions from the JED because they don't use the same restrictive, ambiguous, contentious, and legally unenforceable license as Joomla itself uses. It strikes me that the dubious philosophical ideals of the leaders of this project are taking precedence over the needs of the user and plain common sense. Joomla took a nosedive with its ridiculous stance on what it thinks the GPL covers. Now it has gone down the pan completely by trying to force everyone to use the same insane license. Very sad.
2008-12-27 19:08:11
We will only list extensions licensed under GPL.
We have choosen not to publish encrypted extensions of several reasons. You have right, encrypted extensions can still be licenced GNU/GPL if the source code is available for the user. However, encrypted extensions work against our values and what GPL stands for.
We might find probably find problems in encrypted GPL extensions like hidden behaviour, call home functions, code that can be vulnerable and code that restrict users to share and redesign. We would run into many frustaded users, something we already are doing today.
2008-12-27 19:15:45
Do I understand well if I say I am allowed to use a LGPL or Creative Commons library/code snippet as part of the extension?
I am thinking of the Josdewplayer extension which uses a Creative Commons swf while the code of the extension itself is GPL.
2008-12-27 19:23:25
If you're interested, I can list you all 12 popular warez sites I have on my bookmarks list (all of which I have to frequently check to make sure none of my extensions are illegally distributed), and then you can tell me if we "need to trust that people will buy, especially if their work is of excellent quality and the extension meets a very real need".
You seem like a nice person, so perhaps you will, indeed, buy. However, these warez sites have hundreds of thousands of members for a reason. Many of us (developers) even get people coming onto our forums asking for support after blatantly saying that they've downloaded their copy off some warez forums. So if encryption and/or a proprietary license is not sufficient to prevent people from ripping our work, consider what will happen when it is actually LEGAL for these people to redistribute our unencrypted software.
I do have a legit question about encryption. I understand the idea that encryption denies the user the ability to improve/customize the product, but what if it's only partial encryption? Many devs simply encrypt a single file as part of the licensing enforcement system, which does not impact the "customizability" of the software. What is the stand/defense on that?
2008-12-27 19:27:34
My primary concern with the licensing I'm reading here is with the GPLV3, which is incompatible with the GPL v2.0. I'm not sure how this plays out when combining code under both licenses ... it seems that it would force an an upgrade to GPL v3. If so, then might as well make the move NOW and get it over with.
For now, all my code is available under the GPL v2.0 only. We'll see how the wind blows.
2008-12-27 20:04:48
2008-12-27 20:36:48
2008-12-27 20:38:56
For now the plan is "GPL version 2 or later". Legally they are different licenses, but in philosophy and spirit they are GPL. We're not making a legal move, we're making policy move to keep the JED in line with the Joomla mission.
2008-12-27 21:18:39
1)Making a non-gpl extension gpl will lead to free forks on the JED, and free downloads on other sites in a couple of months.
2.)Free downloads and forks will lead to a big loss in income.
3.)A big loss of income will lead to a big drop in future development, and support by the developer.
4.)Joomla users will be worse off.
It also seems that this decision will not be overturned, and that those in favour of the decision value theoretical/ abstract open source values, over what benifets people practically.
Where to go from here....
1.)I would like to hear those in favour of this decision at least admit Joomla users will be worse off. There is so much theoretical talk of open source values here, without regard to consequences. Are not my points 1-4 above sound?
2.)There needs to be some discussion of where to go from here for developers that do not wish to go down the gpl path. This looks like a great start:
http://www.extensionprofessionals.com
and perhaps we could start a forum topic discussing other ideas.
2008-12-27 21:34:11
That is where I see things could be heading, where you are offered a stripped down GPL version and if you want the icing on the cake you will have to pay.
On a personal note, I think going strictly GPL for JED is a horrible move and will only serve to restrict creativity.
2008-12-27 22:00:29
Extension developers do have to eat, and if they use their significant skills in developing an extension of commercial grade quality, then how will web developers become aware of its existence if it is not listed in the JED.
I am NOT an extension developer, but rely heavily on the JED for sourcing extensions both commercial and non-commercial. Removal of commercial extensions, in my opinion, would be a great travesty and significantly damage the power of Joomla overall.
Cheers,
2008-12-27 22:59:11
Now the question is why would you exclude these? Because the GPL compatible license is against the project values?
You are stating it is not e legal move, but by the end of the day, it appears exactly (and only) like this. It appears like a decision of GPL fanatics that can not see beyond their noses.
2008-12-27 23:57:22
Imho, this move to restrict to GPL *only* (vs. "should be GPL-compatible" stance during the GPL debate) is even worse then the past GPL debate.
LGPL, public domain, and many other licenses and implementations are GPL-compatible, even by the wierdest interpretations of the GPL that I have seen...so far. This restriction goes beyond all of that.
Even Joomla 1.5 itself uses non-GPLv2 code...
Let Freedom *for the user* win. There is no need to *unlist* a wealth of extensions.
To stay on the constructive edge: A simple more or less big *remark* on the listing should be sufficient for the user to understand and make a sound choice ?
Btw, it could have been nice to consult privately or publicly before deciding (the last GPL decision was preceded by a "hot" "consultation", this decision came "down from nowhere").
Kudos for the new extensions site and for the hard work behind the JED.
Now, open-source development is about fun. Restrictions are not fun. Back to fun work as usual, as far as I'm concerned
Best wishes for a Happy and Healthy New Year to all
2008-12-28 00:05:45
2008-12-28 00:19:44
2008-12-28 01:03:07
If I understand correctly, our extensions - the code we write and wish to share on JED - must be licensed in the same way as Joomla! is licensed: using the GPL v 2, or later.
JED will only share extensions that are licensed in that way. This is consistent with how other projects, like Drupal and WordPress operate, and it should simplify the process for all of us, JED editors, too.
Now, as developers, we may use libraries or code components that are GPL-compliant as we integrate Flickr or Spam fighting or PHP classes into our work. We might include Mootools (MIT) into our extensions. So, there may be composite pieces that are not strictly GPL, but instead GPL-compatible. That is still okay.
Our Joomla! extensions must licensed like Joomla! to be on JED. Not a problem. (And, people can continue to charge for commercial GPL.)
If I am understanding correctly, then this is exactly what we have expected. We are on the same path that was set forth 1 1/2 years ago in the Open Source Does Matter decision. http://www.joomla.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3510&Itemid=74 We're on track.
Now, if I do not understand, please correct me. Thanks so much for your efforts to the Core Team, OSM, and JED, in helping us continue to move forward.
2008-12-28 01:28:47
Please correct me if i read wrong both announcements.
2008-12-28 01:39:18
That's a fair summary.
Again, however, this policy is not about the technical issues having to do with licensing or enforcement. This is about an editorial decision about the content of the JED.
2008-12-28 02:59:37
2008-12-28 03:30:32
We will absolutely have commercial GPL extensions, currently there are a little over 200 as I recall. There are more than 400 commercial and not GPL. And the JED itself has 4100+... so we're really talking about a small number of the total.
Clubs are now and have always been deemed commercial, and they will certainly be welcome after the proprietary extensions are gone.
2008-12-28 03:47:13
If you are getting rid of all non-GPL extensions on July 1st, then why would you continue to accept non-GPL extensions between now and March 1st? It seems to me like you'd have a lot fewer extensions to prune from the system if you stop accepting them now.
2008-12-28 04:52:49
Regarding the comment that this is only 17% of the directory. Let's look at the universe of inclusion here: "4100+ Extensions" It's not statistically appropriate to include the majority of extensions in the directory because:
1. A huge percentage of these aren't something anyone would ever pay for because they're just too small.
2. Many are outdated, untouched in years and for 1.0 only.
3. Some are half complete or of such poor quality that you have to be a developer to make them work.
O.k. this is about way more than that, the implications of this policy decision are changing other commercial developers business models. The fact that we're allowed time to change our licensing reflects a major arrogance.
Also, I think Amy Stephan's summary of this announcement was very succinct. However, I think the email that went out to JED contributors and this blog post are just authoritarian and leave people with too many questions. I can understand if J! isn't interested in promoting proprietary extensions - that's fine. But the impression here is "We're just not interested in your contribution."
The act of developing a proprietary extension furthers the Joomla project. Adoption, inclusion and promotion of Joomla are inherent in that act. That's not valued?
2008-12-28 05:42:00
And as Louis says, this is a policy matter for the JED only, not legislation for compatibility with the Joomla (aka the GPL). Yes, you can still make encrypted GPL, or GPL compatibly licensed extensions for Joomla - you just can't list them on the JED.
@Matt Thomson
I was among the first of the Commercial GPL shops to appear (launching in April 0
2008-12-28 06:13:39
I don't think this argument stacks up against what the JED already catalogs.
2008-12-28 08:15:19
2008-12-28 08:46:32
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=262&t=356189&start=0
2008-12-28 08:49:56
I listined to and followed similar to yours advice below. I released an extension as GPL. Three weeks later I got a fork that was better than mine, and free. It would seem unwise to listin to the same advice again.
I have thought about making another extension, and I think, do I want to invest 2-3 months making a good extension, if there is a chance the same thing will happen again.
2008-12-28 09:31:04
maybe Joomla is violating the GPL itself here.
GPL say encrypted software is allowed as long as on request the buyer can get a copy of the unecrypted code against a fee. Joomla says now: no more encrypted extensions.
Is that legal? can they just do that?
2008-12-28 09:32:28
Read below...
So it is a Community Resource as long as it fully supports the project's values. So essentially the resource is a tool to support the project's values. The project's values are shaped by those steering the project, the project itself is mere code and has no thought process. It is people who install their values upon the project, these people will also tell you that they do not speak on behalf of Joomla
Either way I see this as a good decision, for two main reasons...
1st. It brings JED in line with Joomla's and those influencing Joomla's values inline. Both those inside Joomla and the project itself are on the same page.
2nd. It will lead to the creation of a new extensions directory by some 3rd party, or the bolstering and growth of existing directories.
For us as end users it's a win/win. Joomla pulls itself in line with its own values, and now we will see other 3rd party resources really have a crack at becoming a cornerstone as undoubtedly they will receive support from some popular commercial non-gpl based developers.
If Joomla wishes JED to continue to be the No.1 place for Joomla extensions then this will fuel competition and development. Perhaps not what J! wanted, however this decision is essentially going to lead to bolstering of other directories.
2008-12-28 09:47:25
you must have been taking a really loooong nap. Never heard of Bittorent?
When the code of a commercial extension is not encrypted they often appear on torrent and warez-sites. They can be freely downloaded and used without a purchase for the poor sod who spent hundereds of hours programming. Worse still is that those downloads might have been tampered with and evil code could have been inserted, causing huge security-issues.
I always thought Joomla was really smart to keep all extensions in one searchable directory. This is good for the community. Taking the commercial encrypted extensions out will not only rob me and other enthousiastic Joomla developers of our income, but also really frustrate the work of site-builder who depend on commercial extensions, because they can not find them anymore in the Joomla directory. Really bad for the community.
I think this decision shows that the Joomla core team has lost touch with the programmers whose combined work made Joomla to what it is today. Maybe the time has come to fork Joomla again.
Mambo > Joomla > ...
2008-12-28 14:49:30
As it says in the FAQ:
Why Wait Six Months?
We understand this will be a difficult process for some developers, and we feel a responsibility to give ample notice. We want to make sure our developers have enough time to make adjustments to their product marketing and business structure, if necessary, in order to maintain their listing in the directory.
We gave three months to stop accepting new extensions because we recognize that developers of complex extensions have things in the pipeline, and these take a long time to produce. The decision to relicense at a minimum means changing files and probably your website. It also requires some thought about versioning, i.e. do you make this part of a major release, a point release or just a routine patch. How to handle existing customers is another topic developers will want to think about. Some developers may want to consult with their investors or legal advisors. There may be other issues as well, it is hard for us to predict everything that might come up in a business.
2008-12-28 20:18:56
I'm just desperately hoping that someone puts together a directory like the JED that lists commercial, encrypted extensions. That was the beauty of the JED wasn't it... everything in once place, logically set out - in short, a fantastic resource. I think I understand the team's decision, but I feel very, very sorry for developers who I feel have every right to encrypt their precious code. Will this apply to templates too...?
2008-12-28 20:35:22
I don't know what people expect to earn from their extensions but I have 3 gpl/commercial extensions listed in the JED and I can't really complain about the amount of purchases or lower purchase rates because of "pirated" versions that are available through bittorrent. For those who do not need to be "bleeding edge", they can still download the previous version for free (free as beer, yes).
But even that doesnt lower the amount of purchases significantly. So I am able to pay my costs from it and (more amazingly) hire developers to make those extensions even better and create new ones.
Additionally I added support tickets for immediate help and I also give free support if no tickets are pending. This helps to earn some extra money and the advantage is that you stay in contact with the user and get important information and ideas on how to make your product better.
The majority of the users just crawl the JED and try to get the extensions from a trustworthy source. So if someone gets into trouble using a bittorent version of the software it his fault, not the developers one.
I also did a little research how other projects handle it in the php world and the result is that Joomla! has the most business friendly listing from all of them.
Take e.g. Wordpress or Drupal, both great projects but a commercial vendor can't make any money from it - even gpl'ed - because they just won't get listed there. I saw plugins for Wordpress there with a zip file containing a txt file with the contents "purchase a version from http://blablabla.bla".
Of course those extensions are removed immediately cause the rules say that this is not allowed. On the other hand you cannot put any other source for the software like you can do in the jed (pointing to the vendors website). Same goes for Drupal.
So if you want to sell extensions for these products you have to sell them a lot more expensive cause you wont ever get the traffic like the one you get from the JED. This is at the end not good for the user and of course not good for the vendor.
What I suggest to those non-gpl extensions is, change the license, free the code and keep the rights on the assets like images, css, javascript, the name and offer the sourcecode without these assets for free download. They could even let the xml file out, so the average user couldnt do anything with it in the first place except trying to build an installable version on his own (wich could be very hard).
This would absolutely gpl compliant and I guess JED-compliant also.
I mean, same goes for commercial Linux distrubutions. Sure you could try to build a SuSE system on you own from the sources but for a comparable little money you get everything already done in one package.
For me this is not an option, cause I use the previous-version-for-free-model but for the non-gpl'ed extensions this could be the way to go.
Since I dont know if this model has been already discussed I would ask the people from the JED before doing it but from what the GPL says it would be absolutely valid.
I hope everyone is calming down now, because there is enough time to think about the business model behind his extensions.
Regards,
Markus
2008-12-28 21:48:25
2008-12-28 21:59:30
Your restricting freedom while at the same time claiming to do everything in the name of freedom.
I'm not happy about this at all, I'm launching a new club on Jan 1st and I'm licensing many extensions under the MIT license. Apparently my contributions of free software is not going to be welcome in the JED.
I won't just stand by and watch this be done to a important avenue of promotion for Joomla! developers. I think it's important for developers with other licenses to make plans to leave the JED now so we can get a true competitor going by the time the March 1ST rolls around. I volunteer to build the new directory and handle the marketing. Please e-mail me "bookworm.productions AT gmail DOT com" so we can start coordinating and drawing up plans.
Reading through the comments, several others have the same concerns that I do. Will the Joomla! project address them? Or are you going to ignore them? The last time a project violated the values of a community which supported it a exodus occurred. We support freedom just as much as anyone involved in Joomla!, it's wrong to simply forget about us. The freedom supporters in the Joomla! community are the hardcore activists that drive the community, without us Joomla! will suffer a slow and agonizing death. Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
I apologize for being so blunt and at times disrespectful, it just hurts to be rejected by a project you supported, promoted, and always tried to make better.
2008-12-29 00:59:09
Ha, ha.. I am wide awake. I think what needs to be clearly understood is that this policy does NOT prevent a developer from developing proprietary encrypted software for Joomla! or selling it commercially. It does not restrict against the sale of commercial add-on's or services (an arena which many developers lack). They just will not be listed on the JED, which I completely agree with as they do not coincide with GPL 2.1 or for some any other open source licensing structure. The beauty of open source is that the software is free. Free to modify and extend at will, closing the source of an app on the JED removes that WILL.
2008-12-29 01:54:23
Those choosing to create non-GPL extensions might be able to sell them on their own site, but they won't be able to use the word "Joomla", "Jom", "J!" and other derivatives on their site or in their URL if my interpretation of the trademark decision is correct.
http://community.joomla.org/blogs/community/632-protecting-the-joomla-trademark-in-jed.html
2008-12-29 02:02:33
1) if your extension is superb it doesn't matter if there are copies in the torrent, people will always buy it.
2) it's not fair some developers are making more money than Joomla itself selling crapy extensions at a high price (check mike.simbunch.com)
3) we must trust Joomla's Core Team on their judgement, we all understand they want THE BEST for Joomla, otherwise they would not be doing it.
Advise to crying developers: port your extension to Drupal, Wordpress and see how it goes there.
How come do you like having Joomla GPL and your sub-product isn't it? what if Joomla was encrypted? come on don't be hipocritical.
Enought is enought, make it one month instead of six!
Tim
2008-12-29 03:34:01
2008-12-29 04:15:33
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense.
2008-12-29 10:20:17
Its kind of stupid for being asking to keep closed proprietary software using a GPL based system. What would happen if everyone that wants to keep creating and selling closed source code applications are asked to pay a license fee to use the Joomla source code? After all, you guys crying for this decision believe in propietary source code, so support the ones that are giving you the opportunity to enter in the business by paying propietary licenses to make your work. Go to a closed source code CMS company and start doing business there. The things will be a lot different for you then.
This decision is not an arbitrary one. It's one that supports the Open Source philosophy by people that are actually contributing to the Open Source community. Remember "PAYING MONEY" to get something does not have anything to do with an application being open source or not. If your extensions are good people will pay for them.
I had been downloading almost every extension for joomla for free in warez and torrents sites since Joomla started in 2005 and I had always payed for the ones I keep in my sites. If I don't pay or give a small donation, how can I ask for better development of the extensions that are giving my website a good look and functionality. It has helped me trow away a lot of crap that cost lots of money and in the end does not give you the service that you need. The real good ones worth every penny I had expended in them.
After all we all benefit from Open Source so give a hand to those that truly believe in it.
2008-12-29 12:14:17
I'm very happy about the JED decision but I really cannot understand why GPL-Compatible licenses are not allowed. It is in my honest opinion very arrogant.
With this decision Joomla! made this statement:
we Joomla! are OK, because we are using the only one right license. All other open source licenses are not really open source and therefore if you want our help you have to respect our rules. Our rules are that you have to use open source license and the only one open source license is GPL.
I understand that it's your site and your rules so you can expect that the extensions listed in JED are GPL. But then please stop talking about community and Open Source values because I cannot remember that the community has been asked about this drastic limitation. This decision is in my honest opinion a violation of one of the basic Open Source values - the freedom of choice of the license.
2008-12-29 13:32:37
To the developers that believe they should be able to use a GPL compatible license, that argument would stand up except that Joomla is GPL, and if you believe the GPL is too restrictive, why write for Joomla? It makes no sense bashing on about the values of an alternative license when it needs the GPL licensed base system to function.
Encrypted software never should have been allowed on the JED in the first place. It is and always has been completely against the open source principals. It's not just about it being free.... it's about it being 'open'.
In my opinion, this is the obvious route for Joomla to go, and the whole team get 100% support from me for this decision.
2008-12-29 15:07:02
Also consider Creative Commons license.
2008-12-29 16:24:45
However, I do have to agree with others out there. This decision should have been brought to the community, after all Joomla! means "all-together". I think this decision was hurried due to Drupal's move to GPL. Why can't developers use GPL compliant licenses? This question has not yet been answered!
2008-12-29 17:01:12
2008-12-29 17:26:13
The GPL license allows these other licenses and encourages it. Some are claiming that the GPL is the only license in line with the supposed values of Joomla!, which is simply absurd because part of the GPL philosophy allows for and encoruages the usage of GPL-compatible licenses.
They're acting just like politicians, while claiming to protect the values and freedom of the community they're stripping it away. I think a move toward GPL philosophies and enforcement of it on the JED is a great idea, however what they're doing is not a move towards GPL philosophies, it is far from far it. It is pure and simple, a restriction of freedom that the GPL does not agree with.
The GPL is not too restrictive it is the OSM that is being too restrictive and hypocritical.
2008-12-29 17:42:44
There are definitely going to be non-JED directories cropping up in response to this. I personally agree with the logic below that although it may "only be ~17%" of extensions that are affected by the JED changes, those 17% make up a much larger percentage of usable, stable extensions.
Coincidentally, a few months ago we decided to develop a place that accepts commercial and non-GPL extensions. It allows developers to list, or even sell their extensions directly through the site (for those that are too small or don't want the hassle of managing sales themselves).
CMS Market is now to the point where we're ready for authors to submit they're own extensions as well. http://www.cmsmarket.com/
Alex
2008-12-29 18:11:54
Please *read* all of the responses before responding so that your words inform, rather than confuse. Please read Andrew Eddie's responses below and also read my comments - I was confused, as well.
As developers, we are able to include GPL-compliant libraries, etc., in our work. But our extensions must use the same license as that which we are extending (i.e., the GPL v 2, or later, in the case of Joomla!) in order to be listed on JED. The composite work could easily be a combination of licenses, all of which must be GPL-compliant.
++++
CMS Market folks -
This is the last bit of free promotion for those of you who are hoping your latest venture will be a big hit -> Please do not take this discussion off topic, again, toshare the link to your http://www.cmsmarket.com/ site anymore.
If you want to include the URL on your Personal Web site/Blog URL, when commenting, fine. You have six months to market your own third party software index. Let's keep this discussion on topic so that developers get the information they need from JED. Thanks for understanding.
2008-12-29 21:05:24
2008-12-30 09:43:41
2008-12-30 12:37:42
2008-12-30 18:08:06
And my humble mind just could not understand why. A clear why.
Even after reading the FAQ, the cloud won't go away. Mission, vision, freedom, community, equality, "people" not "users", "all together" or "as a whole"....
Things just don't 'click'.
Well, maybe it's just me
2008-12-30 19:40:06
2008-12-30 20:23:08
This quote, below, is from the post, above. Please read the post before commenting so that your comments don't confuse people. Thanks for understanding!
2008-12-30 22:57:37
http://www.mosets.com/news/general/mosets-tree-and-hot-property-is-going-open-source/
I'm sure that decision was made long before, as the 1.5 JED code has been in the works for months.
2008-12-31 11:24:09
As a marketing specialist for 30 years, that is completely daft. If an extension is reaching 10,000 readers, and exposing you 10,000 times, you don't chuck that free advertising in the bin!
Ethos is one thing, but it is pointless if good business practice is not maintained.
2008-12-31 11:33:23
Appreciate your point, but the essence of this is (as Amy actually already mentioned) is that Joomla as a whole is GPL. In my opinion, the JED accepting non-GPL extensions is not logical at all. In fact, I have thought this long before I saw this announcement, so that explains my stronger views here. Regarding encrypted extensions, I have never understood how they were ever allowed on JED in the first place.
I think the important factor here is why some developers may want to use an alternative license. If it really is because they see the alternative as being more free, more 'open-source' then perhaps the values of the licenses should be discussed elsewhere. As I see it the GPL is pretty clear, and I do not fully understand why it is not appropriate to all open-soure J developers, other than for those that may wish to protect their commercial interests. That's fine, but it's not inline with Joomla.
That's how I see it anyway.
2008-12-31 11:55:46
1. I hope that the lawyers were providing their time free.
2. The combinbation of this and the restructuring of the JED etc smells fishy to me. Strikes me that the fox is in the hen house.
3. I swear the Joomla! symbol is a fork of the swastika.
4. Jumla anyone?
5. Note this from wikipedia "On August 18 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on suggested names for the project. The core team indicated that it would make the final decision for the project name based on community input.
The name the core team eventually chose was not on the list of suggested names provided by the community."
Basically history proves that the core team are a bunch of control freaks, don't listen to the community even when they say they will/do. More to the point, it is clear Joomla! is doing too well, somehow, some people have managed to throw a spanner in the works. Joomla! has had it's day, mark my words.
Next please.
2008-12-31 13:48:56
The only statement on that topic was mad by Andrew, which was basically "re-write your code", "license it under GPL".
This in fact is not an answer why these extensions will not be allowed? Seriously, there is no single reason stated.
And to those trying to present it as "it's JED team decision, not a Joomla! statement" - it is a Joomla! statement, as the core team selects the JED team.
2008-12-31 18:47:21
It is not that you get rich but it helps.
And $5 are just ok for single downloads. It's all about making it as easy as possible for the users. And to buy something for $5 with one click is the easiest thing one can do.
However, this is what I decided to do, but other models might work as well. All in all it depends on how good and popular your extension is.
2008-12-31 23:15:19
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=262&t=356189
It seems there are two identical discussions going on, with the forum being more active, and it would be better if the discussion took place in one location.
2009-01-02 12:59:44
These here are two great licenses, that give us freedom and source code
I'm against encrypted extensions but... I wanted the freedom to choose my license, giving - however - the source code to everyone.
Open source deals with "learning something from others", not "having everything free from others".
I think we need to let developers choose their license.
2009-01-03 18:52:59
2009-01-04 17:10:59
Thanks
2009-01-05 05:04:42
Fork? Fork off!!
2009-01-05 14:18:03
JED to be non-encrypted GPL only by July 2009
This is imho the correct title for the content since you are not listing what the GPL license considers as GPL.
2009-01-06 09:16:05
@Ivo Apostolov
I Think Your Questions Are Probably Answered In FAQ Just Above
why extensions licensed under GPL compatible license will not be listed?
Throughout the Open Source world, there is plenty of disagreement over what that spirit {GNU GPL Spirit} is and there is even more disagreement over what licenses are compatible and incompatible
In The End Everyone Is Going To Have A Different List Of Compatible/Incompatible Licenses
2009-01-06 12:54:53
I know that it cannot have been an easy decision to make, and reading through these comments, not always a popular one, however i believe it is for the better and will create a better JED.
2009-01-06 13:36:34
The core insiders have decided that GPL is the Holy Grail or open source software, and will enforce it to the nth degree.
Except when (according to Louis Landry) "as a matter of policy, not legality, the Joomla project is going to cease to list" GPL-compliant but encoded extension.
Except when (according to Lorenzo) the Joomla Pooh-Bahs set themselves up to decide that a particular GPL-compliant practice will nevertheless be banned because it works "against our values and what GPL stands for" (as interpreted by them).
There's a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.
2009-01-06 14:12:39
Some Of These Sites Will Become As Popular As JED Is For Joomla Users, But Ofcourse Not That Good And Some Smaller Sites Will Perish Over Time
Then The Non-GPL Extension Developers Will Try Listing Their Joomla Extensions On Maximum Possible Of These Directories To Reach Maximum Potential Customers
Meanwhile, Extension Developers' Banners And Affiliate Links Will Soon Spread All Over Hundreds/Thousands Of Blogs/Sites
I Personally See No (Or Very Little) Affect On Commercial Extensions Developers' Business. Because When They Are Unlisted On JED, They Will Actually Get Listed On Several Directories That Will Spring Off Later...Moreover These Extension Developers Will Pay Nice Affiliate Commission To Ensure Their Banners Are Seen All Over...
Its Just That Common Joomla Users Will Miss A Central Repository For All The Extensions That Could Make Joomla Their Sites Better
2009-01-06 21:25:16
2009-01-07 10:56:28
2009-01-07 17:44:48
Easy solution :
Offer a basic version of whatever you are trying to sell and see if the users can make sense to go with the full version
Similar to what the guys at Acajoom are doing...
Also, speaking from the business point of view, it should be noted that template making folks are selling and stuff and kickin' butt at it without being in the extension directory. It's clear that not much is lost
Looking forward to seeing the changes that actually take place...
2009-01-08 02:42:02
All I can say is - Oh god the boss is away on holidays and has left the techs in charge of public relations!!
To the Joomla! core team - where on earth have your "non tech" business savvy, customer focused advisors gone?? Or did you purposely just ignore them or something?? I really expected more from you guys ....
Had to break my comments into three
POINT ONE - ignore the lessons of history at your peril - it's about choice..:
------------
Why I don't agree with the decision:
Now many moons ago at the birth of Joomla! I was faced with the decision to stay with Mambo or move over to Joomla! (I'd only just moved to Mambo from PHPWebsite at that point thanks to the better templating and addons)
As a business I chose to move to Joomla because most of the extension developers I was relying on indicated on the forum and on their various websites they were moving across .
AT the time there were also a bunch of problems with the Mambo extensions directory that took them about 6 months to sort out - while in the interim the JED had started and was working better.
Now I was a bit worried about the whole "Open Source Matters" fanaticism at the time. In business you can't really afford to be too idealistic - my clients don't care about the technology I use - they care about the result. I learnt that lesson the hard way.
I took it to be a reaction to the situation Mambo was in. (Looking in from the outside it appeared the issue was around proprietary licensing of the Mambo code - it also looked like there were a fair bit of personality clashes and empire building going on too)
So, as far as the current issue around the decision to excluding certain extensions from the JED based on their developers choice of license and choice to use encryption;
Irrespective for the reasons/justification behind the decision, the outcome is you've reduced my freedom of choice as a customer of Joomla in an area that's really important.
Sure I could go somewhere else to try and find these other type of licensed addons, but it would take a lot more time and stuffing around.
You've made a ruling that discriminates against extension developers based on their choice of how they do business or license their addons. That doesn't equate with "coming together" or "Freedom".
You could have just required developers to identify if they encrypt their extension or license it in a particular way that wasn't GPL - which gave us as your customer the choice to decide based on our particular perspective and requirements.
2009-01-08 02:42:49
---------------------------------------------------
My comments on why what was decided doesn't actually matter - the real problem is...
You failed to manage your relationship with your customer. You broke the first rule of change management - you imposed a decision without warning or consultation. Don't you guys have a PR or marketing arm advisor????
For example: How hard would it have been to run a survey of all registered forum members and then all registered JED developers on such an important decision to generate statistical data.
If you did this I stand corrected, but I didn't get an email and I'm in both groups (anyone remember my spacemaker module
You obviously had my email address already - so why didn't you send out a request for input (click here to vote) before you decided.
I'm saying that the bigger issue here is that you actively went out of your way to not ask what your "customers" (both extension developers and end users) wanted.
Which is disappointing because of all the effort that's going in in other areas to engage developers and users. (e.g. I really like the new services directory idea Eddie
From where I'm standing it looks like you've made the classic IT tech mistake - left the techs in charge of interfacing with customers. That's not what they're good at because they forget the soft stuff - it takes years to teach technical people it's not about the technology it's about the relationship and communication.. it’s how what you did was perceived – not that you did the job right or wrong.. People don’t buy on logic, they buy on emotion..
That's what really puts Joomla at risk here - that the "management" team seems to have forgotten that in the cut throat world of business if you neglect communication and engagement with the "customer" and your ongoing relationship at your peril..
So it really doesn't matter what we all think or feel is the "right" decision - what should have happened and could have happened quite easily was a public poll for example on the front page of Joomla.org
(isn't there a little widget in Joomla! that does that??
Then it would have been readily apparent how we as a community all felt about the direction and then you would have consulted the community and we could all move forward with the transition knowing we'd been heard
you didn't
You still have the chance to rectify that mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------
my professional advice as an IT professional and business person - no charge
regards,
HL
PS. Any reason you've locked the associated forum topic suggested above that discusses this? This isn't really the best place to interact..
2009-01-08 13:03:38
Could you please give me advice about my project.
I'm php-mysql-javascript-actionscript programmer. I have created a flash widget. It's designed as standalone version now. It become more and more popular and now I'm thinking about integration with Joomla CMS, but I can't share my flash engine free, it will stop the future development.
Is the following approach acceptable for publishing on JED?
- The name of extension will sounds like "My Widjet (bridge)".
- I'll create administration interface under GPL license (it's not just several lines of code, my widjet have a lot of settings).
- Flash engine (swf file) contains an advertising block. Customer must bought the license to remove it.
2009-01-08 17:13:58
Eu gostei muito da notícia! Honestamente eu estava achando que aconteceria com o Joomla! o mesmo que acontece com outros programas, que possuem a sua área destinada à comunidade (community) e outra destinada a profissionais (professional) como se a comunidade não fosse profissional.
Parabéns a equipe de desenvolvedores! Viva a liberdade!
2009-01-08 23:30:45
2009-01-09 15:59:27
I bought about ten commercial extensions during 2008 year. Quick and quality support is integral part of commercial extension.
However, as a rule, free extensions have no quality support and have poor abilities. Most of them ask a donation, but developers even don't responce a simple questions by email.
Commercial developers will publish in JED only "lite" version of their extensions under GPL license in advertising purpose. Look at the WordPress catalog of extension. It looks like a real rubbish heap. And I really don't want to spend a lot of time in search of extension in cheap catalogue.
I propose to create an official catalog of commercial extensions and publish commercial extension for a fee. Otherwise, we will get decentralised catalog of extensions - unlimited number of Joomla extensions catalogues.
2009-01-10 10:51:45
Forcing to companies and developers to move from commercial licences to gpl, who made income around quality joomla extensions will be a very big loss for Joomla comunity, because this peoples will not spend 8-10 hrs/day anymore to answer support questions and starving after that just to be listed on the official JED portal.
Also in my opinion another Joomla directory similar to JED will appear soon to have a new place of listing commercial quality work, so this decision will be a big loss also for JED on long term...
Maybe my personal opinion will not change much of JED's decision but i think they did not think throught this one for long term approach.
Best regards,
Etele
2009-01-11 14:44:11
Does the commercial extensions will be just removed or moved somewhere else???
I have tested a lot of CMS like Drupal, Wordpress, Php-nuke... Professional extensions - this is what I love Joomla CMS. I don't understand why you want to be on the same level with them, rather than a step ahead?
It's very sad that you have chosen an easier way for itself, rather than to users and developers. It's much easier to delete commercial products rather than to write a rule requiring provide unencrypted version to check the moderator.
When I find a problem in purchased components / modules, developers fix it immediately (1-3 days). If I report about bugs in free extensions, the developers usualy fix it in the next version... several months late. I remember a case when I spend about three hours in searching the way to delete erroneous "?" symbol from layout. When I found where this symbol coming from, I reported the developer and got an answer like "I know about this, I'll fix it..." He didn't deceive, the distributive was fixed about 2 months later. As I read later - everyone who tested this component spend a half of hour or a whole day to detect the problem.
2009-01-12 18:42:35
It's sometimes the same for paid components....
2009-01-15 12:31:59
I think you are on the right track. Many 3pds are so up to "control" there little script that run on top of Joomla core so they can think of other business models then only charge for the script.
I think that you can charge for more services like customization, integration, support and also get better to interact with your customers.
What me and others dont like about encrypted software is that you as a site owner have no control bcs of this encryption. What happens the day the dev disappear for some reason and you are stuck with a worthless script that is encrypted bcs of this dev short term thinking? This happens here in the Joomla community 3pds and who takes responsibility for that? No one.
If you dont trust your customers and the Joomla community users then you should have chosen to dev for another CMS system that is commercial. Joomla is "Open Source" and as 3pds you should have learn about that from the beginning.
The warez kindergarten sites is all there and with and without encrypted software maybe also bcs users want to test the software first before buying it.
I think those testing warez users have to pay you anyhow in the end bcs it will cost them to much not doing so. And if they have not creating something that has a value to them it will not be of any value to you too bcs there is no value created of your script.
Success in the long run Its not about the code its about the people and community that's make it!
Its not what you say its what you do that matters!
2009-01-20 17:48:18
Secondly, I have no financial interest in Joomla! beyond my clients. I support their Joomla! installs only because that's the CMS they chose. As far as I'm concerned, it's only one of many CMSs out there. Personally, I prefer others. Mainly for performance and scalability reasons. But I will tell you one thing. I have a real hard time supporting any group constantly embroiled in legal posturing. I have far more important things to do with my time than wonder about a support base for any system regardless of it's reputation or PR savy.
Do I support Open Source? Absolutely. Do I support proprietary scripts? Absolutely. I support whatever is in the best interest of my client. As to the legal "issues" I see here and there, I look at it this way. For as many who espouse certain "legal" opinions there are just as many equally qualified legal scholars who disagree. There is currently no legal precedence in the U.S. for any of the positions held by OSM. My legal sources tell me that the GPL position of OSM is absolutely and patently wrong. But those are just opinions. None hold any water. Until the PHP GPL script issue is actually tested in the Courts, no one will know for sure the true answers to the issues.
I won't bother responding to some of the vitreous comments here. If you don't like devlopers controlling there "little" scripts. Don't use them. If you don't like a developer's software life cycle, don't use the software. It's as simple as that. A business model that is wholely dependent on one script or the other (including the CMS itself) is a weak model. Use the tools available. Joomla! is just one of many tools. Learn what's out there and use what works for your client.
2009-01-23 20:17:04
This decision is intentionally crippling those who have brought Joomla this far with real money investments to provide professional grade extensions. These extensions have allowed a wide range of people to use this product commercially where, frankly, the open source equivalent functions are often lacking (to put it charitably) and would never fly in a professional environment. Now that many of these GPL extensions are getting better - the reward is to cut the early investors out of the picture?
This decision seems to essentially say: because the commercial developers are consistently accomplishing things that the part-time developers aren't - we'll force everyone into using inferior products to "prove" open source is a viable method. If open source is truly viable, it can and should compete head to head; not hide cowardly in the corners using it's position to squash all competitors like Microsoft.
Defending this by saying "oooh but they can still distribute ELSEWHERE" is disingenuous at best. This is taking many of the people who made your platform viable and severing the connection to their user base and literally scattering them to the wind.
A major cause of concern here is this decision clearly reduces the quality of the end products easily available to customers. It is arbitrary based on the political views of an insular grand council. Attacking the product so that a preferred licensing model "wins" might score points with the script kiddies and some bloggers - but it should chill any professional who has hung their hat on Joomla to the bone.
2009-02-16 10:10:05
I haven't taken any steps yet, but I am considering commercial GPL development more and more.
2009-04-05 11:09:03
2009-04-23 16:30:24
Unless I am really in a pinch, I don't even look at extensions that are not free. I don't mind paying a download fee as long as it's reasonable but I will avoid even that if I can. Why? Because I don't believe in helping someone else make money on something that was free to begin with.
2009-04-26 20:56:48
So I suppose that means Road Runner, TV, Movies on and on and on should all be free. I am sure if we look at anyones "job" we can find a time or place even today where its done free. So, should'nt get paid. Starve instead. Arguments such as this wth commercial .vs. GPL or co-existence are simply stoooopid.
First off, the whole idea behind various licensing formats is to protect intellectual property while also limiting exactly what can and cant be done with the product. In this case... software.
Attempting to protect intellectual property these days is damned near a moot issue to begin with. Someone could take Joomla, shell over the top. Sit in China resell it and extensions and "good luck" to any of those intellectual property holders in doing a single damned thing about it legally and getting action. China, Microsoft, US, Europe, Adobe on and on cant get a hold on any of this stuff and throw considerably resources at it. Does anyone think that a Chineese or Russian court/government is going to worry about a "Free" GPL item being resold? Answer: Nope.
In Joomla itself, attempts to limit or "tell" developers that their extensions need carry this or carry that form of license or adhere to this/that portions of a license is also moot. No court would ever uphold it. In fact, its dangerous to even consider unless one care get sued especially since no "standards" are defined for well... anything related to the code/project. Standards be they coding, format (UI) etc. exist not only because they are good ideas. They exist so core products are not so substantially altered by third parties that LEGALLY a court would not grant a third party an ability to say, "This is so different it is construed by the court as a new or seperate product... thus say Joomla becomes "my" product called whatever, "Arf'er". If those standards are not in place and enforced no court in the world will uphold such issues. Reason being simple, if the owners of in this case Joomla do nothing to create and attempt to actively enforce standards then do not expect authorities/courts to do so. Thats how it works. And really... even at that, it doesnt work.
If I created an extension and said extension uses encryption to protect source be that Zend Guard, Ioncube or even my own proprietary code... And my extension is commercial.... and Joomla core denied me the ability to list it in the directory here that is pursuable in court as 1. an anti-competitive practice and 2. puts them at point of liability for it. Now calculating damages might be problematic. Microsofts been through this numerous times, they pay "behind closed doors" and have done so to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Generally speaking its done on basis of estimated installs. If Joomla estimates 600,000 installed sites. My "Social Networking Plugin" lets say would reasonably be purchased by 3% of sites or generally 20,000 sites at $49 each. Gets expensive fast.
Point all being when it comes to what 3P developers licensing is, that should not and in fact really cannot be stifled. To do so simply means things work against themselves.
The questions to truly answer are the WHYS and WHEREFORS of why developers might encrypt or use tools for their code. The response is piracy. PHP is inherently insecure being an interpreted language .vs. compiled languages. So tools such as Zend Guard, Ioncube are used to protect it from theft.
The way to combat this is not restriction. It is in fact the opposite. What should be happening is the Joomla framework itself providing the code protection. All extensions should be encoded and the decoded via a custom framework .DLL (or several) built for PHP, just as Ioncube does.
This opens alot of doors to developers concerned with said theft. Additionally it yields all sorts of options for increasing performance and capabilities.
2009-05-03 08:28:54
First off, it's not 'encrypting', it's 'obfuscation'. Even if you have a password and it 'decrypts' a block of code to execute, what you're doing is called 'obfuscation'.
Secondly. the entire point of the GPL is that if your code is released under the GPL, it will be available in a machine-readable and useful form. Obfuscation clearly doesn't meet that criteria, therefor your obfuscated code is not truly GPL.
Furthermore, in the all too realistic likelyhood that your code contains GPL code, and you then obfuscate it and redistribute it, you are in violation of the GPL.
I realize that there are legitimate people who are making honest money as Joomla consultants/plugin writers, but honestly.. If you obfuscate your code so you can protect the meager amount of intellectual property you've amassed writing code in a GPL'd language (PHP) for a GPL'd CMS (Joomla), probably stealing GPL presentation layer content (Javascript).. You're basically just an idiot, a thief, and a burden on the community. Make your quick bucks while you can. Someone else will do whatever you're doing, better and really GPL.
2009-05-17 12:23:43
2009-05-17 12:28:42
2009-06-09 02:42:04
The pickin's were getting pretty slim on the JED, and although I have had to, at times, choose extesnsions which weren't GPL'd, I afterwared discovered that I should have just avoided the non-GPL'd apps in the first place.
I came to this community because it was a GPL community, and it evolved into an advertising forum for closed, commerical, non-GPL'd showcases.
Yes, it's about time the JED went back to enforcing the GPL as a prerequisite for inclusion in the JED.
2009-06-21 08:38:51
I know a very hard solutions which takes a lot of time for development and support. Their developers told me that they will stop develop extensions for Joomla and keep work for standalone solutions. Who will be happy?
I offer to separate JED on two parts - GLP and Commercial!
2009-06-29 08:49:43
2009-06-30 21:44:00
2009-07-03 09:12:32
2009-07-03 18:42:06
2009-07-08 16:19:19
www.cmsextensions.org looks good so far.
2009-07-13 21:50:57
2009-07-14 12:35:36
Its Not Free Vs. Paid
Its GPL Vs. Non-GPL
Joomla Project Encourages Commercial GPL Extensions...
You Can Find Them In JED
2009-07-15 17:22:31
Regardless the same argument holds up. You don't like the license don't write modules for the software. The JED should reflect the spirit of the project.
2009-07-16 02:37:29
if we want to use those extensions
Those developers still make very good extensions and we can really use them.
2009-07-16 04:41:49
-----------------------------------------
Yes, as proprietary software makers start to go out of the business, there will be an increasing demand of custom development. GPL extensions will never be able to fulfill the complex demands of millions of users. Ultimately, users will look for custom development and everybody knows the custom developments are too higher when compared to really sound proprietary extensions.
This will also affect joomla. If people do not find their required extension in JED and see the really high costs of custom development (the process is also long and painful) they may probably look for alternatives.
2009-07-16 07:36:34
This is simple truth of internet and the world today.
Because of this you will see that in the next few months unique visits to your pages will drop drastically and some others that'll make web sites with Joomla extensions without any boundaries will have more visits.
You can make a better point if you separate these 2 groups of extension - With and without GPL - and give the people right to choose.
Freedom to choose is the main principle of the internet today.
2009-07-27 10:26:36
You can send your extensions and give it a shot at joomdir.net .
2009-07-28 18:04:01
I thoguht GPL was about freedom, but I'll no longer have the freedom to use the software I WANT, but the software the GPL ALLOWS ME TO USE.
Who is the GPL to dictate what software can I use, in the name of the freedom? If GPL is to dictate what software is permitted and what is NOT, remove the freedom word for the GPL, as it's becoming something else ...
2009-08-03 23:13:43
I wholeheartedly AGREE with removing ENCODED/ENCRYPTED extensions from the JED!
For those complaining, there is this thing called GOOGLE that I used to find almost every single extension that was unpublished here. That includes 1.0 extensions that I wanted to convert to 1.5. Remember, the JED is NOT the Internet!
Also, some are confusing "commercial" as being incompatible with GPL. That is NOT true! ENCRYPTION and ENCODING is the problem. So long as 1) the source code is "open" (as in readable and NOT ENCODED) or 2) you provide ON DEMAND a fully UNENCODED version of your cryptic extension, you are technically in GPL compliance.
Yell at those who want to obscure their code and ask them why they can't use a better, GPL compliant financial model.
I speak as someone who actually financially supports open source extensions and has bought SEVERAL custom-programmed solutions. Anyone who questions WHY encoded extensions need to go elsewhere only needs to go to Joomlapolis and read the drama involving a (now-defunct) developer of VERY popular CB plugins who went AWOL and took out SEVERAL peoples' sites as a result. It is very enlightening, as well as entertaining.
Trust me, as someone who has made the stupid decision to buy encoded extensions before, you are FAR better off in the long run avoiding these solutions.
2009-10-06 23:47:53
My main concern is that the library of Joomla extentions was just dramatically reduced.
2009-10-15 19:31:45
Thanks a lot
2009-10-20 21:17:35
Our Plugin is in fact a Plugin for TinyMCE. We connect the editor with web services that generate math equation images and calculations.
We can make the Plugin GPL, not the webservices. Is that OK to appear in JED again?
2009-10-30 07:03:54
2010-01-09 17:54:47
Which is starting to happen a bit on JED since the GLP
Because what we don't want is an ebay selling ebook effect,
For example
one person up loads a ebook and another person downloads it and then up loads the same ebook to sell on ebay too and then another person does the same thing and another until you have 1000's of people selling the same ebook on ebay and nothing new being added to the site.
Joomla.org has to make sure every GPL extension is something
new or add improvement to Existing JED Extension.
Whole idea of GLP is to make invocation easier not copy the exact same thing.