The Joomla Platform LGPL Survey

[Andrew Eddie]

The Joomla Platform Maintainers would like your feedback about whether, as a community, we want to change the license under which the Joomla Platform is released to the LGPL. It is felt that in moving to the LGPL, we will be able to allow more people to integrate the Joomla Platform with their software solutions, and that will translate to an increase in support for the Joomla project overall.

Please give your feedback via the Joomla Platform LGPL Survey. This survey will be closed on or about the 2 January 2013. After the feedback is collected and reviewed, we will publish the results in a consolidated form and make a determination about what the next steps, if any, will be.

Please note, the feedback relates only to the license of the Joomla Platform. There is no proposal to change the license of the Joomla CMS.

The Joomla Platform Maintainers thank you in advance for your valued feedback.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Youjoomla LLC]

Thnx  Andrew, 

Beside 

LGPL allows you to use and distribute the open source software with your application without releasing the source code for your application.

source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1114045/gpl-and-lgpl-open-source-licensing-restrictions

What else is different?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-gene...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-general?hl=en-GB.

--
Best Regards
Dan Casky
Youjoomla Customer Service
+1727-388-6653
5044 17th street N
Saint Petersburg ,FL
33714
-------------------------------
Youjoomla LLC
www.youjoomla.com
Professional Joomla Web Design Services

[Niv Froehlich]

YouJoomla thanks for the link!  (I was having a little trouble understanding the difference between the two and the explanation at your link, simple and straight-forward) was most helpful.

I understand the temptation to commercialize open source by rolling it into a propriety application and I see the benefits to the propriety vendor in doing so.  This, to my understanding, would be the effect of change from GPL to LGPL licensing (do I have this set out correctly?).

If that is the case, then I would have to vote 'no' for the following reason

To my mind, the spirit of open-source, the real spirit, is in giving back and if you are building your business using open-source, then you are benefiting from all those who have made their code and improvements available and open to your business for use to begin with.  

If we continue to "Use it, Improve it, Pass it on," my feeling is that we will all ultimately benefit much more that any individual proprietary gains - and as tempting as it may be (for good reasons), IMO this is a temptation that ought to be avoided at all costs.

I am not 'seized' on this view, and would very much like hear and consider the opinions of others before responding to the survey.

N 

[Donald Gilbert]

Look at Laravel, FuelPHP, CodeIgnitor, Kohana, Symfony and countless other PHP frameworks - they almost universally use a derivative or very close version of the MIT license. This is a VERY permissive OSS license and would allow devs to be complete douchebags if they wanted to. However, that couldn't be further form the truth. I personally know developers that make a great living writing proprietary software using those frameworks, yet they continue to push back their improvements, even though they aren't "required" to by the license.

GPL is more of a hinderance to widespread adoption (which also hurts improvement) in the case of the platform, because there are so many great alternatives out there there don't try to force me to do things that I may or may not want to do.

I look at it like this. I'm a happily married man, and I love to do things for my wife. But when I first get home from work, and she demands that I make dinner (even though we talked about the fact that I would earlier in the day), it pisses me off. I don't like being demanded/required to do something, even if I was already going to do it. It just turns people away.

[Rob Stocker]

Hi All,

I think the important thing is to explain why LGPL is good for platform, while GPL is good for CMS. Otherwise it sounds like a defence of LPGL in general and  maybe a compromise or selling out. The logic being if LPGL is so good why bother with GPL at all. And by extension why bother with open source at all?

The point is GPL suits the CMS perfectly, it is a mature project that benefits from the aforementioned "Use it, Improve it, Pass it on," ethos.

But the platform is a more generic building tool more like CodeIgniter, where the GPL might actually harm it. While I am totally a GPL devotee, imagine if Apache was GPL.

Rob & Lisa - EMC23
083 416 0618
in...@emc23.com
www.emc23.com

[Niv Froehlich]

Donald, do these really correlate?  

a hinderance to widespread adoption (which also hurts improvement)

For example, I.E. 6 enjoyed a widespread adoption (although I believe the I.E. 6 dev team is now hiding in the witness protection program somewhere).

I am not saying you are incorrect, but I want to be careful that there is indeed a positive correlation between 'widespread adoption'  and improvements.  The former, in itself, appears to have no tangible benefits to the open-source community (except for vendors who wish to make money through proprietary applications) while the latter benefits everybody.

Has the GPL really held back improvements to Joomla!?   Let's be careful here before we make decisions that go to the raison d'être of the Joomla! project itself.

In your opinion, and you seem to be much more knowledgeable than me, over the last few years, have developments in

Laravel, FuelPHP, CodeIgnitor, Kohana or Symfony (and other PHP frameworks) outpaced development in Joomla!  (i.e.  is it really the GPL license that is hindering improvement)?

BTW - The compulsory vs. voluntary argument is a good one and does resonate (perhaps the reason I never got married :P ).

N

[Donald Gilbert]

I've said it in another thread, and I'll repeat it here -  bug finding and code improvement is directly proportionate to the amount of use a codebase receives.

IE6 was widely adopted, but it was adopted under a permissive OSS license. So even if devs WANTED to push back improvements, they couldn't.

[Donald Gilbert]

The main difference between the Platform and the CMS is that while the Platform is a tool, the CMS is a product. Tools need to be widely available with little hinderance, while products need to be properly licensed and protected, so others can't blantantly steal it and call it original.

The GPL offers the CMS the protection it needs, but at the same time it hinders the availability of the Platform tool.

(I rewrote this 5x trying to get it right - probably didn't)

[Niv Froehlich]

Are there any 'contributors' against the GPL- LGPL change for the 'Platform'?

If not, then it's got my vote and my appreciation for being included in the discussion.

N

--

[reynaldo celaya III]

My concern is the possibility that devs will only push back code that only benefits/supports their proprietary forks of the framework leaving the platform as a skeleton. Promises to give back will become empty when their $$$ bottom line can be effected.

Quote from GNU
"Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising “more users for this library” if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all."

Ive made plenty of money with the cms and see no difference in the platform, profit from what you build from it.. not from it itself...I beleive it will only get better staying with GPL.

Regards.
RC3

[Donald Gilbert]

While these are valid fears that are espoused by GPL purists, reality is much different. I've said it several time, but just look at the other frameworks available - most of which use an MIT type license. They all have a large community contributing back to the project even though they have a permissive software license.

Also from GNU: (emphasis mine)

```

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.

```

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/SBYaDX9m8R8J.

[Rouven Weßling]

I'm not a lawyer but from my understanding of the LGPL any changes to the code licensed under the LGPL will still have to be made available.

The difference with the GPL would be that the entire application would have to be made available. This is however a point of debate since the (L)GPL wasn't really written for dynamic languages like PHP but with a compiler and linker in mind.

Last but not least both the GPL and LGPL only require you to give the code and the rights granted by the (L)GPL to whomever you distribute the product. If I were running a heavily modified version of Joomla on my own server I wouldn't have to share the code with anyone.

Best regards
Rouven

[Andrew Eddie]

Rob, that's pretty much where I stand and I think it's pretty important to draw a line in the sand and examine how it affects this project, not the Open Source philosophy in general.

Making the Platform LGPL won't magically mean we get more or less contribution.  Those that do contribute today will still continue to do so.  Those that use the Platform and don't contribute at all will remain the same.  For what it's worth, here are the people that make the Platform possible:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-platform/graphs/contributors

I'm very grateful even for the 1-commit people - they're doing their bit.

However, there is a reasonable chance that if the Platform is LGPL, it can be adopted by some organisations more easily than under the GPL, and there is a chance some of those organisations, regardless of size, may see fit to "give back" to this project in some capacity or another.  I'm interested in working with those people. Just one new regular contributor is worth it in my book.

The other aspect is that for me personally, it's more important that people can use my code.  People that refuse to contribute back probably aren't the type of people I want to work with anyway - so it all evens out.  But even there, if people are advertising that they are using Joomla, even in proprietary applications, that's still good for the project.

At worst, nothing improves as far as contribution goes, but the barrier to entry is lowered nonetheless and the GPL *is* a potentially deal-breaking reason why someone would choose, for example, Symfony over Joomla.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Andrew Eddie]

On Saturday, 15 December 2012 06:58:44 UTC+10, Niv Froehlich wrote:

Are there any 'contributors' against the GPL- LGPL change for the 'Platform'?

If not, then it's got my vote and my appreciation for being included in the discussion.

For anyone making a major contribution we require them to sign the Joomla Contributor Agreement.  That agreement specifically allows us to relicense any contribution within the GPL family of licenses including the LGPL.  So it logically follows that, providing a contributor actually read and understood the agreement, they are happy for their code to be released under the GPL or LGPL.  The survey will probably show whether this assumption is correct or not :)

At the end of the day, the target outcome of the survey will be whether or not the Platform Maintainers formally ask OSM to investigate changing the license.  Nothing's going to happen overnight.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[brian teeman]

Just wondering if there has been anyone who has ever said they would have used the platform if it was LGPL but wont because it is GPL. I appreciate that not everyone that this would apply to would bother to comment but it would be useful to know.

[Alan (instance)]

I see this as making one of two choices.

1) Stick with the GPL, write amazing code, increase the scope of GPL licensed applications available on the planet.

2) Move to LGPL, write amazing code, hope that it will be more popular than it would be under the GPL, do nothing to increase the scope of GPL licensed applications on the planet.

So that boils down to this: is it about popularity or principle?

I choose principle. Let's stick with the GPL.

Ten years ago I might have gone the other way on this, but the free software movement has gained so much more momentum since then that I don't think we should be tempted by ego, tempted by the promise of "popularity" over "freedom". In this era where the open web is under attack by closed platforms and limited interoperability, we're going to provide them with more tools to achieve that in exchange for being able to say we're built into more applications? So we can go to sleep at night and say "our code is being used in 30 million places" instead of 10 million? Give me a break. No. Just no.

Footnotes:

1) The FSF has a brief page on this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

2) "The Web We Lost" by Anil Dash http://dashes.com/anil/2012/12/the-web-we-lost.html

[Don]

Alan, I quoted it earlier, but since you linked to the page again:

"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us."

To reiterate, the only ones benefited by the platform remaining GPL are the GPL purists. Those who just want to write good code and get feedback from other good coders are the ones who lose. The purists get to boost their ego by saying "we got Joomla." LGPL is still FOSS and only provides for the platform to be included in non-GPL licensed code. By using it, you can still get your "warm and fuzzy's" knowing you contributed to free software. 

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/X6ngFBOxDLQJ.

[Alan (instance)]

Sure, but you didn't quote this:

"Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising 'more users for this library' if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

"But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition."

So call me a GPL purist if you wish. Either that or you're saying the features of JPlatform are readily available through other libraries, in which case why the heck didn't we just adopt those existing LGPL libraries and contribute to their repositories instead?

The GPL is about the freedom of the people who receive the software product. The LGPL restricts that freedom. Given a choice between popularity and freedom, I choose freedom. You can call it purism, I call it principled.

[Don]

You are correct, I'm saying that the Platform does not offer much that can't be found in other libraries. It is a run of the mill php web framework. There are things I like about it and things I wish it would do better. I've been using Joomla for years, and have been using the platform to build custom apps (for personal use) since it was called the Joomla Framework. With all that experience comes one wish, that others could enjoy what I have come to love. I want to improve the framework (I've just recently become a contributor) and I want others that are more skilled than those involved (although we do have tons of skill already available, not everyone knows everything) to help make the platform better. That is being restricted by the viral nature of the GPL. 

I suppose you would believe that if the hammer were invented by a GPL purist, that it should forever remain GPL and never be allowed to build proprietary luxury homes. Now if it were an extra special hammer, maybe a pneumatic one or something, then sure. But the basic tool should be widely available. Restricting basic tools from widespread use is insane. 

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/ACBRkXhUsYwJ.

[brian teeman]

Do you have any evidence that the development of the platform is being restricted by its licence. If you have evidence to back up that assertion it provides some validity to your statement.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-general+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Alan (instance)]

Can we keep the discussion in reality? This is reminiscent of the best FUD.

You say platform adoption is "restricted by the viral nature of the GPL". I submit that this assertion is unprovable. As a counter-point, many people advanced this argument for CMS, particularly in the "extensions must be GPL" firestorm, and the project remains as vibrant as ever. Therefore, though the statement cannot be proven or disproven, the balance of available evidence leans toward disproof.

Your hammer analogy is deeply flawed. By that reasoning every application compiled with gcc would have to be GPL. This is false. Combined with your earlier remark about distribution of internal applications I am not certain that you have a clear understanding of the GPL.

As developers, we have an inclination to believe that the majority of the value of a product is in the intellectual property. Because the code is an essential part of the product, we assume the reverse implication and believe that the product is essentially the code and nothing else. There is ample proof that this is false, both in the open source and proprietary code domains. The value of a product is the sum of all the functions that deliver, sell, and support it. The IP is one significant part of that. It is necessary for a successful product but not sufficient. By releasing JPlatform under the LGPL we simply perpetuate this fallacy while removing freedoms from users. I can't support that.

[Don]

Give me some time to come back with "reasonable citations." (Who determines what is reasonable?) 

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/m7069QIKbecJ.

To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-gene...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Dexter]

I am generally quite allergic to licensing discussions and avoid them
as much as possible. However, one thing I would suggest is this: In
the absence of a reasonably clear consensus to the contrary, I believe
the status quo should prevail. In other words, imo we shouldn't change
the current license unless there is reasonably strong agreement to
make the change.

Mark

>> joomla-dev-gene...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-general?hl=en-GB.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! General Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/m7069QIKbecJ.
>
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-gene...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-general?hl=en-GB.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! General Development" group.

[brian teeman]

On Saturday, 15 December 2012 16:38:27 UTC, Mark Dexter wrote:

I am generally quite allergic to licensing discussions and avoid them
as much as possible. However, one thing I would suggest is this: In
the absence of a reasonably clear consensus to the contrary, I believe
the status quo should prevail. In other words, imo we shouldn't change
the current license unless there is reasonably strong agreement to
make the change.

I tend to agree with you Mark which is why I have been asking if anyone has been clamouring for a change in the license in order to use the platform. 

 

>> joomla-dev-general+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-general?hl=en-GB.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! General Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/m7069QIKbecJ.
>
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> joomla-dev-general+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-general?hl=en-GB.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! General Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> joomla-dev-general+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Naouak]

I have always thought that LGPL was better than GPL for libraries that are supposed to be used by anyone.

GPL is more restricting for everyone than LGPL. With a GPL library, you cannot use any proprietary stuff because you have to share any stuff you do with GPL. That's the issue that LGPL solve by being non-contaminating.

I so think that LGPL give more freedom to developers than GPL.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/PS1gU9yneV8J.

[Naouak]

I have always thought that LGPL was better than GPL for libraries that are supposed to be used by anyone.

GPL is more restricting for everyone than LGPL. With a GPL library, you cannot use any proprietary stuff because you have to share any stuff you do with GPL. That's the issue that LGPL solve by being non-contaminating.

Because of the GPL nature of joomla, for any extension developed that use the framework, you have to redistribute it. It sounds stupid but that's the problem of the GPL.

On Dec 15, 2012 5:30 PM, "Alan (instance)" <alan.l...@abivia.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/PS1gU9yneV8J.

[Niv Froehlich]

+1 here

- practical vs. principled means GPL to LGPL

- LGPL does not prevent anybody from contributing

- as Andrew said, those who don't want to contribute aren't the folks we want to work with anyways

- also, thinking in terms of voluntary vs. mandatory contributions, people who are inclined to make contributions will anyways, and those who aren't will either dishonor the license or find some 'work-around,' so aren't we just handcuffing the 'good guys'?

N

[Alan (instance)]

It depends on whether or not you're trying to convey the freedom to other developers or to the people who use the application. The two freedoms conflict with each other to some extent. Since this is a developer list, it's unsurprising that most of us look at the issue from a developer's viewpoint. I happen to think there are compelling reasons for conveying freedom to the users.

[Don]

Exactly. Developer freedoms trump user freedoms. Users don't care if they have free unfettered access to source code. They just want their application to work. Developers want the ability to use the best too for the job. GPL says users freedoms are paramount when in all reality users don't care about code. They just want to be able to do with the code whatever they want. Whether its to sell ebooks or put up jihadist websites. 

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/cWagM1md3rsJ.

[brian teeman]

On Saturday, 15 December 2012 18:05:14 UTC, Donald Gilbert wrote:

Exactly. Developer freedoms trump user freedoms. Users don't care if they have free unfettered access to source code.

Oh boy I really couldnt disagree with you more. I'm a user and I 100% care about "unfettered access to source code"

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-general+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Don]

Sorry if I've stepped on toes. I'll come back with the facts asked for. Take it or leave it. What ever the decision - it is what it is. 

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/wI9NM-LkfogJ.

To post to this group, send an email to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-gene...@googlegroups.com.

[Alan (instance)]

It's a choice. Developer freedoms can trump user freedoms if we so choose. I think freedom is a good thing and the more widely it's distributed the better.

Also large enterprise customers DO care about code. A lot. That's why commercial software escrow providers exist. If some small business wants to sell ebooks, they don't think they care about code -- until their proprietary software developer closes up shop and leaves them with a bunch of IonCube files. Then guess what happens... they make sure they get their code from a big supplier like Microsoft the second time round, and then we can all go get jobs with a Fortune 500 software provider.

Restricting the freedoms to developers sounds like a good idea on the surface, but I believe we actually gain much more by giving the freedom to the user. I realize that this is counter-intuitive, but I think that anyone looking at the issue in depth will come to a similar conclusion.

[Gary Mort]

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:28:06 AM UTC-5, Alan (instance) wrote:

Sure, but you didn't quote this:

"Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising 'more users for this library' if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

"But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition."

Keep in mind that this arguement is being made by the same group that:

1) Discourages using a license identical to the GPL but not calling it GPL.  So right there, their completely hypocritical about "popularity vs principle" - they want the GPL to be THE license and compromise that principle by dismissing identical identical license terms.

2) Have repeatedly posted long tracts about how unfair it is to them that someone forked one of the GPL projects and continues to release new and improved versions under the GPL and a slightly different name.

As such, these are emotional arguments being made that are unprincipled.  So it is better to actually make your own argument then to quote an unprincipled statement. :-)

My apologies if this sounds insulting...I'm assuming that since you have repeatedly used the word principle to refer to a specific outlook that you don't take it as insulting....  if I'm wrong and you have instead deliberately been using it as a term to insult those who would support moving to the LGPL, then I apologize for my mis-understanding and any unintentional insult.

[Niv Froehlich]

...then I apologize for my mis-understanding and any unintentional insult.

that argument is far too clever and my brain now feels permanently wrinkled (thanks a lot!)

i think the reality is that people who will contribute will do so anyways, regardless of licensing, on a voluntary, and not on compulsory basis

principled people will always be principled, those are not, will not be - so on a 'practical' level, what really is the disadvantage of LGPL?

[Nick Savov]

Hi everyone,

I have no preference one way or another as to whether Joomla stays GPL or
goes LGPL.

However, so that people can evaluate the proposal properly, I do think
it's important to point out that the GPL license does not just prevent
proprietary software from using GPL code, but it also prevents some free
software (as in "free speech") from linking to it. For example, free
software with the following licenses:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

LGPL on the other hand is compatible with those and also with future
licenses. So GPL is, in a sense, less "free" (as in "free speech") than
the LGPL.

Furthermore, relicensing JPlatform to LGPL does not remove any freedoms
from users of JPlatform. It's going to be the same exact code for
everyone, all open-source, all free, all LGPL, etc. If anyone can think
of a single freedom that it removes, please say so.

Lastly, it's important to keep in mind that the people that:
1) wrote the GPL and
2) most want us to use GPL

are also the same people that:
1) wrote the LGPL (Lesser-GPL) and
2) say the GPL is not best in all cases and recommend LGPL in some case.

Here's a quote that's been given several times so far, but I feel hasn't
been evaluated seriously (at least publicly) :
[quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html]

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are
reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases.
The most common case is when a free library's features are readily
available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In
that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage,
so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there
are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven
proprietary software developers to use another�no problem for them, only
for us.

[/quote]

According to them, it's better to use the LGPL when "a free library's

features are readily available for proprietary software through other

alternative libraries". Keep in mind that these are the authors of the
GPL and who are also the authors of the LGPL. (In my opinion, I would
also add readily available for other "free license" software and not just
proprietary software, since GPL isn't compatible with all free licenses)

So do other PHP frameworks, such as Laravel, FuelPHP, CodeIgnitor, Kohana,
and Symphony (which were mentioned), offer what JPlatform has to offer?
If so, according to the authors of the GPL and LGPL that's a case where
it's "better to use the Lesser GPL" (i.e. LGPL).

My 2 cents :)

Kind regards,
Nick

>> <alan.l...@abivia.com<javascript:>>

>>> driven proprietary software developers to use another�*no problem for
>>> them, only for us.*"

>>>> feedback<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dF8tQmIxRzJORndHYXVVRElFOUx4T2c6MA#gid=0>

>>>> about
>>>> whether, as a community, we want to change the license under which the
>>>> Joomla Platform is released to the LGPL. It is felt that in moving to
>>>> the
>>>> LGPL, we will be able to allow more people to integrate the Joomla
>>>> Platform
>>>> with their software solutions, and that will translate to an increase
>>>> in
>>>> support for the Joomla project overall.
>>>>
>>>> Please give your feedback via the Joomla Platform LGPL

>>>> Survey<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dF8tQmIxRzJORndHYXVVRElFOUx4T2c6MA#gid=0>.

>>>> This survey will be closed on or about the 2 January 2013. After the
>>>> feedback is collected and reviewed, we will publish the results in a
>>>> consolidated form and make a determination about what the next steps,
>>>> if
>>>> any, will be.
>>>>
>>>> Please note, the feedback relates only to the license of the Joomla
>>>> Platform. There is no proposal to change the license of the Joomla
>>>> CMS.
>>>>
>>>> The Joomla Platform Maintainers thank you in advance for your valued
>>>> feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Eddie
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! General Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/PS1gU9yneV8J.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 15 December 2012 21:36, Alan (instance) <alan.l...@abivia.com> wrote:

I see this as making one of two choices.

1) Stick with the GPL, write amazing code, increase the scope of GPL licensed applications available on the planet.

2) Move to LGPL, write amazing code, hope that it will be more popular than it would be under the GPL, do nothing to increase the scope of GPL licensed applications on the planet.

So that boils down to this: is it about popularity or principle?

I choose principle. Let's stick with the GPL.

I don't understand "principle".  Is that an absolute principle or your principles?

The only principle I am worried about is copyleft.  That is, when someone distributes the Platform they must provide the source code.  Is the LGPL not copyleft?

The principle that I believe I'm sacrificing is when you distribute something built on the platform, today you must not only include the source of the Platform, but also the source of your entire application.  I'm ok with that because the "bit" of code I contributed to is still under the copyleft.  That's why I would never approve of a license change for the Joomla CMS itself, but for the Platform it makes sense to me.

@Brian, I'm sure I've had passing conversations with Joomla people about the GPL but I doubt there is a public record of them.  I have certainly had more non-Joomla discussions about code licenses and the regular theme is the aversion to the GPL for framework level stuff.  The MIT/BSD is definitely preferred.

The survey will produce evidence one way or the other.  I don't believe it's wrong to ask the question - and in asking the question, we get an answer.  At the end of the day I don't care if the answer is a resounding note of disapproval, but at least we'll know.  Would that affect my personal contribution ... that's a good question.  There's nothing stopping me from releasing my own contributions under the LGPL or any other copyleft license I suppose :)

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Don]

Well said.

Sent from my iPhone

[Nicholas Brick]

Stepping back a little from the details of the licences and thinking about the impact a very large and very successful company may have on the community.

Seems to me there's a parallel in Apple's use of Unix - did it do big things for Unix by way of popularity and feedback of enhancements and contributions ?

[Terry Arthur]

Does anyone have a link to the original proposal and the logic used there?

I'd be interested to read about the thinking of the people or person who proposed this change.

Attached is some interesting research into cooperation between paid and volunteer contributors to FOSS projects which may or may not have some bearing here but it is interesting.

Terry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

[Alan (instance)]

Sorry I guess I just assumed there. From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power."

And...

"A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

I suppose I should have said "philosophy" instead of "principle".

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:40:56 PM UTC-5, Andrew Eddie wrote:

I don't understand "principle".  Is that an absolute principle or your principles?

The only principle I am worried about is copyleft.  That is, when someone distributes the Platform they must provide the source code.  Is the LGPL not copyleft?

It means, for example, that someone can build a CRM system on Platform, and the end user gets a copy of the Platform code but not the CRM code. In terms of the freedoms defined above it means we facilitate the construction of an application in a way that the end user doesn't receive those freedoms. If we're collectively good with that, fine. Personally I think it goes against the underlying philosophy and principles of the project.

We're almost all developers. The LGPL gives developers more power. So there's a lot of support for the idea. That doesn't make it the best thing to do.

[Naouak]

The problem with the GPL is that as any visitor to your website is an user, you have to redistribute your code to each user of your website and for a lot of webmaster this is purely impossible.

When your business model is based upon a feature, you cannot redistribute like you want. I don't see google sharing the sources of their search engine because if they do that, any compoany with enough money could be an opponnent.

IMO, GPL is written by someone who sees evil everywhere and don't try to think about business models. LGPL won't change much for most end users(How many actually care about seeing the code ?)  but it would permit stuf that GPL wont.

It's your freedom to not choose any stuff made with IONCube or any absurdities that some people tried to do to "protect" their code if you have problem with that.

Naouak, Grade 2 de Kobal.
Site web: http://www.naouak.net

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! General Development" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-general/-/5K9KAPqBp8EJ.

[Chris Davenport]

@Naouak.  You're confusing the GPL with the AGPL.  The GPL does not require webmasters to release their code to site visitors.

Chris.

--
Chris Davenport
Joomla Production Leadership Team

[Andrew Eddie]

On 17 December 2012 02:07, Alan (instance) <alan.l...@abivia.com> wrote:

"A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

It means, for example, that someone can build a CRM system on Platform, and the end user gets a copy of the Platform code but not the CRM code. In terms of the freedoms defined above it means we facilitate the construction of an application in a way that the end user doesn't receive those freedoms. If we're collectively good with that, fine. Personally I think it goes against the underlying philosophy and principles of the project.

As I said, the GPL makes perfect sense for Joomla the CMS application and there is no argument there.  But when contributing and then distributing the framework, I'm completely ok with not restricting how the developer writes the program on top of it.  When someone uses my code, they don't have to "convert" to my licensing world view, they just have to respect it.

But that's just my take.  I realise others will have different views and while I have a preference for the outcome of this discussion, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie