The Platform and the LGPL

526 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 3:21:14 AM11/25/12
to JPlatform
Now that we are seriously looking at phar files, among other things, is now a good time to be talking about making the platform LGPL?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Herman Peeren

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 5:11:24 AM11/25/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html

Is there more information about the relation between phar-distribution and (L)GPL?

Herman

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 5:31:38 AM11/25/12
to JPlatform
So the background is that the platform has always been intended to be relicensed to LGPL and that is why we have the contributors agreement.  There is nothing special about phar files per se, other than it makes it extremely easy to distribute the platform and integrate it within a larger work.

The advantage of making the platform LGPL is that it can be included in non-copyleft works (and that could be as simple as software where the license is not quite compatible with the GPL, but still Open Source).  This disadvantage is the FOSS purists may not like their code used non-copyleft environments.  It's not an avenue I personally have a need to pursue, but neither is it one that particularly bothers me. At worst nobody includes it in non-GPL compatible works.

Anyway, just throwing it out there out of interest.  As stated, I don't need the platform to be changed to LGPL personally.  It's just come out of recent discussions around making it easier to distribute the platform.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

javier gómez

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 10:52:58 AM11/25/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Like Andrew I don't need the platform to be changed to LGPL, just want to share more things to the debate:

I have seen that paragraph in Herman's link:

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.

I have checked other main known PHP frameworks licenses and I have noticed that  most of them seem to be using permissive free software licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence). 
--
Javi

Elin Waring

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 10:55:09 AM11/25/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
It has never been "always intended" that it change, in fact the total opposite is true.  LGPL was simply one option that was included in the JCA to future proof it in case that became important in the future or if for some reason the GPL was thrown out in court. The PLT and OSM board at the time of approving the JCA language were very clear that there was a strong preference to preserve a 100% GPL stack, that the CMS would always be GPL, and that relicensing as LGPL would be considered only if it became clear that GPL was a major impediment to adoption of the platform.    In fact the situation that we have where the largest users of the platform as platform use it in house only (and do not distribute) and the move to the cloud is probably why it has not been much of an issue. 

Elin 

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 4:45:44 PM11/25/12
to JPlatform
On 26 November 2012 01:55, Elin Waring <elin....@gmail.com> wrote:
It has never been "always intended" that it change, in fact the total opposite is true.  

My apologies for hyperbolising. "Some of us" that have contributed to the code have had that intention since at least 2009, possibly earlier (my memory is failing me). I shouldt make it clear that I am referring only to the Platform in isolation.  I'm not referring about the licensing of the Joomla CMS.  

If you ship the platform as LGPL it possibly opens new doors, or, probably more correctly, reduces yet another barrier to choosing Joomla in software projects (other than the CMS, which is something we should encourage).  There are two ways to handle it: wait for it to be a problem, or just bite the bullet and see what happens.  The risk of waiting is that the Platform gets passed over in the evaluation phases of a software project and you almost never know about it.  The advantage of change is that it give us an excuse to give the Platform some air time and you never know what will come of that.

Anyway, not a hill I'm wanting to die on, it just stuck me as somewhat of a no brainer since we have been talking about how to make it even easier to distribute the Platform lately.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Sam Moffatt

unread,
Nov 25, 2012, 10:56:01 PM11/25/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Having some portion of the code base as LGPL was discussed at the 2007
summit as was splitting out the libraries to make a re-usable platform
that could be used for various projects which would benefit most from
being LGPL.

Cheers,

Sam Moffatt
http://pasamio.id.au

Donald Gilbert

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 11:56:27 AM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
So where does this stand? I'm for Platform going LGPL; not so I can use the platform for proprietary software myself, but because it breaks down another barrier of adoption.

From the link Herman posted: 

```
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.
```

Don't take this as negative criticism - I love Joomla and the Platform, and will continue to use it as it gets better and better. However, it is also my belief that the Platform doesn't offer features that aren't "readily available ... through alternative libraries". Keeping the Platform as GPL is really only a detriment to the Platform itself, as it puts up a wall to widespread usage and adoption. It will (and does) "drive proprietary software developers to use another" platform.

Chad Windnagle

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 1:58:27 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on this, and I'm sure there's good reasons to go with either direction. 

Reading the link Herman sent, what stuck out to me was the final paragraph(s):

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.

I think the developers using the platform need to decide what they want from the Platform to make this decision. It appears that the only reason to go to LGPL is to grow the popularity of the platform. However, what good is that popularity if the developers are putting into proprietary applications? They may not be pushing their innovations back to us because they aren't required too. If that happens, what good does the popularity do for the community of the platform? Having a bunch of developers implementing and not contributing back doesn't really benefit the platform very much, I don't think. 

My conclusion would be that right now going to LGPL wouldn't be the worst thing, so I wouldn't oppose it. 

Regards,
Chad Windnagle
Fight SOPA

javier gómez

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 2:55:09 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Well, there can be other situations. Let's imagine that there is a big software company interested in using the platform but their requirements doesn't allow them to use the GPL. Now licensed to LGPL they can use it. The company will continue selling their products but it will be interested in seen the platform getting better and better. Maybe, in that new context, these big software companies feel more interested in contributing resources, developers, code, patches to have a even better platform...
--
Javi

Thomas PAPIN

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 3:17:25 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Is it really possible to change the license to LGPL ? For my understanding, you should ask the agreement of all the contributors of the platform, isn't it ?
Who own the copyright of the code (developpers or OSM ?)

Yes LGPL could be great for the platform, compare to Zend Framework or Symfony.

But also I like the fact that this is all GPL. This is  a good vision of what is a free and community project and prevent too much "commercial" extension. But Platform in LGPL and CMS in GPL is a good solution.




2012/12/6 javier gómez <javier.go...@gmail.com>

Don

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 3:22:24 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
I don't think we need to worry about whether contributions will come back to the platform from companies and developers that use it. Just look at ebay as an example. The platform would t be anything like it is today if it wasn't for a private company making it what it is through usage and contributions. 

Many OSS frameworks (CI, Laravel, FuelPHP, Kohana, etc) are reaping the benefits that widespread adoption brings, even though they are not GPL. 

Sent from my iPhone

Emerson da Rocha Luiz

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 3:23:22 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Please change. Take more years to revise the license only slows adoption .

JPlatform be GPL2 and not LGPL/MIT/any-other-permissive just make now who decide inside companies witch framework they will use completely ignore JPlatform if they just do not work with CMS Joomla. Companies who inject larger amounts of money these days, even for new projects and that could take advantage of the Joomla CMS, tend to pay better treat those using Symfony, even aiming that Drupal will implement it soon. Wtf?

More than just change license, the JPlatform deserves a differentiated marketing in relation to CMS Joomla urgent. Sometimes it's a nightmare for programmers because of the difficulty of differentiating who only makes sites. In the business world, at least from what I've seen, it seems that anyone who does something with JPlatform that is not based on Joomla, is not being innovative or at least common, but only one being hipster.

emerson
--
Emerson Rocha Luiz
+55 51 9881-9146
 | Skype: fititnt | GTalk: fititnt | Twitter: @fititnt | http://www.fititnt.org
Membro do JUGRS

Don

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 3:23:52 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
It can be made LGPL. There is provision for it in the Joomla Contributers Agreement that all contributors agree to when they submit their code for inclusion. 

Sent from my iPhone

Louis Landry

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 7:27:21 PM12/6/12
to Joomla Platform List
@Emerson, I can't say that I've ever been called a hipster before, but if you say so. :-) 

@All, can I ask that we please leave the armchair attorney business out of the conversation before it gets started?  We have people OSM for a reason, and we have the SFLC available to guide us through any legal questions or concerns.  The real question is not whether we can, but whether we want to distribute the platform via an LGPL license.  It isn't tied to Phar or composer or anything distribution method.  It is more cultural than technological.

I've personally wanted this for quite some time.  I'm passionate about free and open source software.  I believe that the GPL has been a strong positive influence to the advancement of technology as well as free and open source software.  I believe that the Joomla CMS should remain a GPL licensed software project.  I also believe that the Joomla Platform should be distributed under the LGPL license.

- Louis

Gary Mort

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 9:05:14 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com


On Thursday, December 6, 2012 3:17:25 PM UTC-5, Thomas PAPIN wrote:
Is it really possible to change the license to LGPL ? For my understanding, you should ask the agreement of all the contributors of the platform, isn't it ?
Who own the copyright of the code (developpers or OSM ?)

Yes. :-)

Copyright is "owned" by the creator of a work...even a derived work!  IE if you take the Joomla libraries, add a little bit of text to a few files, YOU own the copyright to that derived work.  That means not just the files you changed, but the entire file set you are using.

If you turn about and contribute those code changes back to the core, then you must sign the contributor agreement, for example:

At a minimum you have granted OSM a non-revocable, lifetime license to use and distribute your code contribution with the restriction that they may only license it to others under the GPL, AGPL, or LGPL license.

As such, OSM may change the license for any of the code to any of those 3 licenses at any time.

When a new release of Joomla is made with the new code, the copyright for that distribution - including your code - is owned by OSM.

Think of it like nested div tags with inverse CSS, ie if copyright is a CSS attribute - it is the copyright assigned to the outermost tag which applies to the entire project - without at any point REMOVING the copyrights from the inner tags.
 
You can ignore the stuff about patents and such - that is completely unrelated to copyright and the GPL license.  Wheras the stuff about assigning ownership of the copyright to OSM would in fact remove your rights under copyright law and grant them only to OSM.

Gary Mort

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 9:18:36 PM12/6/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com


On Thursday, December 6, 2012 1:58:27 PM UTC-5, Chad Windnagle wrote:

I think the developers using the platform need to decide what they want from the Platform to make this decision. It appears that the only reason to go to LGPL is to grow the popularity of the platform. However, what good is that popularity if the developers are putting into proprietary applications? They may not be pushing their innovations back to us because they aren't required too.


They aren't required to push those innovations back to "us" under the GPL either.  Their required to push those innovations to anyone that they "distribute" their application to.   Their free to charge 100,000 and only provide their application and innovations to a handful of people.

Now because it is GPL THOSE customers could then take those innovations and push them back to the platform.  

So, what will these innovations be?  A better authentication process?  A better way to load library classes?  A better way to use views?  Assume for a moment that it is any of those, and that their application becomes wildly popular because of those innovations.  Because it is not GPL, they gain the benefit of being able to provide that application exclusively with those innovations.  However, since the "innovation" is solely based on copyright of specific code - it doesn't mean those changes don't get pushed back - it just means instead of the code being pushed back the IDEA will be pushed back and someone else will reverse-engineer it and then add it to the application.

And if on the other hand this innovation is only used by a half dozen companies and has no popularity - well then a lot of time and energy will have been saved by not adding unwanted features to the core code and then having to support them.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 9, 2012, 5:42:47 PM12/9/12
to JPlatform
I'm with Louis.  I'm running on the assumption that we've done everything right to be in a position to change the license, and I just want to know if that's something we "want" to do.  Given that we are starting to talk about targeting wider distribution (Composer, etc), I think it's an appropriate time to raise the question.  For me it's a +1 (for the Platform being LGPL - CMS stays GPL) but I'd like to know how people think we should proceed on deciding "whether" it should be done (not about "can" it be done).

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Donald Gilbert

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 10:47:16 PM12/11/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
I'd say lets put a Google Survey together laying out a few of the issues as they stand (and the current assumptions) and ask people what their position is, if it *should* be done or not. This would help get a feel of how the developers who actively use the platform think about the issue.

I would propose to include *at least* the following questions:

- Have you used the Joomla Platform (not the CMS) to build a stand alone application?
- Did the fact that the platform is GPL licensed influence your decision to use it?
- Do you actively push your discoveries back to the platform either by way of code improvement OR improving documentation?

(that's all I can think of for now)

Don

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 10:53:25 PM12/11/12
to JPlatform
On 12 December 2012 13:47, Donald Gilbert <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd say lets put a Google Survey together laying out a few of the issues as they stand (and the current assumptions) and ask people what their position is, if it *should* be done or not. This would help get a feel of how the developers who actively use the platform think about the issue.

I would propose to include *at least* the following questions:

- Have you used the Joomla Platform (not the CMS) to build a stand alone application?
- Did the fact that the platform is GPL licensed influence your decision to use it?
- Do you actively push your discoveries back to the platform either by way of code improvement OR improving documentation?

Sounds like a plan.  

I'd probably add "Have you signed the JCA".

It's also an ideal opportunity to collect some demographics.  What do you think would be interesting in that respect?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Donald Gilbert

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:12:41 PM12/11/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
I have not *signed* the JCA. TBH I didn't even know it existed until about a month ago. I agree with what it says, maybe it's time I sign?

For (optional) demographic information, I would suggest:
- gender
- age group
- experience level (either an entry of years or select list of level [n00b to l33t h4x0r]) <-- is that a thing?

Other things to ask:
- Version of Platform used
- Keep up with updates (if so, how?)
- Active in mailing lists (I guess they would be, if they found out about the survey)

Maybe include a "Did you know these resources existed?" section with yes/no questions about the new Markdown docs, developer.joomla.org, etc...

Craig Phillips

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:16:42 PM12/11/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
I'm just curious but why is gender relevant?

Cheers

Craig

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:24:35 PM12/11/12
to JPlatform
On 12 December 2012 14:12, Donald Gilbert <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have not *signed* the JCA. TBH I didn't even know it existed until about a month ago. I agree with what it says, maybe it's time I sign?

Oops, yes, that's our fault.  You probably should sign it :)
 
For (optional) demographic information, I would suggest:
- gender
- age group
- experience level (either an entry of years or select list of level [n00b to l33t h4x0r]) <-- is that a thing?

Other things to ask:
- Version of Platform used
- Keep up with updates (if so, how?)
- Active in mailing lists (I guess they would be, if they found out about the survey)

Maybe include a "Did you know these resources existed?" section with yes/no questions about the new Markdown docs, developer.joomla.org, etc...


Good stuff.  I'm happy to play with a Google Form if you want me to?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie 

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:28:06 PM12/11/12
to JPlatform
Because we have a thread on General that has brought some concerns about the level of female participation and whether they feel comfortable in our community.  It would be useful to have the statistic to at least have a baseline when people are making claims or bringing concerns.

So, the options you put in are:  "Male" | "Female" | "Other" | "Rather not say" and you default to the last one.  I believe that is the politically correct range.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Donald Gilbert

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:29:50 PM12/11/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
It's relevant because of this article: http://magazine.joomla.org/issues/issue-dec-2012/item/1017-the-x-factor-and-women-in-joomla

There's a concerted effort by the women involved in Joomla to get MORE women involved in Joomla. I think asking gender on this developer survey would be valuable information for them. But, we could definitely use a woman's perspective on whether we should ask it or not - maybe Amy Stephen could chime in? (If she gets this message) 

Donald Gilbert

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:33:00 PM12/11/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com

Good stuff.  I'm happy to play with a Google Form if you want me to?

I haven't done much of anything with Google Forms, so if you have experience there, that would be good. I'm sure it's not difficult to learn, but I'm writing platform documentation right now. :) 

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 11, 2012, 11:33:54 PM12/11/12
to JPlatform
On 12 December 2012 14:33, Donald Gilbert <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't done much of anything with Google Forms, so if you have experience there, that would be good. I'm sure it's not difficult to learn, but I'm writing platform documentation right now. :) 

I'm not going to interrupt you doing that.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Amy Stephen

unread,
Dec 12, 2012, 1:09:22 AM12/12/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for asking for my input, very nice.

Provided there is an opportunity to opt out of that question, I always think it's a good idea to have data. It sure as heck beats guessing where things are at. I agree with Andrew's point on the value of having a baseline from which change can be measured. We are where we are. Nothing wrong with that. Data can help support goals. So, I think it's good.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Thanks again =)

Craig Phillips

unread,
Dec 12, 2012, 1:15:19 AM12/12/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Donald & Andrew... I really need to keep up-to-date on the magazine!

Cheers

Craig

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 13, 2012, 5:17:41 PM12/13/12
to JPlatform
Ok.  Thanks everyone for their advice and feedback.  Our first official survey is now live:


And here's the news:


I'll hit the General list but otherwise shout about it on all the usual social channels.  I'd love a good response to this.  Hopefully, because the word "license" is used, we will :)

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Don

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 10:26:11 AM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Some people in corporate situations are forbidden from using GPL licensed frameworks because the GPL is a viral license and using it would require internal applications to be GPL as well. LGPL allows for inclusion without sacrificing the rights.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 15, 2012, at 6:12 AM, "Alan (instance)" <abivi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've posted a longer response on joomla-dev-general; I won't repeat the whole thing here. For me this is a question of choosing popularity over principle. I'd prefer that platform be so good it encouraged people to build GPL applications, rather than having contributors from proprietary projects make platform incrementally better.

Don

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 10:28:17 AM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
PHP is past the point of "the best framework." With composer and packagist taking the place of monolithic platforms. We may well create the best framework out there, but keeping it under GPL will make it the best unused framework.

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 10:31:52 AM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
This is a fairly common and well debunked myth. The GPL requires that source be distributed only to those that receive the application. While it is true that those that receive the application are free to do what they please with it, making use of something within a corporate structure hardly qualifies as "distribution". 

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 10:33:03 AM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Without a reasonable citation to prove your assertion, this is a null remark.

Gary Mort

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 12:05:31 PM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com


On Saturday, December 15, 2012 7:12:36 AM UTC-5, Alan (instance) wrote:
I've posted a longer response on joomla-dev-general; I won't repeat the whole thing here. For me this is a question of choosing popularity over principle. I'd prefer that platform be so good it encouraged people to build GPL applications, rather than having contributors from proprietary projects make platform incrementally better.

For me it's a a question of choosing my principles rather than having someone else's principles crammed down my throat.

My principle is to encourage others to use the platform where appropriate, build secure websites, and not be discouraged from using the code base.

But your free to have your own different set of principles.

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 12:28:23 PM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
In electing to work on JPlatform instead of working on an LGPL framework or on proprietary code, you chose the principles embodied in the GPL. I did the same. No throat cramming was involved.

This proposal involves modifying those principles. It involves dropping the "LGPL if legally required" intent of the contributor's agreement and makes it "LGPL if we think it will make us more popular". In so doing it removes freedoms from the people who receive the code. That's the issue. It is not a question of your principles or mine, both of which we are entirely entitled to, and both of which are irrelevant in this context. It is a question of the principles of the project.

Gary Mort

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 2:36:01 PM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com


On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:28:23 PM UTC-5, Alan (instance) wrote:
In electing to work on JPlatform instead of working on an LGPL framework or on proprietary code, you chose the principles embodied in the GPL. I did the same. No throat cramming was involved.

The terms of contributing code included LGPL licensing.  So by the same token there is no compromise of principal if the license is changed.

Your comments are verging on hypocrisy in that now you are implying that you get to disagree with portions of the agreement[that the license may be changed to LGPL by Open Source Matters if they wish for any reason they wish] - yet I don't get to disagree with portions of the GPL 'principles' because I contribute code to such a project.

Either we both compromised, or we both did not.  Anything else is dishonest.  Either it is fine to change the license and everyone already agreed to it, or it was an option that you can have reservations over just as I can have reservations about some of the so-called principles of the GPL.

The primary reason I support moving the paltform to the LGPL is that it is more explicit about re-use of code and thus ends the debate of "The principle of GPL" which one may or may not agree with vs "The actual written license" 

I support GPL code because as written, I agree with the contractual obligations of the license - yet I disagree with some of the principles the purpose of the license has evolved into.  Nevertheless, like anything in life I am free to agree to something which is not 100% what I want, and I still retain the ability to object to the other portions and not have others tell me "you agreed so you can't object"... Well, you can try to cram your opinion down my throat, but as you can see I will just throw it back up. :-)

Amy Stephen

unread,
Dec 15, 2012, 5:45:41 PM12/15/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com

We've seen what happens to a community when people start making strong stands on license. Hope everyone keeps that in mind.

It's true that there is a movement towards more permissive licensing. http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2011/06/06/the-trend-towards-permissive-licensing/

The goal is to have the work useful and used.

It's okay to ask for feedback and for each of us to share our own perspectives. But, when it comes right down to it, I hope that the strongest weight is placed on the opinion of those who are most responsible for this code. Otherwise, "freedom for users" and "community involvement" translates to "no rights for developers." That will hurt the quality of software far more than the extremely slight difference that exists between the GPL and the LGPL.

Nick Savov

unread,
Dec 16, 2012, 12:36:16 PM12/16/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
+1

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 16, 2012, 6:09:18 PM12/16/12
to JPlatform
On 16 December 2012 08:45, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's okay to ask for feedback and for each of us to share our own perspectives. But, when it comes right down to it, I hope that the strongest weight is placed on the opinion of those who are most responsible for this code. Otherwise, "freedom for users" and "community involvement" translates to "no rights for developers." That will hurt the quality of software far more than the extremely slight difference that exists between the GPL and the LGPL.

We will be able to draw that statistic out of the survey. How people interpret it from there is up to them.

If anyone can find out the number of registered uses that are on the JED that own listings, that would be extremely helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 1:23:13 AM12/17/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
First I'll address Amy's justified remark about strong stances. I'll argue this as vehemently and persuasively as I can, but I won't resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks or anything else of the sort. If we collectively decide to give our work away to people so they can build commercial stuff with it, I won't be happy, but I will accept the collective decision, recognizing that if I want to pick up my toys and go play  in another sandbox, that's my choice (personally not a really smart one unless a large group agrees to come along, but hey, it's an option).

My understanding is that the LGPL option was included in the Contributor's Agreement because there was a scenario where we might have been forced to do this (I apologize, I don't have references for this, possibly Elin Waring can chime in). I recall objecting at the time, fearing we might one day have this discussion. So yes, I freely admit to having compromised. I did so with a modicum of trust, and I feel that trust has been misplaced. I'm unhappy about this, but I have no intention of flying off in an irrational fit. Instead I will advance the best argument I can manage. I have every intention of being civil and respectful in doing so.

But in fairness it's also not like I've contributed 50,000 likes of code. The opinions of Andrew, Louis, and other major contributors should carry a lot more weight than my voice.

I also agree that the GPL is a radical document. GPL code depreciates the intrinsic value of the code to zero, and that's not an easy proposition for any developer including me. Everyone wants their code used as widely as possible. On the other hand I don't believe that a GPL licensed JPlatform will be unused. In fact at least one application has already been written with it. I would personally prefer to see JPlatform as the basis for 100 GPL applications than for 10,000 proprietary ones. I also happen to think that it's one mechanism for ensuring that it's possible for independent developers to run their own show. I'd rather have 100 open applications out there that I could work on and contribute to than to try to decide which of 10,000 proprietary companies I should send a job application to.

My instinct is that a GPL JPlatform will offer me more opportunities to make money as an independent developer than a LGPL version will, and a LGPL version will offer more full-time employment prospects. But I have no actual facts to support that assertion.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 1:39:07 AM12/17/12
to JPlatform
On 17 December 2012 16:23, Alan (instance) <abivi...@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the LGPL option was included in the Contributor's Agreement because there was a scenario where we might have been forced to do this (I apologize, I don't have references for this, possibly Elin Waring can chime in). 


I guess the following is open to interpretation:

"Or if we want to LGPL a specific piece of Joomla!, the agreement gives us the ability to do that too.  This sort of flexibility lets us respond to the changing needs of a growing project while still guaranteeing that all our materials remain free software. "

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 2:33:51 AM12/17/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
It's more that it defies interpretation, which was the nature of my original complaint about it. Who is "we" in that sentence? The OSM board? A survey of people on the dev/platform lists (the current implementation), everyone who has installed a copy of Joomla? Those of us who signed the JCA have no significant say from a legal perspective, after all we've formally given up the right. What are "the changing needs of a growing project", exactly? Do we have a "need" to make JPlatform LGPL? If so, none has been communicated. Clearly some of us want to do it because then platform might be more widely used, but that's not a need.

The back channel communications at the time (long lost Skype chats IIRC) was that the reason that provision was in there was because we had legal advice that there might be a requirement to go LGPL at some point in the future, and that incorporating it into the JCA saved us from tracking everyone down and doing it all over again should that eventuality occur. The challenge in achieving that seemed to outweigh the chance that one day someone would wake up on a whim and suggest we take a piece of the project LGPL so we could win a popularity contest of sorts. I'm disappointed that that's the case, but at the same time I was aware of the risks at the time so it is what it is. I just think it's very ironic and a little sad that we had the tenacity to stick with the whole "GPL extensions" thing in the face of similar arguments, that we came through that stronger than ever, and now we're on the other side of the same argument in platform.

At this point I think I've made all the arguments for sticking with the GPL that I have at hand. I hardly expect a community of developers to favour the FSF's interpretation of "user freedom" over their own freedom and prospect of being able to say JPlatform is used in a larger number of applications, so I'll try to back away from this discussion before it turns into another unproductive and never-ending license debate.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 2:57:06 AM12/17/12
to JPlatform
On 17 December 2012 17:33, Alan (instance) <abivi...@gmail.com> wrote:
The back channel communications at the time (long lost Skype chats IIRC) was that the reason that provision was in there was because we had legal advice that there might be a requirement to go LGPL at some point in the future, and that incorporating it into the JCA saved us from tracking everyone down and doing it all over again should that eventuality occur.


Maybe not so back-channel.  Pretty easy to find too.
 
The challenge in achieving that seemed to outweigh the chance that one day someone would wake up on a whim and suggest we take a piece of the project LGPL so we could win a popularity contest of sorts.

I don't see anyone wanting to "win" a popularity contest.  Are we that fickle?  I think not.
 
I'm disappointed that that's the case, but at the same time I was aware of the risks at the time so it is what it is. I just think it's very ironic and a little sad that we had the tenacity to stick with the whole "GPL extensions" thing in the face of similar arguments, that we came through that stronger than ever, and now we're on the other side of the same argument in platform.

I get that may seem confusing to some, but then again a lot of people in the community, even veterans, don't "get" why we split the Platform off in the first place - they don't see Joomla as being anything but the CMS.  That said, the CLA eludes to the fact that even if the LGPL is used, when combined with the work we call the CMS, it acts as the GPL.  For the CMS, it's business as usual - no re-education required.
 
At this point I think I've made all the arguments for sticking with the GPL that I have at hand. I hardly expect a community of developers to favour the FSF's interpretation of "user freedom" over their own freedom and prospect of being able to say JPlatform is used in a larger number of applications, so I'll try to back away from this discussion before it turns into another unproductive and never-ending license debate.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but when you say "we" are favouring our own freedom, it's making it sound like we are a group of selfish brats with no thought of how others might be impacted.  I'm sure most of the people in the "approve" camp are thinking as much in the community's interest and the extent of freedoms as anyone in the "disapprove" camp. I certainly don't think you are "unenlightened" or fear a loss of power/control because you want to stick with the GPL - that would be pretty ridiculous.  I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with the intensity of it :)

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Amy Stephen

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 6:22:45 AM12/17/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Alan - first, thanks. I can tell this is weighing on you but it's good to hear you acknowledge that some have more skin in the game and that the investment matters.

I signed the agreement on the face value of the words in the document. I remember Louis doing a big community post, taking comments, responding to concerns. When the agreement was ready to use, again, a public discussion. I was very satisfied with the open and public vetting process, impressed even.

If you feel like you were somehow mislead because of something someone told you in private, I hope you follow up and then please help encourage future discussions into the open. There are many developers involved and it goes without saying that not everyone has those inner circle connections and everyone should understand the project's intent in the same way.

Personally, I have adopted an "if it's not public, it didn't happen" policy to communication. Life is so much easier and my Skype time is next to nothing, minimal private email. Much more time to code, easy to toss a link out to help remember what was said earlier.

Andrew - thanks for that link. I looked and looked, but could not find that post. There's another conversation that happened around the time that the proposed policy for the TM was shared. Can't find that either. As far back as I can remember, in the public space, there was a repeated intent voiced by several key developers that the goal or hope or dream (pick a word) was to offer the platform under the LGPL at some distant time when the illusive separation was in place.

I guess my experience and recollection has been a little different than Alan's.

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 8:56:24 AM12/17/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com


On Monday, December 17, 2012 2:57:06 AM UTC-5, Andrew Eddie wrote:
On 17 December 2012 17:33, Alan (instance) <abivi...@gmail.com> wrote:
The back channel communications at the time (long lost Skype chats IIRC) was that the reason that provision was in there was because we had legal advice that there might be a requirement to go LGPL at some point in the future, and that incorporating it into the JCA saved us from tracking everyone down and doing it all over again should that eventuality occur.


Maybe not so back-channel.  Pretty easy to find too.

I'm referring to specific discussions I had with some of the people involved. Believe it or not, I too have an allergy to licensing discussions and I try to keep some of them out of the public eye. I'm less advancing it as part of my argument against switching to the LGPL and more using it to illustrate why my position is so vehement.

 
The challenge in achieving that seemed to outweigh the chance that one day someone would wake up on a whim and suggest we take a piece of the project LGPL so we could win a popularity contest of sorts.

I don't see anyone wanting to "win" a popularity contest.  Are we that fickle?  I think not.

Unless I've missed something, at this point the sole argument for LGPL seems to be "it might get used more, and all those other frameworks are LGPL". So to me this seems to be about popularity. Is there something else?
 
 
I'm disappointed that that's the case, but at the same time I was aware of the risks at the time so it is what it is. I just think it's very ironic and a little sad that we had the tenacity to stick with the whole "GPL extensions" thing in the face of similar arguments, that we came through that stronger than ever, and now we're on the other side of the same argument in platform.

I get that may seem confusing to some, but then again a lot of people in the community, even veterans, don't "get" why we split the Platform off in the first place - they don't see Joomla as being anything but the CMS.  That said, the CLA eludes to the fact that even if the LGPL is used, when combined with the work we call the CMS, it acts as the GPL.  For the CMS, it's business as usual - no re-education required.

I'm not confused, I am disappointed. I will admit that I saw Platform as the seed for a family of GPL applications developed by third parties; that people would see the success and power of CMS and conclude that it is possible to go to market with a GPL application and thrive. By sticking with the GPL we force the ecosystem of JPlatform applications to also be GPL. To see the project back away from that -- be it in reality or simply my own impression -- is, in my opinion, a large step backwards.
 
 
At this point I think I've made all the arguments for sticking with the GPL that I have at hand. I hardly expect a community of developers to favour the FSF's interpretation of "user freedom" over their own freedom and prospect of being able to say JPlatform is used in a larger number of applications, so I'll try to back away from this discussion before it turns into another unproductive and never-ending license debate.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but when you say "we" are favouring our own freedom, it's making it sound like we are a group of selfish brats with no thought of how others might be impacted.  I'm sure most of the people in the "approve" camp are thinking as much in the community's interest and the extent of freedoms as anyone in the "disapprove" camp. I certainly don't think you are "unenlightened" or fear a loss of power/control because you want to stick with the GPL - that would be pretty ridiculous.  I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with the intensity of it :)

 
I think the intensity is indeed the problem here. I'll try to clarify with less... as developers the LGPL gives us the ability (or "freedom" as the FSF puts it) to build applications with JPlatform, and to distribute those applications to others without source. By contrast the GPL restricts us by forcing us to make source available to our customers. A user of a GPL application can be in control of their own destiny because they have all of the source, and thus the ability to modify it. A user of a proprietary application that incorporates LGPL code is bound to the developer of the code, and is thus more restricted. The two licenses allocate "freedom" (or perhaps "power") differently. Removing the implication of selfishness, that is essentially how I meant it.

More succinctly it would be cool to see our sticking with the GPL result in a family of GPL applications. Given the choice between JPlatform being the base for 100 GPL apps or it being the base for 10,000 proprietary apps, I'd go for the first option.

I also dread the process of answering questions like "as a Joomla extension developer, if JPlatform is LGPL and I write an extension for CMS that avoids all CMS classes, can I then release it without source?" I don't actually want an answer to that (I believe it's no). I just want to illustrate that part of the reason why I think we should stick with the GPL is that there's already enough issue with misinformation, misinterpretation and FUD with just one license. Mixing the two within Joomla is just going to muddy a situation that is already poorly understood.

Meanwhile believe it or not I really am trying to wind my contribution to this thread down...

Gary Mort

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 11:38:36 AM12/17/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
*Summary
====
Legal precedent is that under the GPL the only source you are required to release is sourcecode which includes actually lines of code from the GPL licensed code.  For compiled applications, all the code that is used to generate A SPECIFIC FILE must be available under the GPL. 


*Tedious detail and historical anecdotes
======


On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:56:24 AM UTC-5, Alan (instance) wrote:


I think the intensity is indeed the problem here. I'll try to clarify with less... as developers the LGPL gives us the ability (or "freedom" as the FSF puts it) to build applications with JPlatform, and to distribute those applications to others without source. By contrast the GPL restricts us by forcing us to make source available to our customers.

*Pedantic clarification
====
The GPL lacks the ability to force someone to provide source to their customers.  Only the courts have that ability.  While the GNU Organisation and others may WANT "us" to give source to our customers*1, this is not what we currently forced to do. The LGPL terms can also be used by the courts to force 'us' to make source available to customers as well.  For the platform, say everything in the libraries/joomla, libraries/legacy, and libraries/compat must be available.
f you modify code in those directories, those changes must be available.  So you can't change/add features to existing code without making those changes available.

*Factual Rebuttal/Historical Detail
====
"force us to make source available" - which source?  All of it?  Nope - all legal precedent is against this.  I keep coming back to small embedded systems because they are easy examples.  The Mattel/Emsoft Juicebox was a cool little mp3/video player for kids http://www.elinux.org/JuiceBox
I picked up over 20 of them for 5 bucks each when they were discontinued because their neat to hack on.
The Juicebox runs a custom install of Linux[GPL] and can be modded to boot from an sd card.  Sounds great, that means you can make it play your own videos or even run x-windows!  Well, maybe, but initially Emsoft failed to honor the GPL and would not release the source for their custom Linux operating system.

After a lawsuit was brought to have the software released[I forget the name of the group....it is a self-empowered group which helps get sourcecode released] - Emsoft did release the 99% of the code.  They did not release: the driver for the displaying images on the LCD, the driver for accessing the SD card, and the driver for accessing cartridges.  These 3 drivers are claimed to be written from scratch and therefore are not covered by the GPL.  Without those 3 drivers, it is still possible to boot the device into your own custom linux version and get a command line on the screen - LCD displays generally have 2 ways to access, one is as a standard text screen and the other is for graphics.  Text mode works, graphics is 'custom'.  Despite lawsuits, these drivers have never been released.  This is not an isolated case, I have a cabinet full of "open source" devices like the juicebox which I can't run more then basic text on.  I have requests for source code for those drivers along with replies asking for large sums of money and an nda signature - all so I can use a little 2 inch keyfob digital picture frame as a mini monitor[requests I refused]

*Long story short:
=====
Legal precedent is that under the GPL the only source you are required to release is sourcecode which includes actually lines of code from the GPL licensed code.  For compiled applications, all the code that is used to generate A SPECIFIC FILE must be available under the GPL.  So two files:
gpllibrary.so and custom.so can be delivered in a single application and only the files that were used to generate gpllibrary.so must be released.  

*Exposition
====
I'm talking here about the GPL as written...not the principles of the GNU organization[note, I did not say the principles of the GPL - the GPL is a piece of paper, it doesn't have any principles - while the license outlines a set of goals/principles underlying the terms - those goals are open to interpretation with different principled individuals having different opinions].  The GPL is used by many people who do not agree with all the principles of the GNU Organization - yet it's use by people is welcomed by the GNU Organization [at least, I am not aware of GNU ever asking Linus to stop using the GPL for Linux despite his refusal to upgrade to v3 where the legal terms more closely adhere to GNU's principles]

So, legally, the only benefit of LGPL over GPL is that you could use a tool such as HipHop from Facebook to convert PHP application to C code and then compile it into a single executable.  Under the GPL, if you do that you must provide the sourcecode AND the customer is allowed to redistribute the sourcecode.  I don't see that happening, but it sure would be fun!
  
The main difference between LGPL and GPL is not the legal terms, but those "principles".  Many people assume that if software is licensed under the GPL, then the group releasing it has the same principles as the GNU Organisation - so out of respect one should follow those same principles in releasing your own programs.  Whereas the LGPL is based on a compromise of the GNU principles[ie the GNU Organisation had to choose between their principles and not having to maintain multiple versions of their software in order to accommodate different libraries.  They decided in the narrow case of libraries, they would compromise their principles.]

So it is understandable that many people who have same principles as the GNU Organisation would rather the code be under the GPL.  It is just as understandable that those with different principles may want the LGPL.   Neither group is "compromising" their principles - they have different principles. Well, I say neither group is compromising, but that is just the safe assumption to make.  It is better to assume no one is compromising and that they disagree - then to assume and accuse others of being unprincipled.  I

*Clarification
=====
*1: As far as I can tell, the principles of the GNU Organisation are not overtly concerned that a programmer provide source code to their customer.  IBM has been doing that for half a century!*2  What they are concerned about is that you cannot keep your customer from creating something with your code and then giving it to someone else.  IE once you give it away, those you give it too must also be allowed to give it away. 

*Ancient History
=======
*2: As far back as 1970 IBM sold these things called "mainframes".  When a customer bought a mainframe, they were given the sourcecode for the operating system!  Before the GPL was even a glimmer of an idea, IBM was giving away sourcecode.   Customers where free to modify the code for their needs and many did!*3 The catch though was that it was licensed so the customer could only use it ON an IBM mainframe and that the customer could not give it to anyone else.  You could buy a copy of the software without a mainframe, but it was only marginally cheaper to buy the software than to buy a mainframe.  This was to lock other companies out of selling mainframe hardware compatible with IBM's software - after all if it costs 10 million for an IBM mainframe, or 8 million for an X brand mainframe without software- as long as the software costs 4 million the IBM mainframe is the better deal.

*Amusing Anecdote
====
*3: My father worked for a while as a field service engineer for IBM.  He would go out when a mainframe was malfunctioning and fix it.  Some of his interesting jobs were for the U.S. Military.  They would modify the source code for their needs, then a few months later something would stop working.  Before he arrived, they would wipe the operating system and install the unmodified code.  The changes to the code were classified.  What it was trying to do was classified.  How it was failing was classified.  Running on a fresh copy of unmodified code everything was functioning.  Fun times trying to track down which component, if any, was faulty.

*Closing Quote
====
That's Kali, the goddess of destruction.
Why would you want the goddess of destruction in your car?
Sometime destruction is a good thing. She ends one cycle so a new one can begin.'

Alan (instance)

unread,
Dec 17, 2012, 7:12:12 PM12/17/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Geez. Edit:

/contrast the GPL restricts/contrast the terms of the GPL restrict/s

Nonetheless, the opinion we got from the SFLC -- I personally tried to argue this from the other side with our counsel there, James Vaslie, losing definitively -- is that an interpreted language such as PHP effectively makes no distinction at the API, so a Joomla extension is an integral part of Joomla, and thus must also be released under the GPL. The whole set of "compiled" precedents don't apply, possibly unless all calls go through a web service, but that would ruin performance.

Probably less amusing fact: the first computer I ever used was an IBM S360/67 in 1971. They released the source not only because you sometimes needed to walk through it to find a problem, but also because it was of no incremental value without the accompanying rather expensive room full of hardware. Joomla alone is probably at least 3 orders of magnitude more complicated. Back then the entire OS had to fit in a small number of kilobytes of memory -- the entire machine ran on 128 kilobytes of "core". Now it would lose in a benchmark against a musical greeting card.


On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:38:36 AM UTC-5, Gary Mort wrote:
The GPL lacks the ability to force someone to provide source to their customers.  Only the courts have that ability.  While the GNU Organisation and others may WANT "us" to give source to our customers*1, this is not what we currently forced to do. The LGPL terms can also be used by the courts to force 'us' to make source available to customers as well.  For the platform, say everything in the libraries/joomla, libraries/legacy, and libraries/compat must be available.
If you modify code in those directories, those changes must be available.  So you can't change/add features to existing code without making those changes available.

Louis Landry

unread,
Dec 18, 2012, 1:41:51 AM12/18/12
to Joomla Platform List
@Gary,

I very much respect you, your contributions, and your opinion on the question at hand.  I don't think however that your evaluation of GPL case law on this list is relevant, complete or necessary.  I would invite you to share those thoughts in a separate, more appropriate channel.  As I have said before, this conversation isn't about the legal logistics, and it most certainly isn't about the legal defensibility of the GPL for PHP software.  Please leave that topic alone.  I think you've made clear your position and views on what should be done going forward.  Thanks for that.

@Alan,

I'm sorry to read that you feel misled or disappointed in this possible change, you should know that it was by no means intentional.  For what it is worth I share the concerns you have regarding the clarity of answers for CMS extensions if the platform distributes under the LGPL.  In talking with the SFLC over the years about these sorts of things I'm personally very sensitive to them given our history.  I also share your love for software freedom, and I believe that the GPL has been an overwhelmingly positive force in the evolution of software and the "hacker culture" that has enabled our current technology ecosystem.  I also very much value your views and opinions on this topic.  Hopefully that goes without saying... though I said it anyway. :-)  I believe you also have made your views and position clear for everyone who is reading this thread.  Thanks a bunch for that as well.

Discussions like this are great, and it is really helpful to hear people's opinions.  That being said the value of these types of discussions deteriorate rather quickly when things turn into monologues and dialogues.  How about you guys give it a rest and see if anyone else wants to chime in?  I'm pretty sure neither of you is going to convince the other to change your minds, and that's completely OK.  We've got room for differing opinions.

 Back to our regularly scheduled programming. :-)

- Louis

JM Simonet

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 1:57:31 PM12/19/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Took time for me to read this whole topic as I was away and the mail box kept filling up...

As Louis kindly invites anyone else to chime in, let me just add that I agree with Alan here.

Yes, I know the reasons for which we signed the CLA at the time and still think that we do not need to go LGPL.

Let me simply quote Alan

"I will admit that I saw Platform as the seed for a family of GPL applications developed by third parties; that people would see the success and power of CMS and conclude that it is possible to go to market with a GPL application and thrive. By sticking with the GPL we force the ecosystem of JPlatform applications to also be GPL. To see the project back away from that -- be it in reality or simply my own impression -- is, in my opinion, a large step backwards."

and

"I just want to illustrate that part of the reason why I think we should stick with the GPL is that there's already enough issue with misinformation, misinterpretation and FUD with just one license. Mixing the two within Joomla is just going to muddy a situation that is already poorly understood."

These 2 statements are exactly what I thought when I read the original post.

JM
-- 
Please keep the Subject wording in your answers
This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information contained in this e-mail if you are not the
intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marie Simonet  /  infograf768
Joomla Production Working group
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team 

Gary Mort

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 3:59:48 PM12/19/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com, louis....@gmail.com


On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:41:51 AM UTC-5, Louis Landry wrote:
@Gary,

I very much respect you, your contributions, and your opinion on the question at hand.  I don't think however that your evaluation of GPL case law on this list is relevant, complete or necessary. 

I would disagree on the complete part.....but then I'm naturally inclined to think my opinion is right.  :-) Beyond that though certainly I can drop it. 

Alonzo Turner

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 9:50:18 PM12/19/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com, louis....@gmail.com
I stand on the side of retaining the GPL as the license for the platform for all the arguments already made here. I hope I'm not contributing to a project where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 19, 2012, 11:24:34 PM12/19/12
to JPlatform
On 20 December 2012 12:50, Alonzo Turner <alonzo...@subtextproductions.com> wrote:
I stand on the side of retaining the GPL as the license for the platform for all the arguments already made here. I hope I'm not contributing to a project where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Let me put it this way.  Everyone who want to gets a say, but not everyone will get their way on every decision (in general).  To that end though, who the key stakeholders are may vary from decision to decision.  For this particular decision, if a 50/50 situation arose, I'd use the opinion of the "contributors" to make the final call.

Is that fair?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Mark Dexter

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 1:05:08 AM12/20/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Well, I'm not sure. Personally, I would say that the status quo wins unless there is a reasonably clear consensus to change. Keeping things the same is the simplest and least controversial and potentially confusing. I hasten to add that I avoid thinking about licenses whenever possible. Mark

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 1:16:40 AM12/20/12
to JPlatform
On 20 December 2012 16:05, Mark Dexter <dexter...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I'm not sure. Personally, I would say that the status quo wins unless there is a reasonably clear consensus to change. Keeping things the same is the simplest and least controversial and potentially confusing. I hasten to add that I avoid thinking about licenses whenever possible. Mark

I agree.  That was a bad example.  This isn't a 50/50 decision.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

JM Simonet

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 3:41:32 AM12/20/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
+1

JM

Amy Stephen

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 11:50:30 AM12/20/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
Alonzo -

First, apologies for the length of this note. I take rights and equality very seriously so it is very important to be clear and I want to understand you without assuming I know what you mean or jumping to any conclusions.

The truth is, I have never been comfortable with joining concepts of political system, such as "equality" with participation in an open source community. I do not see the parallels.

Equality is not a word that stands alone. It really has no meaning of any significance until you join it with the concept of rights. Citizens are believed to be equal and on that basis assigned the same rights. If there were no clearly defined rights, then the concept of equality has no meaning. See my point?

So what are the rights citizens have in my country, rights assigned to everyone on the basis of our belief we are all equal?  We have the right to speak, to worship, to free assembly, to bear arms, to vote, to complain to the government. We even have the right to not have the military live in our homes unless it's a time of war. Those rights are defined in our constitution, and bestowed upon citizens on the basis of equality.


Now, I am equal to everyone else in my country, even the President of the United States.
But!
  • The president has authority to nominate members for the cabinet.
  • I do not have authority to nominate members for the cabinet.
How can that be? If I am equal to the president why does he have more rights than I do?

Simple. As a citizen, on the basis of equality, I am not assigned the right to nominate members for the cabinet.

Now, were the president allowed to worship his way but I was prevented from worshiping my way, then, I would have a right to complain to the government that the President and I were not treated equally.

Starting to see my point?

What rights did the Joomla project / Open Source Matters organization offer us on the basis of equality. I can only think of one thing.
  • Everyone in the world has been granted the right, on the basis of equality, to download and use Joomla according to the terms of the GPL.
As far as I understand things, that is the only right I have been assigned. Further, I understand that even that right has no guarantees. The code could suck. The download could go away. If either or both happened, I would not be able to petition any authority because there is no basis, I have no rights that were violated.

I don't have any right to assign members to the PLT. Why? Because I have never been assigned those rights. (Same as the cabinet example above.)

I assigned the Joomla project (OSM) rights to the tiny bit of code I've shared. The rights that I bestowed on OSM are identified in a contributor agreement. One of those rights is to license my contributors under the LGPL. While I appreciate being asked if I still think it's okay, the truth is I already gave them that right.

OK, I realize that was a lot of information but it is important to methodically consider equality and rights because equality has no significant meaning absent the clear definition of "rights." And, rights are assigned specifically and clearly on the basis of equality.

Again, I don't want to assume anything, so, given that discussion and within the Joomla project structure and Open Source Matters entity, please clarify what you mean by "some are more equal than others?" 

Donald Gilbert

unread,
Dec 20, 2012, 12:19:45 PM12/20/12
to joomla-de...@googlegroups.com
+1 Amy Stephen
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages