Platform LGPL Survey

[Nick Savov]

Hi everyone,

The platform maintainers would like your feedback (via a survey) as to whether we, as a community, would like to change the platform license from GPL to LGPL (Lesser-GPL).  The CMS license would continue to remain GPL.

Please read the following news item and take the corresponding survey:

http://developer.joomla.org/news/545-joomla-platform-lgpl-survey.html

Hope you have a great day!

Kind regards,

Nick

[nant]

Question 1: Is such an initiative in line with the duties of the platform maintainers? I would think such a move is more inline with overall strategy of the Joomla project.

Question 2: The article introducing the survey states: "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." ... well, this reinforces by strategic comment question 1 but also makes me ask, why is it felt that ..? I would need some better arguments to participate.

[Marco Dings]

There is some background information in the platform thread https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/joomla-dev-platform/WGrQULbXYcI

[rgjoyce]

it would make more sense if they actually explained to people what the difference between GPL and LGPL is in order to get a more accurate survey response.

[Amy Stephen]

I was looking at Ohloh the other day, and frankly surprised to see myself listed on page 1 of the top contributors to the platform. https://www.ohloh.net/p/joomla-platform/contributors Understand that the amount of code I have shared is really very small. A good coder could write me out of the platform in a day, or so. My point is that it's important to remember that most of the platform code has been written by a very small handful of people.

I'm not sure if everyone understands, but the contributor agreement those who share code sign, clearly identifies any one of the GPL licenses, v 2 or later, could be used to distribute the code. The reason the agreement was written this way is no doubt in part due to the project's long-term strategy to possibly release the platform under the LGPL. Licensing libraries in that manner is pretty standard. These discussions date back to before 1.5's release.

As far as who should initiate the discussion, I guess I don't see how that matters much, one way or the other. But, as a developer, it seems a matter of respect that those who have created the code and hold copyright to the code (shared with OSM), be the ones to initiate the discussion. But, again, I really don't see that as having any consequence. The discussion could be initiated by anyone, even someone without any code in core.

What is more important to consider is whether or not using the LGPL would extend the value of the platform to others, and if that increase in usage would strengthen the brand, or if the community largely sees it as a bad move. Personally, I think it's about time. =) But, not everyone will agree and many will not have an opinion, which is fine. It is good to see the project asking for input so that those who do make such this decision (ultimately the OSM board, I assume) have something by which to gauge the pulse of the community.

It would be a good idea to help get the word out so that many can share their perspectives on this.

[Gary Mort]

On Friday, December 14, 2012 2:16:49 AM UTC-5, rgjoyce wrote:

it would make more sense if they actually explained to people what the difference between GPL and LGPL is in order to get a more accurate survey response.

No it wouldn't.  The problem is that ANY explanation is subject to debate.

GPL and LGPL were designed initially for compiled applications written in C.  The LGPL addresses a corner case for the GPL due to the nature in which compilers work - compilers when you link one file to another in order to use code in that other library will go and actually COPY code from that library into the end product.

Since code was copied, the GPL states that the source for both the library AND the main application must be licensed under the GPL.

Therefore the LGPL was created specifically for the GNU standard C library because C developers did not want to discourage anyone from using those libraries.   They lazily wanted to be able to assume that if their program compared 2 strings using the std function it would "just work".   

Without the LGPL commercial developers would continue to use C libraries from other vendors.

None of this applies to a PHP application.  A PHP application is not compiled - you get it in source code and it is compiled only when a web page is viewed.

So what the difference is between LGPL and GPL when it comes to PHP is so nebulous and undefined that it would be very difficult to specify.

So the question is not "using the LGPL would allow for" - it is more "how would you FEEL about the Platform being LGPL licensed?"

This is a moral question with no right or wrong answer, not a legal question.  Because it is what amounts to an ethical question, it is a good thing to go and ask the actual users of Joomla! how they would feel about the change.  If a large number object, it's probably not a good idea.   If very few object, than a change could lead to others who are uncomfortable with incorporating GPL libraries in their own projects for their own ethical reasons to be more willing to do so.

Open Source projects must cope with this all the time.  GPLv3 was created to address some ethical issues the GNU organisation had with how others had used GPLv2 code.  The Linux programming team debated the merits of switching from GPLv2 to v3 and in the end decided that the issues v3 addressed did not apply to their own concerns - plus they had their own issues with some of the new features in v3 so they did not switch and specifically state they do not plan to switch.

So in the end, review the material with the understanding that there is no settled legal cases that specify any difference between a PHP project which is under the GPL license vs the LGPL license.   There are many opinions, but no actual law, and in the absence of legal rulings and comments are indicative of opinion only.  These comments included. :-)

[Mark Dexter]

Gary, thank you very much for your brief and clear explanation. Mark

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/OkejVe7OtuIJ.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.

[Niv Froehlich]

Amy 

It is good to see the project asking for input so that those who do make such this decision (ultimately the OSM board, I assume) have something by which to gauge the pulse of the community. 

+1 and I'd like to add it also goes a long way to educate the rest of us to what the issues are

I am also prepared to put my own views aside in favour of those held by the actual contributors, but am grateful to be included in the discussion (that's what 'community' is all about) and to arrive at a better understanding. :-)

Amy - and to all of you - I am learning so much from you all and I'm grateful!!!!  (You couldn't pay to get this type of an education! from leaders in their field).

N

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

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/6jQ5Mptov2YJ.

[Andrew Eddie]

On Friday, 14 December 2012 16:54:50 UTC+10, nant wrote:

Question 1: Is such an initiative in line with the duties of the platform maintainers? I would think such a move is more inline with overall strategy of the Joomla project.

The idea that the Platform would one day be released under the LGPL is not new - it's been around for many years.  How this came about was when we started talking about packaging the Platform using phar and also looking at composer.  When you consider the Platform in terms of it on the shelf beside 'other' platforms or frameworks, the question of license becomes a deciding factor.  It seemed to be the appropriate time to raise the question "do we want to do this" and then move to ask OSM if it's possible.  The Platform Maintainers are as good a group as any to ask the question.  In terms of contribution they, collectively, would probably hold better than a 50% stake in the code base, erring on the conservative side.

 

Question 2: The article introducing the survey states: "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."  ... well, this reinforces by strategic comment question 1 but also makes me ask, why is it felt that ..? I would need some better arguments to participate.

I'll answer it this way.  If I was starting a code framework from scratch, I'd choose something very liberally in the MIT family of licenses.  My personal concern is that I write code because it's what I enjoy doing, and I want as many people to enjoy it as well, including downstream users (which is where copyleft comes in).  I know more people will just consume it than help me out improving it, and I don't want to force them to do anything they don't want to do other than pass on the same rights as I have given them.  I don't care if they make a million bucks off the code and I don't make a cent.  Other people may be motivated differently.

But on the technical front, there are many other PHP frameworks one can consider these days, and the GPL can be a deal-breaker in terms of the Joomla Platform being selected.  I'd prefer that when a company is pulling together a tender for a software project that the Joomla Platform being GPL is not one of the reasons it's discarded from their consideration.

And, at the end of the day, the Joomla Contributor Agreement has been clear that the LGPL is a possibility.  I just seemed like the appropriate time to raise the subject to the next level.

Hope that helps put some perspective on things.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie