Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email? October 07, 2008, 07:10:26 PM
Did you miss your activation email? October 07, 2008, 07:10:26 PM
SMF Team Blog
SMF Bridge for Joomla! Discontinued
As some of you might know, there have recently been some changes on part of the Joomla! project in how they interpret the license their software is under. Namely, while the project remains under the exact same license (the GPL), they are now interpreting this license in its strictest sense. In addition, the project has announced that this change in interpretation is retroactive and applies to all previous versions of their software.
As a result of this change of direction, only GPL-licensed software can legally be distributed and used inside the Joomla! software. While we regret and are saddened by this development, we respect Joomla!'s position on their software license. As neither SMF nor the SMF bridge for Joomla! are licensed under GPL or a compatible license, we have had to cease distribution of our bridge. Please note that running the software as separate standalone pieces is perfectly fine, the issue is in the integration/bridge.
Due to this license issue, it is not legal for us to distribute our bridge. In addition, all versions of the bridge from 3.19 for the SMF 1.0 series to the latest 1.1.7 release for the SMF 1.1 series are under the SMF license, which forbids all redistribution. Just as we respect the license Joomla! is under, we ask that you respect our license and not distribute the bridge.
We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.
For those users who wish to continue their use of SMF fully integrated into a CMS, we recommend investigating the other options you have available to you. Our work on bridges for Mambo and other CMS programs will continue.
For those who wonder why we have had to come to such a decision, we have had input from both the Joomla! project and the FSF directly, and it is the stance of both Joomla! and the FSF that the use of a bridge into a GPL-licensed system constitutes the creation of a combined work. This forced us to reconsider our development of the bridge and look for ways we could accomplish the task while still respecting the licensing of both projects. Ultimately, that proved impossible. When discussing with the FSF, they stated that the bridge and SMF would fall under the GPL license, and there is no workaround. Below is an exchange between me and the FSF.
As a result of this change of direction, only GPL-licensed software can legally be distributed and used inside the Joomla! software. While we regret and are saddened by this development, we respect Joomla!'s position on their software license. As neither SMF nor the SMF bridge for Joomla! are licensed under GPL or a compatible license, we have had to cease distribution of our bridge. Please note that running the software as separate standalone pieces is perfectly fine, the issue is in the integration/bridge.
Due to this license issue, it is not legal for us to distribute our bridge. In addition, all versions of the bridge from 3.19 for the SMF 1.0 series to the latest 1.1.7 release for the SMF 1.1 series are under the SMF license, which forbids all redistribution. Just as we respect the license Joomla! is under, we ask that you respect our license and not distribute the bridge.
We will continue to support all existing installs of our bridge until such time as either changes in Joomla! or SMF render the bridge unusable (upgrades to Joomla! 1.0.13 and beyond and/or SMF 2.0). We will also not support any issues caused by third-party bridges.
For those users who wish to continue their use of SMF fully integrated into a CMS, we recommend investigating the other options you have available to you. Our work on bridges for Mambo and other CMS programs will continue.
For those who wonder why we have had to come to such a decision, we have had input from both the Joomla! project and the FSF directly, and it is the stance of both Joomla! and the FSF that the use of a bridge into a GPL-licensed system constitutes the creation of a combined work. This forced us to reconsider our development of the bridge and look for ways we could accomplish the task while still respecting the licensing of both projects. Ultimately, that proved impossible. When discussing with the FSF, they stated that the bridge and SMF would fall under the GPL license, and there is no workaround. Below is an exchange between me and the FSF.
Quote
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:13:40 -0700
To: licensing@fsf.org
Subject: License Clarification
I was looking over the GPL earlier and I had a question I hope you could
answer for me. Now, given the age of the GPL v2, I can understand that
it didn't take into account web applications, but a lot of web
applications are under this version today.
Given the license restriction on linking, how would that apply to web
applications written in a scripting language such as PHP or Ruby? I know
many of them offer a "module" or "plugin" system for developers. Would
making use of these systems constitute linking? Also, if such a plugin
or module was distributed separate from the GPL-licensed system and
installed manually by an end-user, how would the GPL work on that?
I know the GPL v2 is considered old now, but if you could advise me as
to my concern based on it, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could
note if v3 changes anything in this regard I'd also appreciate knowing.
Thank you very much.
Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:14:33 -0400
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:17:57AM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> Given the license restriction on linking, how would that apply to web
> applications written in a scripting language such as PHP or Ruby? I know
> many of them offer a "module" or "plugin" system for developers. Would
> making use of these systems constitute linking? Also, if such a plugin
> or module was distributed separate from the GPL-licensed system and
> installed manually by an end-user, how would the GPL work on that?
Our GPL FAQ has some discussion about how the plug-ins are affected by the
license; please see
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins>. If the
plug-in is based on the original program (the answer talks about when that
is and isn't the case), then the developers need permission under copyright
law to create and distribute it. Ordinarily, the GPL is the only thing
granting them such permission, and so plug-in developers must follow its
terms whether their code is distributed together with, or separately from,
the original software. This includes releasing their own work under the
GPL.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us.
Best regards,
--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
Quote
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:52:45 -0700
To: licensing@fsf.org
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
Brett Smith via RT wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:17:57AM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
>> Given the license restriction on linking, how would that apply to web
>> applications written in a scripting language such as PHP or Ruby? I know
>> many of them offer a "module" or "plugin" system for developers. Would
>> making use of these systems constitute linking? Also, if such a plugin
>> or module was distributed separate from the GPL-licensed system and
>> installed manually by an end-user, how would the GPL work on that?
>
> Our GPL FAQ has some discussion about how the plug-ins are affected by the
> license; please see
> <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins>. If the
> plug-in is based on the original program (the answer talks about when that
> is and isn't the case), then the developers need permission under copyright
> law to create and distribute it. Ordinarily, the GPL is the only thing
> granting them such permission, and so plug-in developers must follow its
> terms whether their code is distributed together with, or separately from,
> the original software. This includes releasing their own work under the
> GPL.
>
> If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
While I appreciate the response, that FAQ deals with compiled software,
not on software provided as scripts in languages like PHP. As PHP is
interpreted by an external program (much like older BASIC was), there is
no linking that can be done in the program code. Similarly, there is no
ability to fork and exec as stated in that FAQ. It might be closer to
the third option given, but that still isn't quite the same.
Here is an example of a situation I am thinking of. Perhaps this will be
helpful. A web script is released under the GPL. It contains an API for
extending its functionality. Obviously, there is no ABI or similar as
there is no compiler. Now, a third party has another web script that is
complementary to the functions in the first. They decide that they can
write a "glue" script to the API of the first script to combine the
functionalty of the scripts such that the second party's script can be
called for output by the first script.
Simple diagram:
First Script (GPL) <---> "Glue" Script <---> Second Script
Now, as all parts are, say, PHP, nothing is compiled. There is thus no
linking or anything that traditional applications use to be able to run.
The "glue" script doesn't use any code of the first script. It simply
uses the published API structure to allow the first script to understand
it. All code for both the first script and "glue" are in their own
self-contained files. You could even go as far as saying this glue would
act as a two-way pipe allowing the separate scripts to communicate.
So, given that situation, how would licensing work for the "glue" script
and the second script? As there is no actual combining of raw code
(except in memory), does that still count as linking and thus requires
the GPL? If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second
script be then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:39:06 -0400
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:56:47AM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> While I appreciate the response, that FAQ deals with compiled software,
> not on software provided as scripts in languages like PHP. As PHP is
> interpreted by an external program (much like older BASIC was), there is
> no linking that can be done in the program code. Similarly, there is no
> ability to fork and exec as stated in that FAQ. It might be closer to
> the third option given, but that still isn't quite the same.
Almost all scripting languages I know about have some functionality to
import scripts or modules, and then use data and functions from that other
code. Calling functions that are imported like this creates a derivative
work, much in the same way that linking does for compiled languages.
PHP also has exec functionality. See, for example,
<http://us.php.net/function.exec>.
> Now, a third party has another web script that is complementary to the
> functions in the first.
When you say this, I assume you mean complementary in the sense that a
human would want to combine them both -- not that there's any copyright
relationship between the two. The second script should be completely
independent, able to perform some function on its own.
> So, given that situation, how would licensing work for the "glue" script
> and the second script? As there is no actual combining of raw code
> (except in memory), does that still count as linking and thus requires
> the GPL?
Yes.
> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
No.
Again, if you have further questions, please let me know.
Best regards,
--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
Quote
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:50:10 -0700
To: licensing@fsf.org
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
Sorry for yet another query, I just want to fully understand this. I
added my comments and questions in the below quote.
Brett Smith via RT wrote:
>> Now, a third party has another web script that is complementary to the
>> functions in the first.
>
> When you say this, I assume you mean complementary in the sense that a
> human would want to combine them both -- not that there's any copyright
> relationship between the two. The second script should be completely
> independent, able to perform some function on its own.
Correct, the second script would be a standalone product. I did mean
complementary in the sense that their functions would be something a
user would want to combine, not in a copyright relationship.
>
>> So, given that situation, how would licensing work for the "glue" script
>> and the second script? As there is no actual combining of raw code
>> (except in memory), does that still count as linking and thus requires
>> the GPL?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
>> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
>
> No.
Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
that satisfy all requirements? If so, is there a way to make it so such
combination would not be possible?
>
> Again, if you have further questions, please let me know.
>
> Best regards,
>
Quote
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #339003] License Clarification
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:14 -0400
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:24PM -0400, [Motoko-chan] via RT wrote:
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
> >
> > No.
>
> Considering the first script is GPL with no exceptions and the second is
> proprietary, if the bridge was licensed as GPL with an exception would
> that satisfy all requirements?
No. The glue script would ultimately create a single work, derived from
both the original scripts, and you would need to follow the terms of all
those licenses to create it. Combining the first script with the second
this way would violate its exception-free GPL.
Best regards,
--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
does the mambo brigde is ok for mambo 4.6.2?
cause there will be lots of people which will go on it....
glue script shoudn't be under GPL
Maybe talking directly to joomla coders could resolve this...
Still, i think unofficial scripts will float around..
Does Joomla! need some guns?! I can go take 2 or 3 pistols...
Well, we know that Joomla 1.5 will NOT be able to bridge with SMF whatsoever, so our only chance is older versions of Joomla along with updated bridge for SMF 1.1.3+, maybe even SMF2... :|
Negative on both counts! The whole point about this announcement is that everything possible has been done and it's *the end* for the bridge as we know it.
There was a bridge for J! 1.5. There was even a sticky about that on this board
But at this moment I'm testing with Mambo. And it looks ok for me
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The Joomla! developers are set on this interpretation and they have lost a number of developers over it. There is older discussion over here when things first started. The best we could come up with was a bridge that consisted of multiple wrappers in order to transition properly without violating the license. Given the FSF's position that it could still be considered a combined work, however, there is no way we could legally continue distributing a bridge.
Even that won't work. As was said above, the Joomla! team consider this position on their license retroactive, so it applies to older versions of Joomla! as well. That is why we can't distribute the bridge at all anymore, even for older versions of Joomla!
As a note, if you develop your own solution, it is perfectly legal to use it. The problem comes when you distribute it, which causes it to fall under the terms of the GPL.
Yes, the Mambo bridge is specifically designed for Mambo 4.6.2.
a) Not respect Joomla's license? Just because you do not agree with them does not mean you should not follow the license of the product your using.
b) Risk legal action against yourself and your site for using something that is essentially breaking the law.
You are on a rocky road if you take the path of using an illegal bridge if you ask me.
This issue of licensing is obviously coming to a head in the Joomla community but has been an issue for quite some time with all open-source projects. Here is a link to a document called "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else." by David Wheeler in which he recounts a brief history of other projects with similar problems and the benefits of going with a GPL-compatible license for open-source projects.
Thanks for helping me understand these confusing issues. I hope that everyone who uses SMF and Joomla can wait and see what we can come up with before jumping ship to another CMS. The Joomla project has officially supported SMF for a long time. These issues should come as no surprise to long-term members of the global open-source community and they have been overcome before!
Finally, I'd like to point out that this is not a few rogue Joomla core team members' opinions, this is the project's official interpretation of the license. This interpretation has been made, similar to Motoko-chan's posts here, with the recommendations of many forerunners in IP law that specialize in the licensing of open-source projects. I believe that the intention of Joomla's interpretation is to HELP the community clarify what it means to be compatible with the GPL license that the community requests, not a call to arms. Please consider this before flaming because supporting the GPL is the exact freedom we've asked for as a community.
http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php
http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php
SMF's license is not going to change. This announcement has come after weeks of discussion with both Joomla devs and the FSF. There is no other option at this point short of releasing SMF under the GPL, which isn't going to happen (although I won't get into the specific reasons here). We were really hoping it wouldn't come to this, but we don't feel we have any other option at this point. The FSF sees SMF+Joomla as a single application, and therefore both SMF and the bridge have to be released under the GPL for everything to be legal in the eyes of Joomla developers and the FSF.
Since alot of users may not discover this topic unless by chance like I did.
Whatever the intention of Joomla's re-interpretation, it has the effect of making all non-GPL scripts incompatible with Joomla.
Personally, I disagree with that interpretation. Several other GPL CMS softwares also disagree and have stated that they will/do include exceptions to their use of the GPL that will allow bridges like this.
In My Opinion, limitations like this were NOT the original purpose of GPL and I personally believe that this contrdicts the very spirit of Open Source and the GPL.
Unfortunately, it is not up to me. Joomla and the FSF have made their stance clear and we must (and will) accept that.
We currently have alpha and beta versions of bridges for e107, XOOPS and Mambo. I am setting up a test installation of each of those for people to compare and consider a shift to a different CMS if they so desire.
I'm sure people will appreciate it.
i am pretty sure that it's no violation of the gpl to call a not proprietary webservice from a gpl client or a webservice provided by gpled software from a proprietary client
Soo... Joomla! why u use SMF? (who cares... its just a question)
btw...
In this page joomla use a module to display the forum posts... if smf users can't use the bridge to joomla why can joomla use smf?...
Joomla can use whatever forum software they choose. That says absolutely nothing about the license under which they distribute their own software, or how they choose to enforce that license.
on the login-page of system A have an invisibly loaded login page for system B in an iframe. use javascript to send the content of the input-boxes to both forms to get a cookie for both systems.
modify the register & user-administration scripts of both systems to update both databases (or use one user-table and views to translate the db-structure). do not use common scripts - have the package split in two parts under different licenses.
integration done the hard way, not very elegant, but probably not against the gpl
(IANAL)
I don't care anymore, because: 1) I dislike Joomla and OSM's interpretation and enforcement of their license and 2) I've already moved to Mambo, which I feel is much better despite third-party developers' feelings toward it and Joomla.
In relation to my first point, this interpretation is stupid and, honestly, un-open-source-like.
In relation to my second point (the 'sorry, we don't support Mambo anymore, move to Joomla attitude' after the simultaneous release of the two wares), I think that attitudes are about to unravel and reverse themselves... maybe more Mambo support in more products (again)?
However until you move you will not recieve support regarding the bridge
I spend many hours to get the site where it is at the moment!!! This will mean that I loose everything and need to start from scratch??? All my forum posts will be lost? All accounts needs to re-register??
I hope not! I am seriously considering to remove Joomla!
Some clarification here:
thanks i must of missed that bit
The license concern is only with distribution, not with usage. You have no need to fear about getting sued for using the software if you already have it installed. It just can't be distributed any longer.
Great, so lets go on conversion of joomla in mambo....
True - the license concern is not for usage; only distribution.
The FSF's comments indicated that combining non-GPL software with any GPL software is a violation of the GPL. Joomla! was *never* mentioned in the correspondence. The FSF's comments were as relevant for Mambo. If the FSF's word is what you are using as justification, then it is as just as illegal to distribute an SMF bridge for Mambo.
I deeply hope that SMF will rethink this approach. The announcement made on July 24 forces Joomla!/SMF end users to either a) use a CMS they did not freely choose or b) leave their sites vulnerable for the v 1.0.13 security fixes.
The last discussion with Joomla! on the bridge was June 17 - at that time, it was agreed between Johan and Orstio that a workable solution was in front of us.
Again, I urge discussions with Joomla! resume. There are protocols for truly seeking FSF opinion and assistance that we have not explored. We have not tapped SFLC resources that the Joomla! project offered for the express purposes of finding a solution to this very challenge.
Why? That is what I cannot wrap my mind around. Why wouldn't we try to resolve this? It *can* be resolved without changing the license for either product. Why would we simply give up and suggest end users use Mambo, or another CMS? Why?
If SMF no longer wants to continue a relationship with Joomla!, that is *clearly* their choice. But, a reasonable transition period, perhaps six months to a year, would be very much appreciated and there is nothing stopping SMF from providing this time for these people.
Please, for the sake of end users, offer time.
Amy
Perhaps I'm missing something... but how does the developers interpretation of a license they didn't write or modify change the legal requirements of that license.
Based on what Mr. Smith is saying wouldn't the problems currently existing with Joomla also exist with any CMS that has an exception-free GPL license?
From what I've seen on the Mambo site regarding license they are referencing an exception-free GPL license same as joomla
So, won't the current problem with joomla be the same problem with other GPL'ed CMS's even though it may be veiled at the moment due to private interpretation of the GPL
And, Amy, we went through this one the other thread. We (SMF) discussed this as a team.
It is OUR interpretation of the statements from Joomla!, combined with the statements from FSF, that the coding gymnastics to even get close to a bridge (at this time) are not reasonable, if even possible.
If Joomla! finds another solution, we are willing to revisit the consideration, at that time.
As for offering time...
we can not distribute the bridge as it exists. That is very clear.
Joomla 1.0.13 breaks the bridge. That is clear.
Therefor, people looking for a solution, right now, need to consider some other avenue.
Version 2 of the GPL allows developers to grant permission to combine their program with other non-GPL-compatible software:
Technically that's what we're doing - we're incorporating parts of Joomla into another free "program" (the bridge) with different distribution conditions. It's up to the developers to give us permission to do that. Joomla says they don't have this authority (which is ridiculous).
Thank you... This clears it up for me
for me too!
The subject says "SMF Bridge for Joomla! discontinued"... maybe someone ill take the effort to write a new bridge and release it as GPL. Though that's hard to imagine, because there are very few people outside of SMF who care to spend time on SMF. (Read my other post in some other topic to better understand what I mean)
However, the whole situation can usually be avoided, use Joomla and SMF, use a link like joomla.org does, and use SMF for your authentication
Oh I dunno
The problem is not with the GPL CMS, the problem is clearly with SMF. The biggest ocean in the open source world is GNU/GPL and compatabile licenses. If you don't want to change your license, then don't bother trying to swim in that ocean. Or should I say, swim at your own risk. phpbb is 2-3 times more popular than smf and they do just fine with a GPL license.
Finally, are you really sure that 100% of the SMF codebase is non-GPL? If not, you could be in for problems in the future.
1- SMF is not and has never been GPL. Copyright and license to SMF is held 100% by Simplemachines LLC.
2- Mambo copyright is held, 100% by the mambo foundation. There was a discussion about this elsewhere and I'm not going into it here. the Mambo foundation has indicated that they are not interpreting the GPL in the same way... and as they are the sole copyright holder to mambo, they are allowed to do so.
The real problem here is the draconian interpretation of GPL that says "If you don't do what we want you to do, then you can't play with our toys"
there are plenty of non-GPL products that use parts of the Linux GPL code... why is that allowed while this is not? See conversation with FSF.
So, in the end, it has entirely to do with the CMS.
I have been really happy with the Gallery 2 software, but if it's GPL, I guess I'll be taking that down, too.
Regardless of what everyone says now, with all this sweetness and light, this being the software world and all, I'm quite certain that things will get ugly somewhere, at some point. In my case, HTML works fine, even if it is extra work. I'm NOT taking down SMF to make my site "legal". It accounts for over 80% of my traffic. It's the best forum software, period, and I'm not using these other cobbled-together pieces of junk. It just means that I will have to do some extra work, and spend some extra money, to avoid the GPL from now on.
It's all well and good to say that this license doesn't apply to end users, but I don't think that will be the interpretation forever. The tendency on this type of thing in the past has always been to become more and more restrictive, not the other way around. The fact is, most web software requires at least small amounts of hacking to get it to work in a particular installation.
I have consulted a copyright attorney, and he has advised me NOT to use ANY GPL software on my website, if I am using any other publicly accessible software that is non-GPL. This is because, when changing code to fit my website's needs, I am creating a "derivative work". In other words, if I want SMF, he says to avoid GPL for anything else. I trust a lawyer's interpretation more than a hacker's...
mike
SMF isn't against the GPL. We just don't conform to some people's interpretation of what it is and what the world should be.
No. As it says in the email from the FSF:
The bridge, no matter under which license it is released, cannot derive from (connect to) SMF so long as SMF's license is not compatible with Joomla's. According to the email, it would violate both the GPL and the SMF license in doing so.
If or when that day comes, I will use that "cease and desist" time period to move to something else. There are a few different gallery-type mods for SMF that work OK, but for my needs, Gallery 2 is the SMF of that world for me. The two combined are awesome. I'm thinking TinyPortal on top is probably all I need, to catalogue the huge amount of HTML and image stuff I have, into a CMS of some sort that makes sense, not just to install and use, but to live with, in an operational sense.
I am not trying to start some sort of hysteria here, or cause a ruckus. Just pointing out that a license is exactly that, permission on how a work is to be used. Regardless of how it is worded, it is up to the license holders to determine when or if prosecution will proceed.
Most likely, whether or not a suit has any merit, J***** and others like them probably have a heck of a lot more money at their disposal than I do. And that's the civil litigation system, nothing to be done about it, in the short term. If a threat is made, I will have to stop. No choice, due to financial considerations.
To clarify what I was saying earlier about my attorney's interpretation:
The hacking of the code to get the software to work in my installation, in the most basic and literal interpretation, creates a "derivative" or "combined" work (my site's content and programming, combined with the "J***** codebase. When someone clicks on a link that uses this combination, now I am "distributing" the code to an end-user.
This is only one possible way to look at it, and in my view, it's not a very defensible or practical viewpoint. But when is the legal world ever practical? And defense is simply a matter of dollars and cents, at least in the US. I ain't got what they got, probably ain't ever going to catch 'em, either. Which means that THEY call the shots, not me.
My job in this kind of thing is simply to dodge bullets, provide content, and obey the masters.
mike
SimpleMachines should develop it's own CMS. No, I am not saying that the developers of the "Simple Machines Forum" software should start to write a CMS. Start it as a new project, with it's own developers and support staff.
If I understand correctly then none of the team members get paid, so the only issues are to find the time and the resources to run the project. The resources are: people (free), hardware and software to run an official website and time.
Who says that Simple Machines LLC can have only one software product?
Anyway, it must be the hot my computer produces that makes me hallucinate.
Otherwise, I quite like snews, but then I like simple stuff.
TinyPortal isn't a CMS by itself, but when combined with the capabilities that are already there in the SMF package, especially with a G2 bridge, you're getting pretty close to a CMS...
What started out as my original web site is now going to become the information archive for the forum. The forum kind of took over my site. So I think the TinyPortal makes sense as a way to tie my existing website information into the forum.
For what it is worth, I think that the SMF team should look at throwing in behind the TP folks, helping to iron out compatibility issues like Rudolf mentions, to create a new type of CMS, which is really what it amounts to anyway, from what I can tell.
If all you want is a forum, it's all good. But if you want to move up to a normal web site, or a CMS, then you add in the TP, and BOOM! It's CMS, baby, YEAH!
You'd have something then that would kick that booty when it comes to simplicity and ease of install, especially when compared to the effort it takes just to get one of the other forum packages to stay up and running, to say nothing of the constant screwing around that J***** takes. And the overhead on the system seems to be a lot less, also.
I can't wait... evil hee hee.
mike
Simplemachines is not the only developer being forced to cease development on a project due to the issue at hand.
Just give it time.
And don't think for a second we didn't try everything we could to alleviate the situation. Fact is, ignoring this could have meant litigation being filed against SMF. How does that help any of our members out? How does that help the image of simplemachines AND the image of every user of SMF software? Not at all.
Oldiesmann is completely in the truth, it's that joomla purely don't want authorize combination or would purely see the code of smf free.
Bad idea of them cause they will lost lots of users with their next version of joomla (no more smf bridge so...)
So if someone could say us where to find a joomla to mambo converter, it will be super cool! thanks for advance of your answer.
GroundUp -
Really, that is not what the FSF concluded.
If you read the FSF email - Brett Smith's response from July 23, you will see he indicates linking and importing create a derivative work, but, he adds that PHP has exec functionality that *can* be used to connect GPL and non-GPL compliant environments.
This is not impossible - it is doable. I urge Joomla! and SMF to get back to talking to one another.
Joomla! is not rushing this - we can take the time that is needed to make it work for everyone.
Please, consider the end users! Please provide the v 1.0.13 updates so people's websites are not vulnerable and give them time. That way people are not forced into choices and can freely choose.
Thanks,
Amy
I know some users are EXTREMELY frustrated and bordering on angry at the decision.
But its not like the SMF guys (and Joomla guys) haven't tried to resolve the problem.
I'm sure they are actively continuing to look for alternatives, but the bridge as it stands clearly MUST be licensed under GPL.
Therefore it must immediately be taken down from distribution.
(sidenote: your 10 away from the 10k posts)
Thantos -
OK - call it what you will.
Will you *please* consider supporting v 1.0.13 so that Joomla!/SMF users can update their software for the security enhancements? Then, announce an ending date for the bridge that provides for a safe transition.
Will SMF do that, please?
Amy
We can not legally do so. To distribute a bridge at this point would be to specifically go against the position that Joomla and the FSF have taken and violate the license they have agreed on.
Once again, we discussed this both with joomla and as a team. There is no current solution and we CAN NOT distribute the bridge. We would love to continue supporting and distributing the bridge, but as karlbenson says, there is no provision or exclusion for "transition".
That is a HUGE relief to hear because Joomla! WILL make provision for the time, they say so in their announcement!
Six months would be great. Joomla! is not rushing this. In a sense, it is the same "word of mouth" Mambo is giving.
So, yes, there is provision for time.
Will SMF *please* support Joomla! v 1.0.13 so that Joomla!/SMF users can secure their websites and there can be some time for good solutions. It would be very much appreciated.
Amy
Kindred -
It is no different at all from Mambo. Joomla! and Mambo both use the GPL. You heard the opinion from FSF about the GPL - not about Joomla!. Mambo is "overlooking" what the FSF says. Joomla! has made it clear they are not rushing this.
You are in the same legal position with both.
Now, I do urge you to get back to talking to Joomla!. The very last discussion with Joomla! was between Orstio and Johan on June 17 and the talks were very promising. Johan offered to take Orstio's plan and share it with the SFLC - there has been no discussion since then. It is not clear what happened!
Please, provide a transition period. And, if you want a long-term relationship, get back in there and talk.
I recognize this is difficult but, honestly, you guys are the ones who are rushing this, no one else. Slow it down so that we can all work together and come up with good solutions.
Amy
Essentially, they can't relicense Joomla to anyone already using it. However any further distribution of Joomla/extensions is done under the (pure) GPL (with no exceptions for proprietary extensions).
For the SAME reason that Joomla believes they can't grant SMF the exception, they can't grant ANY extension of time. (whereas mambo ARE in a position to grant SMF the exception)
And so SMF would violate the GPL if they distributed any upgrades to the bridge or further copies of the bridge itself.
The difference is Mambo is saying they won't enforce compliance. But, it is still a GPL violation.
Joomla! is saying the same thing. They are working towards compliance, but they will allow time for compliance to be built in.
Both are allowing violation of the GPL. The difference is only one plans to eventually require compliance.
Does that make sense?
This is Joomla!'s position on time for compliance:
Joomla! has not asked SMF to discontinue distribution of the bridge. Not even once! There *is* time to come to sensible solutions.
Really!
Amy
Mambo = say they have authority to distribute under GPL and grant exceptions
It is not a violation if they are granted an exception.
I mean no disrespect, but you can quote that same sentence from Joomla until the cows come home.
Either way, if Joomla doesnt have total authority to grant the exception - they don't have the authority to grant any time extension or promise not to sue anybody. Ignoring non-compliance therefore won't work, as the persons/entities which share authority have not indicated the same that they will allow time and they won't sue.
(If I was affiliated with Joomla, I would tell them that they are exceeding their authority, but I am not)
And finally a 'theoretical' example, I should not have to wait until kindly asked by the RIAA to remove my mp3 collection from p2p before I do so.
SMF should NOT walk the legal tightrope of technically being in violation of anything or anyone for ANY period of time.
Personally I don't see why we should waste the time to continuing developing a bridge that we won't be able to distrobute in the near future. I would rather that time/energy be spent to develop bridges for other CMS that realize that the GPL reduces freedom instead of promote it.
Well, that isn't really the difference. The copyright holder can determine how they interpret the GPL and if they will grant exceptions. The Mambo Foundation specifically gave an exception when they officially said that non-GPL modules/components were okay.
The Joomla! team say they cannot make any exceptions because they aren't holding the copyright on the software. This also means they can't promise any type of safe transition period because one of these copyright holders can sue at any time then (which has been mentioned in passing).
If there is possibility for such a transition period, a statement should be made by an official core Joomla! team member. Pleading from well-meaning individuals can't take the place of an official promise.
In order to do that, I suggest the Joomla team draw up a statement of exception to the GPL for the SMF bridge for the stated period of six calendar months. This statement should be electronically signed by each and every Joomla copyright holder. I am certain that if each copyright holder was to send an email of agreement of the statement to info at simplemachines, with some information so we can identify each of them individually to ensure
1) no copyright holders have been excluded,
2) no copyright holders find objection,
3) all copyright holders are in unanimous agreement,
4) the verification of the identity of each and every copyright holder,
then we might be able to proceed for the indicated period of six calendar months following legal advice on the validity of the exception.
I would strongly suggest seeking legal counsel before and during the preparation of such a statement.
This post contains no legal advice.
Now there's a solution I think we could all agree on.
Why oh why don't you want to talk to the Joomla Core Team about these issues? Don't you think that would be the wise course of action? At least initially. All of this hype and misinformation could then be avoided.. don't you think?
We, Joomla, value our users, and have always made sure we are available to any of the SMF team. I am sadly disappointed that you don't want to talk to us.. reminds me of the 1.5 "not possible to bridge with SMF" fiasco...
What kind of hype and misinformation you are talking about?
Due to the FSF's opinion combined with OSM/Joomla's hard-core GPL interpretation the safe path for SMF is to withdraw their bridge. And had the Joomla! Coreteam ever really discussed their decisions with any 3PD? No. The decisions where made long before a fake discussion started at the Joomla! Forum and most criticizing where censored and deleted.
So Open Source means for the Joomla! Team not Open Speech.
btw check this out http://www.toonla.com/
The bit about SMF having discussed this with the Joomla Core Team....
The SMF team (I believe I speak for all of us) would love to continue with Joomla, the day we saw them using SMF as their forum made us all smile, the fact they still do, is a compliment to the professional way they are acting.
Personally and as some of our team use joomla, would like to see things continue with them, its about biding time and finding new approaches.
I don't want to see bitter arguments, as there seems to be, legally, the bridge in its current state breaks the joomla license, therefore it was removed.
As for the mambo and other bridges that are online under GPL, we have searched there sites, forums, contacted people for many of the systems, and they seem happy with what we are doing, yes in the "Free Software Foundations" eyes we may be as illegal as movie pirates, however the fact remains, the FSF could shout and scream, and moan and whinge, but can't start a legal case against us, as it is not there software.
It's the same with us here Amy, we explicitly state we don't allow redistribution, however we make formal exceptions to certain people like Fantastico and a few other control panels, to allow them to use our software.
Brad, do you think any amount of negotation is going to change Joomla's interpretation of their license? I don't think it will. It has already been shown by the FSF email that any method short of exec() or attempting to pass all variables via HTTP request (if you were an actual coder, you would understand why neither of those is viable) constitute a combined work. I don't think any amount of negotation is going to change that fact either.
From the information we have gathered over the past weeks, it seems that the only way to solve this license issue is to alter one of the licenses of either Joomla or SMF. I don't think any amount of negotation is going to change that either.
Joomla's position has been made clear. During the raging debate at the Joomla forum, it was also made clear that third party developers should seek advice from people who deal with the legalities of licensing, which is what we did. Based on that advice, we have now made our position clear.
Nice to know that! Don't forget that we users are the people who don't take anything positive from all this cheat!
PS: we already shout down the forum in cms-pt.com, we are thinking to moove away both smf amd joomla, if u can work together we can work with u two!
Brad,
We have discussed this. I have actually worked my way through the posts over on Joomla regarding the license interpretation (despite the fact that each of the posts seems to be locked and forked over to a new post every time it gets "hot"). The basic answer that always comes out is "in order to distribute for joomla, you must release under GPL" (oh, and don't forget the frequent "we're not trying to be difficult here, you obviously don't understand...." posts).
The point is: distributing the SMF bridge is a violation of the GPL, according to the current joomla license.
IF you and the joomla team have some information on this matter, we would be glad to hear it. Please, share! Rather than making cryptic remarks which, unfortunately, boil down to the same poison-people complaints that amystephen is making ("This is all your fault. You are unreasonable.")
We do not BLAME joomla for their position. We do regret the decision and we will do our best to comply with their position/interpretation of the joomla license.
I think Orstio hit it on the head:
Or, if Joomla has some other position that will allow us to continue distributing and developing the bridge, PLEASE let us know.
I love those cartoons, they are so True.