GPL raped Joomla
In general, the alignment was this: in one topic, one person complained that they say something bad there encrypts code ( forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic , 163492.0.html). And this mole does not fit the GPL.
Then a stormy discussion broke out (about 2 thousand posts) on which one has a bigger brain to understand all the subtleties of the GPL (and I must say frankly - there’s a hell of a leg in this license). As a result, they still proved that this is a violation. For one thing, they made a big trick for commercial developers - it turned out that the creation and sale of components and other items under a non-GPL license is also a violation. Lawyers, damn it.
Someone thought that about 1000 extensions in the off-directory ( extensions.joomla.org ) are somehow not related to the GPL license. Somehow. And this figure, I must say, is not very small.
')
Only developers of the templates did not lose, their GPL license basically does not concern if they do not contain code (the code in the templates is how old it is, but for Joomla this is a very modern day).
I would say that the GPL raped them, and hard. They have no other way out. Either change the license or prohibit commerce. The first is not feasible, because in Joomla there is a lot of left-hand code, which is written under the GPL, and if they rewrite it, then for another couple of years you can definitely not worry about the release dates of version 1.5. The second is easier. Forks are obtained: they can not do otherwise, because in the west they respect the law, without exception.
I think that all of ours can calm down, because it won't affect us at all, how the studios will make websites, how people made the components to order, and this will continue. We oh how far they are.
And I also thought here that all kinds of zops / tapes and drupals also fall under such forks. No better situation. Also, because the GPL, which means that commercial non-GPL components cannot be written.
And rightly, I said that I do not like the GPL. The same BSD in this regard is much better.
- Update
I draw attention to the key point: the GPL as such does not prohibit commerce, some even live on it (caliper, consultations), it prohibits the production of non-GPL products that use the API and are embedded in GPL applications. All commercial applications are not GPLs that use the Joomla API. Here comes the joint. In fact, the GPL has many subtleties that can not always be unambiguously applied to web applications (it’s still not software for UNIX).
PS As for the title of the article - I liked it here, at first it was certainly more sane (according to the transliteration in the title you can see what it was), but then I decided that these three words most accurately characterize the situation.
Source: dead-krolik.info/2007/06/30/bolshoi-perepolokh-v-dome-joomla#cpreview
One of the founders of the Russian community Joomla
Then a stormy discussion broke out (about 2 thousand posts) on which one has a bigger brain to understand all the subtleties of the GPL (and I must say frankly - there’s a hell of a leg in this license). As a result, they still proved that this is a violation. For one thing, they made a big trick for commercial developers - it turned out that the creation and sale of components and other items under a non-GPL license is also a violation. Lawyers, damn it.
Someone thought that about 1000 extensions in the off-directory ( extensions.joomla.org ) are somehow not related to the GPL license. Somehow. And this figure, I must say, is not very small.
')
Only developers of the templates did not lose, their GPL license basically does not concern if they do not contain code (the code in the templates is how old it is, but for Joomla this is a very modern day).
I would say that the GPL raped them, and hard. They have no other way out. Either change the license or prohibit commerce. The first is not feasible, because in Joomla there is a lot of left-hand code, which is written under the GPL, and if they rewrite it, then for another couple of years you can definitely not worry about the release dates of version 1.5. The second is easier. Forks are obtained: they can not do otherwise, because in the west they respect the law, without exception.
I think that all of ours can calm down, because it won't affect us at all, how the studios will make websites, how people made the components to order, and this will continue. We oh how far they are.
And I also thought here that all kinds of zops / tapes and drupals also fall under such forks. No better situation. Also, because the GPL, which means that commercial non-GPL components cannot be written.
And rightly, I said that I do not like the GPL. The same BSD in this regard is much better.
- Update
I draw attention to the key point: the GPL as such does not prohibit commerce, some even live on it (caliper, consultations), it prohibits the production of non-GPL products that use the API and are embedded in GPL applications. All commercial applications are not GPLs that use the Joomla API. Here comes the joint. In fact, the GPL has many subtleties that can not always be unambiguously applied to web applications (it’s still not software for UNIX).
PS As for the title of the article - I liked it here, at first it was certainly more sane (according to the transliteration in the title you can see what it was), but then I decided that these three words most accurately characterize the situation.
Source: dead-krolik.info/2007/06/30/bolshoi-perepolokh-v-dome-joomla#cpreview
One of the founders of the Russian community Joomla
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/11786/
All Articles