Welcome to the new Compass Designs website, powered by Joomla 1.5! The goal of this new site is to be the place to bookmark if you are looking for quality Joomla tutorials, news and tips.Just another Blog Post by Louis Landry
Tagged in Untagged
Louis Landry
Over the weekend I was surprised to see a very public blog post about me at Joomla.org by Louis Landry regarding an email I sent to somebody.
Last week I came across the site of a developer (whom I believed to be an employee of one of the members of Joomla's oversite organization, Open Source Matters) selling extensions that carry a non-GPL compatible license. I sent that developer (and only the developer) an email to make him aware of Joomla's statement of its license and that he was, in fact, violating it.
For people to decide themselves the magnitude of what I did, the text of the email reads:
Hi XXXXX*,
"This license is for installing the component in ONE production server (non-public) and for ONE public site"
Your license violates the GPL as defined by the recent Joomla core team decision. You must have a GPL compatible license.
Additionally, please provide me with the source code of your extensions as is required by the GPL license and the Joomla core team.
--
Regards,
Barrie North
* I won't potentially embarrass the developer by giving out their name. I consider that information private, which is why I sent the email only to them and nobody else.
I did not receive any response from the developer, who apparently forwarded it on to officials at Joomla. I did not receive any direct or personal communication from any Joomla official.
On Saturday, Louis Landry, a Joomla core team member and one of the three Project Managers made a very public blog post on the Developer's Blog at Joomla.org commenting on my email. I assume the developer forwarded it to him.
The same day, there seemed to be an organized attempt by many of the core team digging his blog post.
Certainly, Louis and I disagree on many points about the wisdom (and legality) of the core's decision regarding the GPL.
In my disagreement over the Joomla Core's decisions expressed here at Compass, I have tried to remained objective and professional and have never used any language that has been directed personally at members of the core. People will rarely listen to your point of view if they can't see past the words you are using. I'd encourage you to read my posts on the subject to see for yourself.
I view my email as being a private communication from one dev to another regarding Joomla's license. I am also concerned about the potential for a double standard of enforcement. Developers with close ties to the Joomla Core are held to the same standards of "education" as those that have none.
Louis spends several words explaining why he thinks I'm "stupid" (the most generous phrase used) for my understanding and interpretation of the GPL, and for the words I used to express this understanding to the developer in my private email.
You all can decide for yourself if I'm "stupid." But, consider these two different sentences:
- "It is our opinion that most extensions are derivative works of Joomla! and must be licensed under the GNU GPL." -
Core Team statement - "You must have a GPL compatible license." -
Quote from my email.
I see those two statements as expressing fundamentally the same thing. Mine was perhaps even more generous as I said GPL-compatible, rather than pure GPL.
Was it appropriate for me to send this personal email to another developer?
Since the debate over the GPL and Joomla began, I have discovered that many devs are not even aware of the Core Team's decision. Many devs who have been clued in to the evolving status of Joomla's license have acknowledged or commented about the change on their blogs and sites, whether they supported one opinion or another. This particular dev had not. I wanted to make sure he was aware of the issue.
I considered that my email, and any response, might reveal the limits of understanding and exposure of third party developers to the recent debates and licensing decisions by the Core Team. Had this dev, with his ties to the Joomla core team via his employer, been unaware of the changes, this would have told us much about the lack of communication and outreach.
I send my most sincere apologies for the dev involved here. Seeing as nothing seems private any longer, it will only be a matter of time before Louis's blog post causes his name to be dragged into this.
Show/Hide comments
Jennifer Marriott
said:
|
The email was written with the intent for it to not be private, but public. Stop saying it was a private email. You did an evil deed Barrie. Admit it say you are sorry and move on. |
Rachel Stephen
said:
|
I agreed with you about this GPL things doesn't have well communication with developers. And is quite a shame of Joomla project that they decided to change it with very little guideline or law suggestions for commercial developers. It is very good thing if you concern about this GPL things and send warning messages since it would help Joomla new GPL policies get more attention.The first and second paragraph seem to have no problem. But the problem is lying in the last paragraph: "Additionally, please provide me with the source code of your extension as is required by the GPL license and the Joomla core team." Why you use such a sentence like this? This sentence is not required if you just really want to warn this developer. You need to clarified why you use such a sentence. Otherwise, I and many people may think you have some hidden dilemma because that's something unusual for such a high experience professional developer to do. Also, I didn't remember when Joomla core team request souce code from 3pd developers. Nor find any statement from them that doing so is legimate. Best Regards, Rachel |
RSW
said:
| I think you were wrong to ask the dev for his source code (that goes beyond just informing him of the core's opinion). I also think Louis was wrong to air your name in public without even contacting you first. |
admin
said:
|
@Jennifer (aka) MMMedia I think you are referring to to a post where I mentioned I expected the email to be forwarded. I should clarify that I would think it appropriate for the dev to contact the license holder regarding the issue. That's quite different to launching a public smear campaign with its contents... Evil? Sending a single email? Good grief woman, get some perspective... |
admin
said:
|
An interesting post on the subject @Rachel and RSW Perhaps the second sentence should have read: Additionally, once you are compliant, please provide me with the source code of your extensions as is required by the GPL license and the Joomla core team. Having to hand over source code if you use a GPL license is part of the huge implication for 3PD... |
Robert Pitera
said:
|
Barrie, as you can see from my posts on the blog in question, I'm not entirely happy with the way things were handled by Louis originally either. But what you did was defintely an act of poor judgement and done for a specific and calculated reason. Furthermore, as pretty much everything you produce is EXEMPT from any of the the Core Devs pronouncements about GPL compliance, why are you raising such a fuss in the first place? Your templates, services and eBooks are not at risk and are even sepcifically EXCLUDED in the original statements - so what is your goal besides to encite a riot here? You're not the SDS and this isn't Newark or Watts in 1967. If you'd simply stop "organizing the masses against the man" long enough you could use your considerable talents and stature to bring this community together, instead of driving a wedge between the parties. If you REALLY want to help your fellow developers, look into the reason why your templates as well as hundreds of your colleagues are showing up in "Warez" groups on USENET - a real and actual threat to your income as opposed to the one you seem to have a hand in creating. Those are the REAL bad guys. |
Lawrence Meckan
said:
|
Jennifer (MMMedia), You call Barrie's act evil. That's an emotive, irrational response. Instead, let's deal in facts. You failed to show how publishing an email not sent to you personally conforms to the Joomla! Code Of Conduct. I don't see a clause inside the Code of Conduct that allows various people in authority to publish stuff that isn't their property. For it is a known fact that Louis took something that wasn't his (the email) and published parts of it without the correct authority from Barrie himself to publish it. Chilling Effects has examples of people divulging emails which are not sent to them, and as such, the Joomla! project can be subject to DCMA at will. OSM's own by-laws don't cover the right to privacy of those involved in the project or forums either. Louis' actions do not fall under the DCMA Safe Harbour provisions, and as such, bring the entire project into disrepute. If one of the Core project managers is prepared to misuse private information in this way, no user of Joomla! across the forums you moderate is likewise safe. The current project manager of Joomla! has misused information and should be held legally liable for it. And at the end of the day, the safety and wellbeing of the end user is what matters, not whether the powers that be (such as yourself inside the Moderation team) call things evil when you fail to see the legal and ethical consequences of Louis' actions. |
admin
said:
|
@Robert I really appreciate your comments. You ask why I blog and weigh in about this debate. Read the comments here and here. Read the comments on this. I have about another 100 emails from end users all saying the same thing: If it wasn't broke, why is the core fixing it? Those 100 emails I have (OK, there are actually 92) are all end users who feel so strongly that they have taken the time to write long thoughtful emails. All these hundreds and hundreds of comments from end users is telling me that the core team got it wrong. They didn't listen to the community, and don't have its best interests at heart. They are spreading numerous "facts" that are essentially untruths. Added to that, there is no democracy in the project. Tens of thousands of community members could be outraged, and nothing would happen. Its a closed opaque system with no accountability. The end users I interact with are overwhelmingly telling me they think this decision is wrong. Should I just ignore them? The last thing that really concerns me is those Warez sites you mention. It all extensions must be GPL (as the core insist), that just made every warez site legal. People can buy once and redistribute for free to their heart's content. |
Robert Pitera
said:
|
@Barrie Well in fact *I* just spread some misinformation, however inadvertently. (And isn't that how this seems to go?) So let me clarify; I always want to be a truthful as possible and admit when I mess up. (And I appreciate the venue and opportunity you giving me here to do so...) Templates ARE affected in part; while the CSS, Images and external Jscript/PHP code is not considered derivative (unless of course the JScript/PHP code calls specific J! functions) the index.php IS. In fact it would have to be in order to provide functionality like the loading of modules or initializing editors and such. However your comment that: The last thing that really concerns me is those Warez sites you mention. It all extensions must be GPL (as the core insist), that just made every warez site legal. People can buy once and redistribute for free to their heart's content. is also untrue because the developer STILL holds the exclusive copyright to the images, css and any no derivative code they generated themselves. Redistributing these items are still a violation of copyright and in no way does it make 'every warez site legal' (A comment inspired more out of drama than fact/logic - if I host a site that has 400 illegal films and one public domain film, it doesn't change the criminal charges at all!) nor can people 'redistribute to their hearts content'. This is yet another illustration of my comments in Louis blog; the main effort here should be made in clarifying the terms and presenting a situational FAQ in a SEPARATE SITE, not buried in forums and blogs. Finally, for the record I have never questioned WHY you are involved as much as the HOW - it's some of the methods I disapprove of and also for the record, I made the same statements about Louis and the CoreDevs on their blog and forums (I stand behind anything I say and I will always say it 'to your face' - albeit virtually so  ) I have much respect for your work here and in the community. I have much respect for the J Project staff and core devs work there and in their community. I have little respect on EITHER SIDE of this argument when it applies to the way it is being handled, and the one thing I will agree with you and disagree with some of the mods and devs at the J! project is that this IS (again from both sides misdeeds and misstatements) affecting the entire project in a negative way, and thanks to social bookmarking and tagging, the world is watching how we handle this. |
admin
said:
| Correct about the template warez. I should have been more specific and explained I meant other extensions. There are already many "resource" sites that have hundreds of GPL extensions on them and seek to make money from adsense. Even if the original developer tries to charge for download (an "acceptable" Joomla business model) their extensions will just get re-distributed for free (IMHO) |
revmark
said:
|
I think I understand the reasoning for the email. To show that devs, even ones close to the core, don't really know what is going on or they don't care. However, I think that asking the dev in question for the source was not proper. It showed a sign of vindictiveness that was not necessary. I think if you had informed him that he must make his source available, then that probably would have been cool. But I think that this whole thing is starting to spiral out of control. We still have the Joomla extensions site using a non-GPL'd commercial app as it's core functionality. There is something inherently wrong with that. If OSM and Joomla.org wants us to take them seriously, they need to C&D using Mosets immediately. Although I personally love Mosets and will most likely use it in an upcoming project (regardless of the bruhaha), the J! organization needs to take it down. When they do this there will be such a cry from the devs that still dont know what is going on. I mean after all, how many are actually using the JoomlaCode site? |
Tommy Pirbos
said:
|
"Also, I didn't remember when Joomla core team request souce code from 3pd developers. Nor find any statement from them that doing so is legimate." Errhh... please excuse my ignorance if I am wrong, but I thought that GPL demands that the dev provides the code on request. Wrong? "You did an evil deed Barrie" Jeeezzzz... He wanted to see what response he got from a dev that supposedly didn't follow the rules. Where is the wrong in that?? Did he use any bad language? |
emeryjay
said:
|
Barrie, While the other guys are throwing names and innuendo at you, the rest of us are getting some slack from the heat. Since the email was not directed at Mr. Landry, it was not appropriate for him to reveal any part of it. For others to suggest that it was your intent for others to use your email... that's absurd. How can anyone know that? I am relatively new to Joomla and have been a loyal user of GNU/GPL code for years. It's a labor love. Obviously many people love it too or they wouldn;t be quite so passionate about it. I've worked with many content management systems including some very expesnive commercial products (Ektron, Harris, Coyote and a few others) and Joomla is as good or better than many of them. As far as Landry is concerned, if you have to resort to name calling to get attention, perhaps the point you are trying to make is not quite so good. That's as an outsider looking in. L8r, Emery Jeffreys Rehabilitated journalist See my real news site at http://aroundcentralflorida.com P.S. Thanks for having broad shoulder and accepting the heat while the rest of share the slack. |
fireman
said:
|
the stupids! I always thought that GPL or whatever was designed to keep things free and simple. I thought it was a desire to thumb noses at the shrink-wrap corporations, and provide free usable product that will grow and evolve as technology and necessity dictates. I thought that there was no mine, but ours; no ruling party or governing body, but "we the users". Strange how something intended for simplicity needs to be propped up by volumes of legalese. It is true that freedom isn't free. Now, to the humor of LL's blog on stupidity. I had to laugh at LL's diatribe. There was talk of honour, volunteerism and patting on the back that has not been seen since Bill Gates told us how great WebTV was going to be. I found it funny that while marching onward and standing tall on the defense of the recent decision to enforce GPL in its 'strictess' sense, LL's blog marched right over Mr. North's rights not only to privacy, but copyrights. HUH?!!! Yeah, it seems that posting excerpts from Mr. North's email is just as much a license infringement as is being suggested by a certain CMS. In essence: All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour. I am sure that a few would-be Doctors of Jurisprudence will attempt to give the real intent of copyright as it pertains to email and in fact there is a debate on exactly that. I suppose it is going to have to be interpreted to us just like GPL. "Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege." Author Unknown |
admin
said:
Seems that Mr Louis Landry is still trying to stir up emotions. ...lets look at some numbers... The petition that was pushed out via several mail blasts and linked to on nearly every blog post surrounding the Joomla! license was signed by a little over 700 people. Even if we were to assume that all of those are legitimate signatures, we would not arrive at "everyone". Nice warm up, nice conspiracy theory.... There were an awful lot of people who came to our forums to post their concerns. Most of them were asked to do so via mail blasts and blog posts presenting the author's skewed view of the situation. Followed by an even more paranoid conspiracy theory.... Next, lets look at the email received... Last check (it is not my job to read all of this email and process it) showed a majority of people supporting our decision and not wanting to post those thoughts to the forum for fear of "retribution" by those that were so angry. And topped off by an interesting assumption about retribution. Even after Jinx has called for calm with a measured FAQ post. I really don't understand why he is continuing to rant in this way. |
John Coonen
said:
|
Can't we all just get along? At least this isn't like other blogs I'm part of where it's all laid at the feet of the "Dems" or "Neocons." That said, it seems like folks could get together offline and make nice over a brew (or two, if necessary). -John PS: You've really got something good goin' here...do your best to stay positive and drive through the smoke... |
MrNick
said:
|
Oh my god. This is all getting so painful. It is rather reminiscent of the schisms in various religions. Lots of hot air, position taking, name calling, rising anger, expulsions (from the one true faith) then violence. At least we don't seem to have got to violence yet. Nick |
Show/Hide comment form
