spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>> Joomla! - the licence stays the same
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Christopher Justice says: "...we haven't changed the license and we
>> | have no plans to. We have raised the visibility of the GPL and we're
>> | encouraging a better understanding of the GPL. It is our view that
>> | extensions are derivative works and therefore we encourage all
>> | extensions to be GPL compliant. The Joomla! community has grown to
>> | over 110,000 members with the same license and a huge community of
>> | commercial and non-commercial developers. There are some non-GPL
>> | compliant extensions but the majority of the extensions available
>> | are GPL. As the project continues to grow, we'll focus more on GPL
>> | extensions to build a stronger and more open project and community."
>> `----
>
>>
http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13303&Itemid=1091
>
>> This was not posted to COLA, but some Luddites complained because they
>> wanted to shove blobs or restricted software into Joomla.
>
> Maybe you should've added some of your own words to the summary...
> Perhaps explaining what the hell Joomla was in the first place.
It is a CMS (content management system) to easily create websites.
And Roy is totally wrong with his "some Luddites complained because they
wanted to shove blobs or restricted software into Joomla"
There exist a *lot* of closed source Joomla! extensions (and very important
ones), and the developers of those were quite angry because they had to
fear that a licence they had relied on for a long time was to be changed,
pulling the rug out under them.
The users of Joomla! weren't too happy either, because they feared that the
CSS developers would immedeately stop developing any further extensions,
even pulling the existing ones, leaving the project somewhat stranded.
It is not always that simple as "OSS is good", "CSS is bad". That is
oversimplified, and it is usually totally wrong
There is nothing bad with OSS per se, it gets bad when it is used to milk
the customer without giving him adequate return value. The cost of
developing some sort of software can be so high that you can't finance it
in an OSS way
--
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them
to choose from. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
|
|
