I have no objections on moving Joomla and Bitrix to apache-extras. I was unable to find the licence of Bitrix. It is closed source Russian CMS. In their module guide they recommend to include module license into module archive. So I guess there are no limitations
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > So can we move the rest of the plugin to apache-extras.org too? > > Eugen told to move SugarCRM within the next 2 weeks. > I can cover ATutor as I was also the one that committed it. > What about Joomla, can it be moved? The last changes to Joomla are > committed by Maxim. > Zimbra changes have been committed by me, can I move it or are the > argeuments against it? > > Jitsi is LGPL. A possible plugin is also GPL or LGPL. Can it be moved to > apache-extras.org as long as Legal details are not resolved? > Teambox/Bitrix, what license can be applied to teambox/bitrix plugin? > Teambox/Bitrix is not Open Source software. License of Teambox/Bitrix > Plugin is not clear. Can it be moved to apache-extras.org until the > authors > have an answer on the legal side? > Facebook Connect => Can I move it to apache-extras.org as I have committed > it. Any objections on that? > > Thanks! > Sebastian > > 2012/10/12 [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > The same applies to Drupal according to their FAQ: > > http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q7 > > > > So my guess is that we should rather try to find a consens that does not > > require the Apache Foundation to discuss with Drupal or Moodle Community > > about changing their point of view. > > > > Sebastian > > > > 2012/10/12 [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > Maixm: I share your point of view, I am not the one that you need to > >> argument against :) > >> However the GPL folks are quite confident that they are right: > >> http://markmail.org/message/33hztgfyfxdb3jef > >> > >> "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls > >> to each > >> other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, > >> which > >> must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the > >> plug-ins. This > >> means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible > free > >> software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when > >> those > >> plug-ins are distributed." > >> > >> I don't know if this argumentation is correct, as did Jukka say: It has > >> kind of a "viral" factor. > >> But as he did further explain: We do accept the wishes of other > >> communities beyond the laws. And the Moodle community really wants for > >> example plugins to be released under the GPL. > >> > >> *Even if we ignore that angle for a moment, my perspective has always > >> been that it's simply not possible to develop code "100% from scratch" > in > >> the real world. Developers always copy existing code, and thus the new > code > >> needs to follow the same license.* > >> Quote from Martin Dougiamas< > https://moodle.org/user/view.php?id=1&course=5>Founder Moodle at: > >> https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=135896 > >> > >> Actually the Plugin loader at Moodle.org even checks if the plugin has > >> GPL license file. They do not allow other plugins to be uploaded. > >> > >> Sebastian > >> > >> > >> 2012/10/12 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > >> > >>> I always thought calling any methods under any license does not add any > >>> restrictions to your code. > >>> Google was able to implement Java and it was not violation :) > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM, [email protected] < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > * limit GPL-licensed plug-ins to minimal API calls (over http);* > >>> > => I don't know how that would practically be implemented? You cannot > >>> call > >>> > Drupal functions via HTTP, or access the Drupal/Moodle/Joomla user > >>> session > >>> > object and ask about user- or access rights via HTTP. > >>> > Those plugin specific API calls always will be part of the plugin > >>> itself > >>> > and never performed via HTTP. > >>> > > >>> > My idea was more like: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/openmeetings-moodle-plugin/source/browse/trunk/openmeetings_gateway.php > >>> > and: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/openmeetings-moodle-plugin/source/browse/trunk/lib/openmeetings_rest_service.php > >>> > > >>> > Those are files that are shared among all plugins. We could bundle > >>> those > >>> > files and make a general integration SDK and distribute it under the > >>> Apache > >>> > License as they do not contain any Drupal/Moodle/Joomla/platform xyz > >>> > specific code. > >>> > > >>> > The plugins could use this SDK plus add the platform specific code > and > >>> then > >>> > distribute at apache-extras.org. > >>> > > >>> > Sebastian > >>> > > >>> > 2012/10/11 Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> > >>> > > >>> > > So my take on this is the following: > >>> > > > >>> > > 1) limit GPL-licensed plug-ins to minimal API calls (over http); > >>> > > 2) move any complex logic to our side (to Openmeetings services, or > >>> > > standalone services which do more elaborate calls to Openmeetings). > >>> > > > >>> > > We are pretty close to this anyway. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM, [email protected] < > >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > The general "echo" is rather negative. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > For example Sam Ruby's answer a time ago was: > >>> > > > *The operative phrase here being "the terms of the GPL must be > >>> followed > >>> > > > when those plug-ins are distributed." This really sounds more > like > >>> > > > something that would be made available at Apache Extras:* > >>> > > > Quoted from: http://markmail.org/message/33hztgfyfxdb3jef > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Other follow up that, for example Jukka Zitting did say: > >>> > > > *I agree with that argument against the viral nature of GPL, but > in > >>> > > general > >>> > > > the ASF has tended to honor the wishes of upstream copyright > owners > >>> > also > >>> > > > beyond the requirements of copyright law.* > >>> > > > Quoted from: http://markmail.org/message/je5hzdocsloofidd > >>> > > > > >>> > > > So if the Vice President of Legal Affairs of the Apache > Foundation > >>> and > >>> > > the > >>> > > > chair of the Apache Incubator thinks that it would be rather > >>> better to > >>> > > > release those plugins outside of the ASF I think chances to > release > >>> > them > >>> > > > inside require very good arguments and lot of time. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I agree to your position that it _should_ be possible to release > >>> under > >>> > > the > >>> > > > Apache License, but I think we should not make the graduation of > >>> our > >>> > > > project depending on the legal status of the plugins. > >>> > > > If the final decision is that its okay to release them under the > >>> Apache > >>> > > > License => Great! We can still move them to Apache at any time. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > After all this looks like some kind of blocker that keeps us away > >>> from > >>> > > > moving forward. apache-extras.org might be a good way to resolve > >>> this > >>> > > and > >>> > > > keep concentrating on enhancing our core product. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Sebastian > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 2012/10/11 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I always thought that since our code contains zero lines of > code > >>> > under > >>> > > > > incompatible license we are free to release it under ASF. I do > >>> > remember > >>> > > > > this was confirmed by last email from legal team > >>> > > > > On Oct 11, 2012 9:24 PM, "[email protected]" < > >>> > > [email protected]> > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Hi, > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > before we try to organize a Vote for graduation it might > makes > >>> > sense > >>> > > to > >>> > > > > > clean up plugins from the SVN that have unclear legal status. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > I started to move Moodle to apache-extras.org and Drupal. > >>> Cause > >>> > the > >>> > > > > > discussion already has gone quite far that it is not > >>> acceptable to > >>> > > > > > distribute them at the ASF. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > What do you think? > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Sebastian > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > -- > >>> > > > > > Sebastian Wagner > >>> > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > >>> > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de > >>> > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > >>> > > > > > [email protected] > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > Sebastian Wagner > >>> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > >>> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de > >>> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > >>> > > > [email protected] > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Sebastian Wagner > >>> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > >>> > http://www.webbase-design.de > >>> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > >>> > [email protected] > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> WBR > >>> Maxim aka solomax > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sebastian Wagner > >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > >> http://www.webbase-design.de > >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > >> [email protected] > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sebastian Wagner > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > http://www.webbase-design.de > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > [email protected] > > > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected] > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
