[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jfw] Re: LGPL process debrief

On 4 April 2014 08:33, Beat <> wrote:
> 2. Accountability: Result seems at first glance to not reflect discussions
> and polls, so it looks a bit strange as the link from discussions to the
> result is obscure and surprising to say the least. And final decisions made
> (at first glance) by a small set of people in discussions hidden from public
> view.

I don't quite understand what you mean. What would you have done differently?

> 3. Openness: It is quite surprising and funny (?) that the biggest defenders
> of GPL at the last huge GPL debate seem to have forgotten that, and have
> been the biggest opponents to GPL this LGPL time.

Can you give me an example? I don't understand to whom you are referring.

> But going against the GPL publicly without
> disclosing publicly the real motivations of some was deceiving.

Are you saying you know what the "real motivations" were (and the
Framework Team is hiding them from you) or that the "real motivations"
(that is, increased adoption) were not made crystal clear at the time?
If the second point, I agree. We did not make it crystal clear the
motivation was to increase adoption within the Composer and wider PHP

> 4. Accountability: This debate took way too much ressources off more vital
> development work for the success of the Joomla CMS and from the Joomla
> Framework. Was it required more than other features by the vast majority of
> users ? I doubt.

I'm not clear on what you are saying here. Are you saying that
volunteers must work on the CMS as a priority over, for example, the

> 5. Openness: Was LGPL required by major companies to contribute more to
> Joomla to justify the deception linked to the abandonment of the GPL ? I
> haven't seen any big hands and contribution wallets raised. Maybe I missed
> some ?

I'm not quite sure why this is under "openness".

I don't think anyone thought that major companies would suddenly open
their wallets when OSM made their decision. That would be rather
naive, if not delusional and it certainly never crossed my mind.
However, now that the decision is made it gives us an opportunity to
educate companies that would otherwise choose proprietary systems or,
for example, MIT frameworks. What we didn't do was make it clear that
was a positive long term outcome of the change (but it would rely on
marketing support from OSM, and that's not going to happen overnight).

> That said, I don't think the choice either way will be changing
> significantly the course of things, nor the way that the debate got "lead",
> and that there are more important tasks that change the life of real users
> to be done.

The users of what? The Framework or the CMS?

I'm sorry to be a pain but it's just not clear what you are trying to
say and I'm trying hard to work out how you are suggesting we can
improve the process next time.

Thanks in advance.

Andrew Eddie

Framework source code: https://github.com/joomla/joomla-framework
Visit http://developer.joomla.org for more information about developing with Joomla!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-framework+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-framework.