Access to this archive requires a subscription fee

[vdrover]

I just noticed that my GNU GPL-licensed extension JCal Pro has been modifed by the editor to note the new subscription fees required for downloading from my site.

I am wondering why this tag was added without any notice. The subscription fee is well within the GNU GPL and my site clearly states the fees required here: http://dev.anything-digital.com/compone ... temid,134/ (and access to this url does

I wonder if any thought was given to the potential reductions in traffic i might experience as a result. As you are well aware, traffic drives usage by end-users.

I would appreciate it if you could remove this notation so that potential subscribers can veiw our feature set and demo and then weigh the cost-benefit for themselves rather than being scared off immediately at the sight of your notation. I noticed that even commercial extensions do not have this editors note.

As an alternative, please highlight the license of the extension and the starting download cost.. For example:

"Access to this GNU GPL-licensed archive requires a subscription fee, starting at $5 USD."

I should also like to point out that since the source code is published, access is freely available, 'free as in beer'.

http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/jcalpro/

Regards,

[ot2sen]

Hi vdrover,

The note was added because we suddenly, since you added the new subscription fee, got quite a lot of reports about this.
That is, reports from users that would like to have known the change before they visited.
Most of them actually noting why it isnt listed with "Subscription" tag in license field.

[vdrover]

Thanks for the response.

I sent an announcement to all users on the day of the change, and posted the news here: http://dev.anything-digital.com/compone ... /Itemid,1/

and here:

http://dev.anything-digital.com/compone ... ic,1363.0/ (registration required)

Perhaps a JED policy on the issue could be listed somewhere. Are there any other extensions with a similar notation?

I think this is an important issue that should be addressed officially. I don't think it would be appropriate if this was limited to just JCal Pro.

Also, if an extension does not work as advertised, do you make similar notations? It would seem that is also under the purview of the JED and is also of great interest to Joomla users. I thought these types of things were usually left to the ratings and review section.

I hope you'll consider my request to change the wording of the notification if you plan to leave it (the notice) in place.

Cheers.

[Danayel]

Out of curiosity,

What were people complaining about?

That the presence of a fee wasn't listed before they -visited- the site?

We are talking about a click here. 

Why should the notice of a subscription fee be required if it still GPL?

Perhaps the bigger issue is why people are automatically equating GPL to free as in beer.

Don't you think taking steps to segregate non beer free GPL just reinforces this? With all the fuss about the benefits of commercial GPL made recently shouldn't the team be encouraging commercial GPL over commercial proprietary instead of discriminating against them?

I am asking because I intend to start having subscription access GPL software soon, I don't want to have a little yellow star on the chest of all my extensions scaring people away before they even know what it is that is on offer.

[ot2sen]

Hi vdrover,

Actually the note was inserted to support and encourage commercial GNU GPL licensed extensions 

Normal procedure when a developer do a radical change in a listing in JED, like changing from free to payment, we would unpublish the listing and ask them to resubmit the new extension. That way we are ensuring that some wont get the benefit from getting great reviews and votes for one product and using at a changed product later.

This is different - and therefore an informational note was chosen instead of unpublishing.

Edited the note to make clear its still GNU GPL 

Access to this GNU GPL-licensed archive requires a subscription fee

[ot2sen]

Why should the notice of a subscription fee be required if it still GPL?

Perhaps the bigger issue is why people are automatically equating GPL to free as in beer.

Hi Danayel,

Exactly. And we are about to update the list to choose from in the license field. That should make it clear that payment and GPL go well together.
Until then a note like the one inserted can be educational to unaware users.
For the same reasons the license field wasn´t changed, even though it was obvious to change to "Donation / Subscription" type. That was left as GNU GPL to underline that this extension is still GPL even though it now have a fee for download.

[vdrover]

Thanks for the modification and clarification.

And it's been a while since i submitted an extension, I forgot there was "Donation / Subscription" license option.

[Danayel]

The problem with donation/subscription is that it could be GPL, or CC or any license behind it.

If you want commercial GPL to become truly viable isn't a beter idea to separate the license and the payment (or not)?

Especially considering the recent announcement GPL has been more strongly associated with free (beer) and non GPL with Commercial. Regardless of the intent, that is the feeling that people have gotten.

You just needed to look at some of the rants in the now gone GPL forums were people were accusing non GPL people of being only in it for the money (even lumping in the free open source but non gpl people lol  )

If non beer free GPL projects need to be tagged as 'different' in the JED this feeling will just continue. Where paid GPL is seen as some kind of freak that needs a special tag so people don't make a -mistake- and visit their site when they aren't beer free!!!     

If the license and the paid/free options are both instead made into normal and distinctly separate parameters, then paid GPL becomes a normal option on the JED and not GPL with an 'apology' notice attached.

[horus_68]

I am asking because I intend to start having subscription access GPL software soon, I don't want to have a little yellow star on the chest of all my extensions scaring people away before they even know what it is that is on offer.

If you have nothing to fear you wont mind that a note is posted here. I would prefer a sign as on Joomla 1.0 ou 1.5 signs.
Or else we could make the other way ... put a note on every free extension, as a plus!!
I agree with you that license and payment should be a separate thing.
But I disagree with you to not display that an extension its a paid one. JED its a directory non paid by posters, it stands as a service to the community.
As a member of the community I would like every information available, even the price would be a nice thing (already dismissed as it would be difficult to maintain). To hide an information would be on the interess of all members or only to the sellers?
If I go to a comparation site for a product I would like to see information about prices too!
If a went to a restaurant directory, I would like to know about service, prices, quality, food, and so on !!

A click away to find that an extension its a paid one?
Sometimes its not a click away (even to find the free ones)... and you should know better that shop sites always finds a way to postpone the information about how actually a product cost, so it will be also easy to postpone information on costs! The more time an user spent on a site more are the chances to have a sale.

And again, JED isn't a commercial directory aimed only to the interests of some individuals (who have the right to sell their products, no discussion here.)

As an alternative, please highlight the license of the extension and the starting download cost.. For example:
"Access to this GNU GPL-licensed archive requires a subscription fee, starting at $5 USD."
I should also like to point out that since the source code is published, access is freely available, 'free as in beer'.

Why not to put yourself that notice at the description of your extension? And your isn't the only extension with that sign! A little big I know, would prefer a more stylish and elegant one.
To JED mods.. why not follow the way food recipe do to let us know that its a cheap meal and easy to cook?

[vdrover]

@horus_68: I think i will add that bit t the description, lol, it never even occurred to me (as I was hoping to change some minds).

We are releasing a new version soon and I will be sure to update.

[Danayel]

If you have nothing to fear you wont mind that a note is posted here. I would prefer a sign as on Joomla 1.0 ou 1.5 signs.
Or else we could make the other way ... put a note on every free extension, as a plus!!
I agree with you that license and payment should be a separate thing.
But I disagree with you to not display that an extension its a paid one. JED its a directory non paid by posters, it stands as a service to the community.

I worded it wrongly. What I was trying to say is that the fact you have to pay for it shouldn't be made into an exceptional circumstance and thus appear to be an exception as best. 

Keep in mind that separating paid/free and the license still displays if an extension is free or not, which is what I suggested. 
So I am not suggesting hiding anything.

I am suggesting not making it look like something is wrong with an extension because it is GPL but not free. Which the big sign does now.
It makes 'normal' GPL appear to be free. Thus this one isn't normal because it isn't free.

As a member of the community I would like every information available, even the price would be a nice thing (already dismissed as it would be difficult to maintain). To hide an information would be on the interess of all members or only to the sellers?
If I go to a comparation site for a product I would like to see information about prices too!
If a went to a restaurant directory, I would like to know about service, prices, quality, food, and so on !!

I agree totally. But if you were going through a directory and some had big red marks on them 'pay for drinks' 'might have to wait' etc. Most people's immediate assumption is that anything not flagged like this doesn't have these odd problems, so they avoid the highlighted ones without even thinking about it.

Put the information there by all means, just don't make it look like something is wrong for not being beer free, and that beer free GPL is how it should be.

A click away to find that an extension its a paid one?
Sometimes its not a click away (even to find the free ones)... and you should know better that shop sites always finds a way to postpone the information about how actually a product cost, so it will be also easy to postpone information on costs! The more time an user spent on a site more are the chances to have a sale.

I agree with you here.  And I dislike being deceived as much as the next man.

And again, JED isn't a commercial directory aimed only to the interests of some individuals (who have the right to sell their products, no discussion here.)

Nor should it be aimed at penalizing any individuals either. Which is what this does currently. All I am suggesting is a level playing ground, not an advantage or a deception.

[joomborg]

Thanks for the modification and clarification.

And it's been a while since i submitted an extension, I forgot there was "Donation / Subscription" license option.

my 2 cents ?

why don't you just go commercial ?
with 20-30$/months you can get a simple turnkey e-biz solution, see Yahoo SMB and similar,
they allow paypal, c/c processing and much more.

just one or two sales a month and you're in business.

as a user i find frustrating to read "GNU/GPL" and then being asked to shed
20 bucks, it just sounds deceptive marketing and very cheap.

it's much more professional to be commercial from the beginning,
if your addon is worth the price i don't see the issue unless
what you are after is a get rich quick scheme.

or you could give a basic version for free and sell the Pro version
commercially.

that's actually the industry standard in many cases.

and it this alone still doesn't pay the bills i see no other
options than writing more and more commercial addons.

for each niche there's a product to be made.

[joomborg]

donations/etc :

i personally never believed in this stuff as a serious and steady business model.

there are many commercial addons for joomla, some of them pretty expensive.
if they can do it, you can do it.

why wasting time with hidden fees or donations ?
ask the money !

there's plenty of users who can't even code in HTML, why shouldn't
they pay 10-20 $ if they really need your addon ?

if people pay for vBulletin despite the dozens of free forums like SMF
or phpBB etc there must be a reason.

i would never ever pay for it but i'm a coder, not a potential buyer.

[vdrover]

As you know there are a number of outstanding issues regarding extensions with non-GPL compatible licenses and Joomla (a discussion of this is not appropriate in this thread IMHO). Besides this isuues, in the case of JCal Pro, the codebase upon which it is built is GPL. I could not change the license (to be clear, i don't want to change the license) without the written approval of all contributors to the code, many of whom are way, way off the radar at this point.

BTW, JCal Pro has a "Powered by JCal Pro" footer. I think in another case you refer to such a notation as spyware. I think a static, aboslute url does not fit the common definition of spyware.

[joomborg]

As you know there are a number of outstanding issues regarding extensions with non-GPL compatible licenses and Joomla (a discussion of this is not appropriate in this thread IMHO). Besides this isuues, in the case of JCal Pro, the codebase upon which it is built is GPL. I could not change the license (to be clear, i don't want to change the license) without the written approval of all contributors to the code, many of whom are way, way off the radar at this point.

BTW, JCal Pro has a "Powered by JCal Pro" footer. I think in another case you refer to such a notation as spyware. I think a static, aboslute url does not fit the common definition of spyware.

sorry i'm not a user of Jcal or any other calendar addon, i didn't
know it was based on other GPLed codebase.

there something you could do : rewrite by yourself the old codebase
and go commercial, nobody could say you're breaking GPL licence
as in any case the source code is there for anybody to check unless
you encrypt it (and being 100% yours you can do it).

if the footer is static and visible we can not talk about hidden advertising
or spyware, but just as "self promotion" (i call it "ad-ware" but that's another story).

(p.s. i can't stand adware for security reasons, not because i'm against promotional links)

[Danayel]

my 2 cents ?

why don't you just go commercial ?
with 20-30$/months you can get a simple turnkey e-biz solution, see Yahoo SMB and similar,
they allow paypal, c/c processing and much more.

just one or two sales a month and you're in business.

as a user i find frustrating to read "GNU/GPL" and then being asked to shed
20 bucks, it just sounds deceptive marketing and very cheap.

it's much more professional to be commercial from the beginning,
if your addon is worth the price i don't see the issue unless
what you are after is a get rich quick scheme.

or you could give a basic version for free and sell the Pro version
commercially.

that's actually the industry standard in many cases.

and it this alone still doesn't pay the bills i see no other
options than writing more and more commercial addons.

for each niche there's a product to be made.

Thank you Joomborg for proving exactly the problem with the current JED and the GNU GPL environment in general.

why don't you just go commercial ?

GNU GPL doesn't mean - you don't have to pay. Commercial doesn't mean proprietary either.

GNU GPL and commercial can be the same thing. Commercial = do you need to pay, GNU GPL = you are free to do what you want with it. 

The two are completely unrelated but the JED and people's current thinking have intertwined these two, and change GPL into = no charge and Commercial into = non open source ( and evil!)    when this is just not true.

as a user i find frustrating to read "GNU/GPL" and then being asked to shed
20 bucks, it just sounds deceptive marketing and very cheap.

There is nothing deceptive or cheap about it. What is deceptive is your (and many other peoples) opinion of what GNU GPL is.

I do agree that if something is paid GPL or free GPL should be shown, but what I have been saying is that it doesn't need to made to look like something is wrong with an extension if it is paid gpl. Because this just reinforces peoples ideas that commercial and GPL are different, and that GPL should be free beer.

[joomborg]

it's up to the developer :

if you want to make a living coding addons then in one way or another
you must have a steady business model.

cheapest one is giving away your addon as freeware or freeware AND gnu/gpl
getting few bucks back via advertising in your home page.

it looks cheap but you make 100 addons it's big bucks.

another way is to go fully commercial and closed-source, and i think
it's the best way : there will be always crappy freeware addons or hacks
to download but the customers needs something more look around you
and all you'll see are commercial addons for the simple reasons that
certain applications are just too big and complex to be maintained as
a hobby.

there's a huge market for shareware as well, and it's still alive since
the early '80s despite this whole buzz about gnu/gpl, open source,
and yadda yadda.

i just don't believe in GPL, people will either steal your code or
you'll get no $$ back.

it's good for some specific things, but overall i can't see how
you can pay the bills with it.

at the same time GPLed wares are ruining the market.
who would use Joomla if it was shareware when there
are dozens of free cms around ?

but without free CMS everyone would pay for a CMS
AND the addons as well.

as people pay for servers and connectivity it's time they
pay for software as well.

and if you can't even shed 20-30 bucks for a whole
framework or a cms, well then you're out of business,
there are many other markets around.

there's people paying for commercial blog hosting,
and people who even pay for hosting images on Flickr !
others paying to read NYT or Salon.com ... or CNN
thumbnail sized videos...
and what about stupid ringtones or single-file mp3 songs
with DRM from iTunes et al ?

devs should never be afraid of asking money for their hard work.

look at iJoomla, they ask ~80 $ for iJoomla News, something
i can do even better hacking 2-3 addons and the layout, but
think again, many people can't even code HTML, and they've no
time to hack core files or learning css.
if their site is successfull they can repay the 80 bucks in few days
or even less.
win-win situation.

you have a need ? you pay.
you need a service ? you pay.

free cms ? fine, but take for granted you'll waste
a ton of time due to poor documentation, bugs, and much more.

see cakePHP, one of the best frameworks for PHP,
struggling to raise money (see their home page crying "please
help us pay server's fee"...)

as a coder, if cakePHP was really worth it i would pay for it,
no problem.

fact is, there's a ton of other free frameworks around, Symfony,
Zend, just to name a few.

Zend Studio, well worth the money.
who would ever code something like that for free ?

you mean Eclipse ? look again, core devs are hired by big companies.

[Danayel]

I don't dissagree you  -not 100% agree- but do agree on a lot.

However that's not the point of this thread so can we get back on topic please.

Which is - Is the JED going to take the logical and smart step of separating licenses and paid/free indicators

As the current system of a big flag on them makes paid GPL look like its not real GPL because it needs an amendment.

This in itself may not seem like discrimination but lets put it in another context.

If I walk down the street I can see that there are lots of people of different nationalities, no problems here.

But if we force everyone who happens to be of - XXXX nationality or descent to wear a big sign saying 'PLEASE NOTE: I AM XXXXIAN'  There isn't a court in the western world that wouldn't call that discrimination, and that it is a detriment to the targets.

[infograf768]

To inform as fully as possible the users of JED of the nature of the license of an extension as well as of the conditions necessary to download the extension is a service to the community.

License and paid indicators ARE separated, as seen for jcalpro
The "big flag" is a simple note at the bottom of the description, not even an icon as those used for the type of extension.

IMO, those that want to see in it a discrimination may have another agenda.

[ot2sen]

However that's not the point of this thread so can we get back on topic please.

Topic was solved in post #6 

Which is - Is the JED going to take the logical and smart step of separating licenses and paid/free indicators

As the current system of a big flag on them makes paid GPL look like its not real GPL because it needs an amendment.

Please remember that this case was a special situation, not general. Only reason that a note was needed was that a current listing was changed.
A new listing would not have had such a note, because we would have made sure it had the correct info when being approved.

Please see my reply in #5

Exactly. And we are about to update the list to choose from in the license field. That should make it clear that payment and GPL go well together.
Until then a note like the one inserted can be educational to unaware users.

So can you expect a "big flag" for some types of extension?
No, you will have to do with this normal indicator field(s) for any type listed 

[Danayel]

So if I have a Non free but GPL component what do I do?

Will I get a big flag on my extension?

Marking it as subscription doesn't say it is GPL. Marking it as GPL doesn't say it is paid.

@infograf768

Please don't try psychology tricks.

Open ended accusations are designed to cast suspicion upon people without them actually having done anything, or you needing to back your accusations up. It causes the reader to create their own 'agenda' for the target which they assume must be the correct one because they thought of it.

A statement like that is nothing more than attempt to make it -look like- I have another agenda regardless of if I have or not. And it serves no purpose in a dicussion except to attack the person on the otherside rahter than their argument.

If you believe I have an agenda please state it out loud instead of trying to trick people into making their own agenda up for me.

As for the rest of yoru statement

I agree it is a service to the community.

I am not saying don't say it. I am saying don't say it like it is an affliction, or exception or problem with the extension. Just say it like it is normal.

To do it in this way is just as misleading to the community as being paid and not saying it. It gives the impression of something being wrong or bad when it isn't.

[Danayel]

Why should the notice of a subscription fee be required if it still GPL?

Perhaps the bigger issue is why people are automatically equating GPL to free as in beer.

Hi Danayel,

Exactly. And we are about to update the list to choose from in the license field. That should make it clear that payment and GPL go well together.
Until then a note like the one inserted can be educational to unaware users.
For the same reasons the license field wasn´t changed, even though it was obvious to change to "Donation / Subscription" type. That was left as GNU GPL to underline that this extension is still GPL even though it now have a fee for download.

Somehow I actually completely missed this post. 

I wondered why some of what people were saying didn't make sense.

[joomborg]

Agenda :

honestly i can't grasp this whole discussion.
why a coder who spent lots of time and efforts
should not sell his work ?

what's wrong with commercial addons ?
or shareware ?

joomla may be GPL but this doesnt mean
we must write GPL, as we coders are
the sole OWNERS of our work and i really
want to see someone suing 3rd party
coders for selling their own addons.

we've the right to sell and also to encrypt
to protect our code from unwanted attention.

so my point is, 3rd party coders should avoid
at all using these tricks like hidden adware,
unclear terms or service, money asked
for upgrades or to "access the code" etc as
in this case i completely agree with Infograf768.

[LorenzoG]

Somehow I actually completely missed this post. 

Yes 

The license itself doesn't say if the extension is free, based on a subscription model, donate model or if it's commercial (ie you have to pay for it). As it is now, many thinks GPL is equal to no cost (we see it too many times in reports and reviews). If we want to help the developers who want to have their livehood on developing extensions, then I think a great help to also to inform the extension directory users which business model the developer has chosen for the extension.

I think it will help both the 3pds and the users to inform better.

Edit: spelling

[vdrover]

Just to remind anyone who missed this in my original post RE: JCal Pro specifically:

I should also like to point out that since the source code is published, access is freely available, 'free as in beer'.
http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/jcalpro/

No adware, no upgrade fees, no tricks. Terms and Licenses clear defined on the site and again upon download.

[ianmac]

vdrover,

Just wanted to commend you for taking this step.  I hope that things go well for you!

Nice to see somebody pick up the extcalendar2 code and run with it.  Looks like you're adding some new features, and though there is a lot left to do (how 'bout trimming out some of those queries - 60 per page is excessive), you've made a good start!

Keep it up!
Ian


@joomborg - you are delving into a hotly debated discussion.  This is a discussion that has been worked to death on these forums and an issue which the core has made a decision on.  I would recommend you no longer discuss this here, as it isn't the place.  For reference, please see:
http://www.joomla.org/component/option, ... 105/p,370/
http://www.joomla.org/component/option, ... 105/p,373/
and
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/board,434.0.html

[vdrover]

pfff...60....i think 80 is more like it

We have a bunch of new features due in the upcoming release, Community Builder/private calendar support, event 'ownership, year view, multi-calendars, joomfish support plus fixes and more languages.Oh ya, we are releasing an event server for multi-site support/calendar syncing! I like that one a lot. Might even be able to support J! 1.5 in legacy mode.

Once that release (1.6.x) stabilizes, the plan is to rip open the hood and clean up the code. Scrape out all the duplication, fix the template system and reduce the queries, these will be the priorities. The delay won't be popular as the effects won't be visible on the surface, but it will greatly affect the longevity of the project.

BTW, Mad Props to David McKinnis and the folks at mamboguru. They patched up the security issues just before we forked. I have good help of course, Mathijs, Van and now Ben, and all the forum users and end-users (their support has been great with the new download model).

[brad]

If you believe I have an agenda please state it out loud instead of trying to trick people into making their own agenda up for me.

You are a well known 'joomla-hater' as well as a team member of Mambo. You have publicly stated that you are using Mambo now, and have denounced Joomla (to put it nicely). If that is the case, why would you bother to care what Joomla does? ... this is what I just cannot understand:

Do you see Joomla WG members, 'rubbishing' another open source CMS here, or on their forums/community. No. We're probably not even members of their community, not that our volunteering with Joomla prevents us from being one. What a senseless waste of energy that would be. If we did, we would be by definition, a troll.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum ...

You've made a choice, so why not stick to it. No one is forcing you to be here, and continuing to 'rubbish' the Joomla project will not get you anywhere around these parts. There are other websites that you might like to use for that.

In any case, can you STOP BRINGING THE GPL ISSUE into threads that are not about that. Please read: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,195676.0.html you can even email us.

You are giving the CMS you represent a bad name by continuing to want to argue, no wonder you missed the main point of progress that came from this thread: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg936182

I'm sorry, it's about time someone pulled you up on the misinformation and baseless allegations you are stirring up. Trying to bait people into reacting and picking fights isn't good manners either.


Now... back to the topic at hand... and I am sorry to the rest of you following this thread to have to read all this.

BTW, I love the commercial GPL option you have chosen for Jcal etc and still making the source freely available. All the best with that, I mean that sincerely

[ot2sen]

As original question was solved, I´ve added the 'Solved' icon to first post 

[Danayel]

If you believe I have an agenda please state it out loud instead of trying to trick people into making their own agenda up for me.

You are a well known 'joomla-hater' as well as a team member of Mambo. You have publicly stated that you are using Mambo now, and have denounced Joomla (to put it nicely). If that is the case, why would you bother to care what Joomla does? ... this is what I just cannot understand:

Do you see Joomla WG members, 'rubbishing' another open source CMS here, or on their forums/community. No. We're probably not even members of their community, not that our volunteering with Joomla prevents us from being one. What a senseless waste of energy that would be. If we did, we would be by definition, a troll.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum ...

You've made a choice, so why not stick to it. No one is forcing you to be here, and continuing to 'rubbish' the Joomla project will not get you anywhere around these parts. There are other websites that you might like to use for that.

In any case, can you STOP BRINGING THE GPL ISSUE into threads that are not about that. Please read: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,195676.0.html you can even email us.

You are giving the CMS you represent a bad name by continuing to want to argue, no wonder you missed the main point of progress that came from this thread: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg936182

I'm sorry, it's about time someone pulled you up on the misinformation and baseless allegations you are stirring up. Trying to bait people into reacting and picking fights isn't good manners either.


Now... back to the topic at hand... and I am sorry to the rest of you following this thread to have to read all this.

BTW, I love the commercial GPL option you have chosen for Jcal etc and still making the source freely available. All the best with that, I mean that sincerely

I am not a Joomla Hater at all. I love Joomla. But I disagree with how it is being governed.

I only recently started working with mambo but that doesn't mean I have stopped working with Joomla as a cms. I will continue to use both. I joined Mambo, so that I could do something constructive instead of just complaining about something I couldn't change.

I wasn't rubbishing Joomla at all. If you read a couple of posts above I missed ot2sen's earlier post, and reading it I am glad the change is being made. That was all I was looking for.

I wasn't trying to bring the GPL issue into it, but we are discussing licenses. It's tough to avoid discussing GPL when discussing Joomlas Licenses. 

Don't you think you are overreacting a bit Brad? I admit I was wrong and missed a post which caused me to keep going when the answer had been given.