Sandbox

This thread is to discuss the announcement found here : http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=262&t=277974

Hey,

Good work with JED, look more functional now I like!

JUst have a question... i have submited to JED last day a extension called "Ninja Find Seyret", and now i see that this havent been added yet but YooTools have! Something wrong with extenion or with JED? WHat happens?

Thanks

Patience, patience! The list of unpublished extensions is quite long, in fact.

We've been working on this switch (and of course we're all volunteers and there was the Easter holiday).

I think you'll find that things will be slow for the next few days minimum, as we'll be trying to complete all the regular tasks plus answer update questions.

Thanks for the great work guys.

An update long in the coming, and well worth the wait.

I do have one issue though.

Can we get some more licenses in the list?

Right now it's GPL / LGPL / Everything else. But everything else covers a lot of stuff. There is for example a big difference between proprietary and BSD.

I would like to see 'proprietary' and 'Other Open Source' back in there at least, to make things a little easier.

Lots of other licences are GPL compatible after all.

Just because someone chooses "Other" doesn't mean the license is not compatible. Feel free to elaborate on your license in your descriptions. As a matter of fact, it's a good idea to do so. Eliminates confusion before a user heads to your website to download.

I'm forming a list of frequently asked questions that will cover things like this.

Hi

Without wanting to start a hectic discussion over commercialisation, I feel that many developers are trying to find ways to be GPL'd but also obtain monetary compensation for this. Typical methods include "site subscriptions" and "clubs" - the extension is free, but the membership is not.

I am not complaining or challenging this process, but I do think that the new JED classification of commercial / non-commercial needs to be REALLY well defined, otherwise many developers will place their extensions under non-commercial, arguing that the extension is free once you join the club.

So, can we define non-commercial as "freely downloadable extensions requiring absolutely no payment to access the download link, or otherwise obtain the files". I think this needs to be specified in the page where the developer adds or updates the details of the extension.

My ongoing respect and appreciation to all Joomla developers, commercial and non-commercial,

Brendon

Todo:

1. Empty Demo/Documentation/Support link will result in "http://" link (obviously misleading)
2. https:// will still be turned into http://https://

I'm also not sure what to put the AEC in - its Non-Commercial insofar that I don't charge for the license, but I do have the membership for support thing going. Any idea what to choose?

I think if the download itself can be gotten without paying, it should be non commercial. Extension clubs and any paid downloads should be commercial.

All people really want to know is if they'll have to pay to get the extension... details after that are really secondary.

Hi Sk0re,

Thanks for the report. We will take a look on the issues and fix them.

About AEC - I would say if the users can download your latest version without any cost and there isn't any advertisment or something, then I feel it should be classified as non-commercial. If they however are obliged to pay before they can download, then it should be considered as commercial.

Membership for the support forums, documents etc shouldn't influence the classification of the extension itself since it's an extra service from you as developer. It is also important how the users apprehend your extension depending on approach.

The license itself hasn't anything to do if your extension is commercial or not. Hopefully with the new fields, it will help our members to understand more if it's GPL, LGPL or not and if they can get it cost free or if they are supposed to pay for the extension.