Sandbox

There is another discussion on the meaning of "open source" and the "GPL" that is causing me either confusion or deeper understanding -- I am not sure which, yet. I decided to post the question here because of instructions on the Extensions site.

I guess that I had *thought* any extension that had a charge associated with it would have a license listing of *commercial.* However, I now believe that this rigid definition is incorrect. So, with your patience, I would like to explain what I think the rules/procedures are and ask that you verify my knowledge.

#1) Licensing information is provided by the extension provider and we do not try to double-check or verify licensing accuracy. As community members, we are responsible prior to download to verify licensing issues ourselves with the extension provider. The extensions site is merely a listing, nothing more.

#2) The extensions site offers five choices for license: GNU GPL, BSD, PHP License, Commercial and Other Open Source/Free. Other Open Source licenses are listed/defined here: < http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ >. (And, the list of "other" licenses on that website could not be more confusing!)

Therefore, I believe that it is possible, and even highly probable, that third party providers have listed extensions accurately as having a *GNU GPL* license for extensions that are not "free of charge."

Do I understand correctly? And, if not, would you please help clarify?

Thanks for patience with us open source newbies! 
Amy

The thread I was referring to is: Open Source Definition - What's your take on this? < http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,58454.0.html >

Hi Amy,

Please try to differ between "open source" code and any charge for an extension.
The developers release their extensions on different terms, some extensions are free of charge with open source code, some extensions have a charge but still open source code and some extensions have a charge and "closed" code.

AmyStephen wrote:#1) Licensing information is provided by the extension provider and we do not try to double-check or verify licensing accuracy. As community members, we are responsible prior to download to verify licensing issues ourselves with the extension provider. The extensions site is merely a listing, nothing more.

Almost correct, but with a little change: we do double-check or verify licensing accuracy

AmyStephen wrote:#2) The extensions site offers five choices for license: GNU GPL, BSD, PHP License, Commercial and Other Open Source/Free. Other Open Source licenses are listed/defined here: < http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ >. (And, the list of "other" licenses on that website could not be more confusing!)

Therefore, I believe that it is possible, and even highly probable, that third party providers have listed extensions accurately as having a *GNU GPL* license for extensions that are not "free of charge."

Do I understand correctly? And, if not, would you please help clarify?

Its possible, but not highly probable cause its not in the interest of any developer to do so.
The developers are clever people, and know that its wise to classify their extension as "Commercial License" if any charge is involved. Otherwise potential users might be dissapointed when realising they have to pay.
Therefore the developers will classify their extensions correctly - if not, the editorial team will help them 

If you find any extension with wrong license listed, then please use the 'Report this listing' feature at the Extensions Directory, and we will look into it.