Thread

If you want a community only framework, there is Kohana.

Funny you mention that, I have started to begin to learn it.

As for the community, I’ve seen so many pull requests and so little done 😊

Kohana fork from CodeIgniter
http://ernieleseberg.com/php-news-kohana-fork-from-codeigniter/

If you want a community only framework, there is Kohana.

Funny you mention that, I have started to begin to learn it.

As for the community, I’ve seen so many pull requests and so little done 😊

Kohana fork from CodeIgniter
http://ernieleseberg.com/php-news-kohana-fork-from-codeigniter/

 

Read the comment too

It may be interesting to follow a thread about this on the Magento forum.
http://www.magentocommerce.com/boards/viewthread/13938/P0/

The author of OSL 3.0 is also Magento’s attorney, and he is present in the topic to answer questions not unlike the ones we’ve had here.

My take:  If any of us make changes to core files, it is OSL 3.0 licensed and must be made available to everyone.  Just having your site online for others to visit, is included as “distribution” and you must make the core files changes available.  This would include Expression Engine’s modifications, or anyone else.

Anything outside the core that we write from scratch, even if it relies on CI to run does not require OSL 3.0 license.

It may be interesting to follow a thread about this on the Magento forum.

The author of OSL 3.0 is also Magento’s attorney, and he is present in the topic to answer questions not unlike the ones we’ve had here.

My take:  If any of us make changes to core files, it is OSL 3.0 licensed and must be made available to everyone.  Just having your site online for others to visit, is included as “distribution” and you must make the core files changes available.  This would include Expression Engine’s modifications, or anyone else.

Anything outside the core that we write from scratch, even if it relies on CI to run does not require OSL 3.0 license.

Actually I think that is right. But that does not mean you can use (for example) GPL in your application because the GPL has different demands on the ‘bundle’ and requires the other components in the bundled package to be under a compatible license. That’s why it would be great to actually have a license in the future which is most compatible to different forms of licensing. And that is why OSL and GPL are not compatible.

If the OSL is adopted for CI:
- Rosen confirms that the OSL is closing the ASP loophole. That means that you have to provide your (modified) Code Igniter source to anyone using your application over the web. For example if you built a webpage with CI you will have to provide a download package of your modified CI for download to every visitor of your webpage. I am pretty sure that’s not what business users of CI would want for the future.

- Magento is an OSL application based on a framework which is licensed under BSD.
Your CI application will be one based on a PHP framework licensed under OSL 3.0. That’s a huge difference.

It seems the simple solution is to either a) don’t modify any core CI files, or b) don’t use 3.0 when it comes out if you need GPL-compatibility.

It may be interesting to follow a thread about this on the Magento forum.
http://www.magentocommerce.com/boards/viewthread/13938/P0/

The author of OSL 3.0 is also Magento’s attorney, and he is present in the topic to answer questions not unlike the ones we’ve had here.

Magneto is an application build on top of a PHP framework licensed under BSD.

A CI application will be based on a PHP framework licensed under OSL 3.0.

I don’t think that this is the same and can be easily compared. There must have been a reason why Zend choose the New BSD License.

It seems the simple solution is to either a) don’t modify any core CI files, or b) don’t use 3.0 when it comes out if you need GPL-compatibility.

You should really start to *read* the OSL. The key point is if you bring together independent works or not. Not if you modify specific files (those you coin core here).

I suggest that you ask your lawyer what a derivative work is. You can’t discuss this only because of where files are placed.

And it doesn’t matter if you modify or not files under OSL, *you* (not EllisLab) need to give source to any of your software’s users that access the software via network. That’s what the license is for:

1 c) to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this Open Software License;

[bold is underlined in the original text]

It seems the simple solution is to either a) don’t modify any core CI files, or b) don’t use 3.0 when it comes out if you need GPL-compatibility.

You should really start to *read* the OSL. The key point is if you bring together independent works or not. Not if you modify specific files (those you coin core here).

I suggest that you ask your lawyer what a derivative work is. You can’t discuss this only because of where files are placed.

http://ellislab.com/blog/entry/gpl_or_not_to_gpl#comment-354008903

EllisLab believes “Unless you are modifying an OSL licensed file, you have no reciprocity obligation to apply OSL to your code.”

I’m not sure it is true.

It seems the simple solution is to either a) don’t modify any core CI files, or b) don’t use 3.0 when it comes out if you need GPL-compatibility.

EllisLab claims CodeIgniter License also is not compatible with GPL.

So b) don’t use CI if you need GPL-compatibility.

Just because I’ve come to a different conclusion than you, doesn’t mean I haven’t read the license. I have. And I’ve read the author’s comments, and several interviews with him. And my conclusions based on that research is what we’ve previously covered, and that you disagree with. And that is the definition of what a derivative work is, as the OSL sees it. That’s cool, though.

I do, however, agree that anyone concerned should consult a lawyer to verify.

Just because I’ve come to a different conclusion than you, doesn’t mean I haven’t read the license. I have. And I’ve read the author’s comments, and several interviews with him. And my conclusions based on that research is what we’ve previously covered, and that you disagree with. And that is the definition of what a derivative work is, as the OSL sees it. That’s cool, though.

Personal opinions aside which normally differ as they are personal, Rosen actually referred to the legal code in copyright law for the term of a derivative work and he does not re-define it as you write.

I do, however, agree that anyone concerned should consult a lawyer to verify.

Sounds like you exclude yourself from being concerned. I wonder that you aren’t as you have a lot of code that has been written because of the CI framework.

I would say that should make you contact a lawyer now if you want to really know what you’re doing in the future with your code. But it’s your decision to skip things because you think you have understood something and when it plays a role, it’s already too late. Or you could argue that using a MIT/BSD license is just soo much more simple to prevent problems like these.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but under copyright law, a person automatically owns copyright to any work they create. Also, if those works are compiled into an anthology, they retain their copyright, they don’t lose it, they just allow it be published as a collective work.

As for being concerned… at the point where the license is actually active and I’m working on selling a product based on that, then yes, I’ll consult a lawyer. For now, with the free code I give away, if the licensing gets challenged and I’m forced to change the license to OSL, that doens’t really impact the free code that I create and give away. Whether it impacts end-users, I can’t say. It’s their call at that point. As I try not to use GPL-license work in my own stuff, that’s not a personal concern.

I do, however, agree that anyone concerned should consult a lawyer to verify.

Which adds an expensive complicated additional layer to the process.  Yay!  As Derek said himself, you’ll get a different answer depending on which attorney you question.  Sounds like a crap-shoot then.  Double Yay!

/sarcasm

http://codeigniter.uservoice.com/forums/40508-codeigniter-reactor/suggestions/2344554-gpl-compatible-non-copyleft-popular-licesne

Got 309 votes, 113 supporters.

Want GPL compatible non-copyleft popular license? please vote to it.

http://ellislab.com/blog/entry/gpl_or_not_to_gpl#comment-354008903

EllisLab believes “Unless you are modifying an OSL licensed file, you have no reciprocity obligation to apply OSL to your code.”

I’m not sure it is true.

That’s just an opinion Derek shares in a comment.

EllisLab is not sure either, they have actually admitted that they first need to contact their lawyers. Unless they don’t write that the files they have licensed under AFL are (by the opinion of their lawyer(s)) correctly licensed (and I would like to see an unambiguous legal statement about that), there is not much to discuss. And then you can only discuss those files, not yours.

No lawyer can decide about a work that is unspecified, and that’s the key point: Those who discuss here don’t discuss concrete works a lawyer could take and check against law if it’s a derivative work or not.

Choosing a much simpler license as you suggested just removes the problem. Or licensing your code under OSL does solve this as well - but it looks like that nobody really wants that. It’s a sort of irony, that nobody want’s this license for their works, but some are still defending it.