[wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?
davebytes at comcast.net
Tue Jun 6 17:23:19 GMT 2006
Doug Stewart wrote:
| David Chait wrote:
| > themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue? But if they are
| > selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
| > themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the
| > I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no? Again, the difference is
| > between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
| > right?
| They're only obligated to pass on code changes to those they distribute
| the software to, i.e., their customers.
Huh. Really. Okay...
I just re-read the GPL stuff. That was a point I didn't quite understand,
an now do. I'll explain my confusion and the 'resolution' as I see it. ;)
I thought if you sold GPL code/binary you had to make sources available to
the public. THAT WAS WRONG. You do NOT have to make modded sources
available to just anyone who asks.
HOWEVER, you DO have to make sources freely available to anyone who
purchased the GPL-based 'product' from you -- in fact, there must be a
'written offer' accompanying any GPL binary offering to provide source code
for free. AND, since it is GPL, those people may then freely distribute the
source code all they want.
| I will allow, though, that their fairly blatant rip of WordPress and
| their failure to acknowledge this in their documentation IS pretty skeevy.
That's something I can't really find covered in GPL. I mean, I believe that
original license and copyright must come with sources -- though, it might
only NEED to exist in the license/copyright file itself. I can't find any
particular rules of attribution (like that original copyright notices should
be in every source file, or a modified source file must contain some
attribution to the original copyright, etc.).
Ah well, this is a good learning experience. ;)
More information about the wp-hackers