[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #16517: What about / Whom to ask for full/missing wordpress source-code?

[WordPress Trac]

#16517: What about / Whom to ask for full/missing wordpress source-code?
--------------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  hakre               |       Owner:
     Type:  defect (bug)        |      Status:  reopened
 Priority:  normal              |   Milestone:  Awaiting Review
Component:  WordPress.org site  |     Version:
 Severity:  normal              |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                      |
--------------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by Otto42):

 Replying to [comment:9 chipbennett]:
 > Wait, what? I find this response confusing. Either WordPress is
 distributed 100% GPL or it is not. If WordPress is 100% GPL, then the
 source-code provision applies to 100% of the code (including erstwhile
 MIT-licensed code that has been re-licensed as GPL for distribution with
 WordPress). If WordPress is ''not'' 100% GPL, then don't we have a bigger
 problem?

 You both misunderstand the nature of the GPL, GPL-Compatible, and how
 licensing works.

 Code '''cannot''' be "relicensed" by anybody other than the copyright
 holder. You cannot put licensing terms on code that you do not own,
 period.

 So we can't "relicense" the SWFUpload code any more than I could take code
 you released and put my own terms on it and then re-release it. That's
 theft.

 The term "GPL-Compatible" means that the code has licensing terms on it
 that are equal to or less restrictive than the GPL itself. This means that
 we can release it as part of a larger work which is GPL. The individual
 pieces can have their own terms, but the work-as-a-whole is GPL'd.

 The terms in section 2 make this clear:

 ''These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
 identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
 can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
 then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
 distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
 sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
 distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
 permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
 each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
 ''

 So the GPL applies to WordPress as-a-whole, but not to the individual and
 independent parts of it, such as SWFUpload, when they are separated out.
 SWFUpload has not be "re-licensed", it's been included in another work
 which has a more restrictive license than it itself has.


 > Bottom line: whomever is responsible for distributing WordPress (i.e.
 the WordPress Foundation, or currently more accurately, Matt Mullenweg, as
 the owner and responsible party for the wordpress.org web site), ''is
 under obligation'' to provide full source code for 100% of WordPress.

 No, he is not. GPL, Section 3:

 ''If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
 to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy
 the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source
 code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along
 with the object code.
 ''

 And that is for the case where the code was GPL to begin with. Which, as I
 stated before, does not apply to the SWFUpload code as it is not GPL, but
 MIT licensed. Furthermore, the files accompanying the SWFUpload code give
 its URL and the place to download it. SWFUpload is included in WordPress
 in an unmodified format. There are no changes to it that need their source
 code included.

 > WordPress is being distributed, ostensibly licensed 100% under GPL - and
 whomever is responsible for that distribution is responsible for
 fulfilling the terms of the GPL, including full source disclosure.

 The GPL makes absolutely no such requirement to begin with. You are
 misunderstanding the terms.

 Let's say I write a work and release it in object form only. An
 executable. I then say that that executable is licensed under the GPL. Do
 I now have to release the source code for it? Absolutely not. It's my
 work, I wrote it, I own it. I am not under the terms of the GPL, I am
 making it available to *other people* under those terms.

 I'll state it one more time: WordPress.org (the group doing the releasing
 of WP) is under no obligation to provide the source code for a work that
 they have not modified,  and when they have given the location where it
 may be obtained from the original source, and when it is not GPL licensed
 to begin with.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:10>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software