[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:  markjaquith
     Type:  defect (bug)        |      Status:  accepted
 Priority:  high                |   Milestone:  Awaiting Review
Component:  WordPress.org site  |     Version:
 Severity:  normal              |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                      |
--------------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by markjaquith):

 First, regarding the MIT license for swfupload. We don't include an MIT
 license file with it because '''the project does not do so itself'''. So
 that's an upstream issue. We could add that file, at which point our
 handling of their license file would be better than theirs (they just link
 out). It might be better to reach out to them and ask them to update their
 project with a license/copyright file of their creation, which we can then
 incorporate downstream. It's a bit presumptuous to create that for them
 without reaching out first.

 Second, regarding the GPL, please refer to the following:

 > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
 Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1
 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
 >
 > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
 code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
 on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
 >
 > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
 give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
 performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
 corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
 >
 > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
 distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only
 for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
 object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
 Subsection b above.)

 We aren't doing (a). We're going to do (b) (this is being worked on now).

 Right now, we're doing (c), but not very well, because swfupload isn't
 doing (b) very well (they're not required to). The intact copyright notice
 in the swfupload files points people to their Google Code repository,
 where the full source code is offered. We've passed that information
 along. That's not as clear as it could be. It essentially says "here's the
 repository for this project," and when you go there, the source files are
 available for download. If someone wanted to find the source code, they'd
 just follow the link we've passed along, and they'd be offered it. But
 recall that the swfupload project is not required to distribute the source
 — they just happen to be doing so. A more sustainable solution for us it
 to simply host a copy of the full swfupload project source code somewhere
 on WordPress.org, and then reference that location somewhere in the
 WordPress code, and on the site. That's more obviously in compliance with
 the GPL (option b), and as that source will be in a location that we
 control, we can guarantee that the "offer" of source code remains true in
 the future. One could make the argument that them merely linking to the
 source files on Google Code isn't a "written offer." '''Please let's not
 stoop to that level of pedantry.''' Instead of arguing about the nuances
 of option (c), let's just do option (b) and be done with it.

 That's what is being worked on now.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:25>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software