[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):

 > Wordpress.org was the first one who did not provide the terms even the
 swfupload project made this mandatory. It was worpdress.org who downloaded
 swfupload from the googlecode homepage and who did not download the
 license text from that page. It's visibly placed on the left of that
 librarie's page on googlecode.

 A link to a generic, non-customize version of the license is on that page
 (and in the software itself). The license includes this:

 > Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

 They've not provided a license file with the copyright statement filled
 in. We'd have to include this generic license with the above dummy text.
 Which I'm happy to do. But it would be better that they create a proper
 license file and include it in the source code.

 > No-one has ever prevented you from doing so but yourself.

 Give me a break. This was brought to my attention 36 hours ago.

 > As everybody can see, b) is referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the GNU
 GPL. From what it's known, swfupload is being distributed under MIT, not
 GNU GPL.
 >
 > Swfupload therefore can not met b) not only not very well, it can not
 met b) at all.
 >
 > Which brings your argument to a dead end and I hope you don't call that
 a nuance or pedantry any longer.

 Wrong. It is not '''required''' to meet (b), but it can certainly meet it
 '''unintentionally'''. Nothing about option (b) says that the upstream
 software must be GPL. They are offering the source code. Whether or not
 that complies with option (b) is debatable. But let's not. We're going to
 comply with option (b) ourselves and remove all doubt. Done.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:28>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software