[theme-reviewers] GPL

[// ravi]

On Aug 8, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Chandra Maharzan <maharzan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I can actually control a section of code and not allow people to
> modify it with GPLv3.


Ah true, Otto said something about the Additional Terms section (section 7). From the GPL v3 page, these are the additional kinds of restrictions that a licensor can add:

===========================

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

===========================

None of these seems to prevent anyone from reusing or modifying the code. Otto mentioned a Flash player: the only one I could find related to this issue is one called FlowPlayer which seems to have supplemented the GPL with a requirement for attribution and backlinks. There seems to be some discussion on their forums regarding this and they seem open to modifying their licensing. At any rate, the requirement, while mildly annoying, again does not prevent modification.

I looked around for other controversial uses of Section 7. The one I found was a Python library for gaming that once again, merely extended the terms to require the display of a logo. I’d be very curious to see how anyone has misinterpreted 7(b) to actually protect their code from modification, if not for any other reason, at least to marvel at their ingenuity! :-)

	—ravi



> To my understanding, this is against what WP
> does right now. I don't know where that can lead to, perhaps a
> discussion  we had when WP changed over to GPL ?
> 
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, // ravi <ravi-lists at g8o.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Chandra Maharzan <maharzan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Read what Otto wrote. :)
>>> 
>> 
>> I did! What Otto wrote was about why *he* is unwilling to accept the terms of GPLv3, based on the Tivo clause and other issues he finds disagreeable. But that does not imply that GPLv3 does not permit anyone to reuse or change the code, a claim that’s hard to swallow given that is the very goal of the GPLvAnything, yes?
>> 
>>        —ravi
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:02 AM, // ravi <ravi-lists at g8o.net> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Chandra Maharzan <maharzan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for this discussion. I had the same understanding. While
>>>>> WordPress is set so that anyone can reuse or change the code but GPLv3
>>>>> doesn't allow this.
>>>> 
>>>> How so?
>>>> 
>>>>       —ravi
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> P.S: *I* didn’t start the GPLv3 thread. :-)
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> cmans
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers