[wp-hackers] Copyright violations by plugin in the WordPress plugin directory.

[Joost de Valk]

While we do not agree on the violation, I'm certainly not planning any  
DMCA's :P

I just think they people / person who did this is an *&^*-hole, and am  
trying to see the scope of what I could do about it :)

Cheers,
Joost


On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:35 AM, Jared Bangs wrote:

> I should probably clarify that I'm in NO WAY associated with either
> party in this, nor am I defending the behavior. Just wanted to make
> sure people weren't getting all worked up (talking about DMCA
> takedowns, etc.) when the "violation" may not actually hold water,
> outside of common courtesy.
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jared Bangs <jared at pacific22.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Jared Bangs <jared at pacific22.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Ferguson <andrew at fergcorp.com 
>>> > wrote:
>>>>> It's my understanding that the GPL carries / implies NO  
>>>>> requirement
>>>>> for attribution in derivative works (as Austin mentions), so I'm
>>>>> unclear as to what the allegation is as it relates to that.
>>>>
>>>> All the code that de Valk writes is under his copyright purview.  
>>>> He still
>>>> owns it, but it letting other people use it.
>>>
>>> Yes, and by releasing it under the GPL, he has already "let"  
>>> everyone
>>> else use it under terms that do not require those people to give
>>> attribution, AFAICT.
>>>
>>
>> PS - Andrew, I missed your initial quote from the GPLv3, but I don't
>> know if you can necessarily apply that, since this plugin does not
>> directly reference the GPL v3. WP is under GPL v2 (IIRC), and I don't
>> think there is any implication that plugins in the repo are
>> automatically v3 if not otherwise stated. Be happy to see something
>> that indicates otherwise, though.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers