[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

[Michael Torbert]

First result mentions GPL:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=write+wordpress+plugin


First result links to plugin submission about page which mentions GPL:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=submit+wordpress+plugin



On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Ryan Bilesky <rbilesky at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry I wasn't trying to start any argument about this.  As such an
> argument wouldn't really accomplish anything, plus I think we all know
> which
> way the majority leans.  As I said, i don't even necessarily agree with the
> point that plugins do not have to be GPL, I was simply stating that the GPL
> requirement wasn't exactly self-evident, at least no more so than the
> chicken coming before the egg is.  A (legitimate?) argument can be made
> both
> ways, which really isn't the point of this discussion.
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Mike Schinkel <
> mikeschinkel at newclarity.net
> > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Ryan Bilesky wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Mike Schinkel
> > > <mikeschinkel at newclarity.net>wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm going to start with the postulate that all plugins for WordPress
> > must
> > >> be GPL.  Matt has taken that position, many people in the WordPress
> > >> community have agreed, and the SFLC has backed him up with their
> > opinions.
> > >> So we'll run with that as a given.
> > >>
> > > I am going to disagree with you on this point.  plugins in the
> repository
> > > must be GPL per the repo terms, however the argument can be made that a
> > > plugin (or a theme, because alot of themes choose Creative Commons
> > > License to require an attribution link to be displayed in the footer)
> is
> > not
> > > a derivative work.  Now that's not to say I think that GPL isn't a
> > > requirement, I personally have no idea as I don't know enough about GPL
> > and
> > > the law to say.
> >
> > LOL!  If you read what I wrote that you quoted again you'll see I worded
> it
> > so as to bypass that entire issue!!! Note the use of the term
> "postulate",
> > i.e. "a postulate's truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting
> > point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths":
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate
> >
> > So basically you've disagreed with my "for argument's sake" assumption.
> :)
> >
> > Seriously,  I wasn't stating an opinion on that, I was skirting that
> issue
> > so that I could discuss the assertion Michael Tolbert made that putting
> > functionality on a server in order to bypass distribution was wrong. I
> was
> > trying to hold to that issue off to the side otherwise it opens an whole
> > 'nuther can o' worms.  :-)
> >
> > > Now I'm not trying to start an argument about this or anything, I just
> > > wanted to point out that it's not necessarily a given.
> >
> > And I didn't say it was. On the contrary, I was careful to say I wasn't
> > saying so as to avoid that debate. :)
> >
> > (but if I *were* to open discussion on that topic you might be surprised
> by
> > one of the legal opinions I've gotten on the subject... :)
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>