[wp-hackers] Plugin Licensing

Tue Mar 15 20:56:38 UTC 2011

You might want to re-read the entire post again (note: it's several pages;
not just one page). You seem to think I come to exactly the *opposite*
conclusion that I actually reach.

Beyond that: I really won't debate the merits here on the list. (I'm trying
to be good about that; honest!) I'll be happy to discuss in the comments to
the post, if you would like.

Chip

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Iain Cambridge <backie at backie.org> wrote:

> I just had to point out your quote from US copyright law at the start
> of the page pretty much cancelled your whole argument. The key
> adjectives: recast, transformed, and adapted. A plugin or theme
> doesn't do any of the following to the core code.
>
> Adapt - to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or
> modify fittingly:
> Recast -
> to remodel or reconstruct (a literary work, document,sentence, etc.).
> Transform -  to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose.
>               -  to change in condition, nature, or character; convert.
>               -  to change into another substance; transmute.
>
> Simply put, to say my code is a derivative of someone elses  because
> it calls a function that someone else has has defined is just crazy in
> my eyes. I can have 1000 lines of code and only 1 of them being
> add_action and all of a sudden it's gotta be GPL? Nah don't think so.
> What if someone else also creates a function called add_action does
> that automaticaly become a derivative ?
>
> Also people seem to think FSF and SFLC are always right, bad news they
> aren't they have opinions like other people do and until a judge
> agrees with them they are just as wrong as we are. Also have to note
> that WordPress Fondation haven't taken legal action againist non GPL
> plugins. Could this because the GPL can't apply to the WordPress core
> due to non GPL compatible code [1] and copyrighted lyrics? But none of
> this really matters because chances of a case going to court for not
> being GPL compliant is slim to none.
>
> Iain
>
> [1]
> http://core.trac.wordpress.org/export/17521/trunk/wp-includes/class-simplepie.php
>
> On 15 March 2011 19:08, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> >
> > Heh. I practically wrote a book [1] on copyright case law and its
> > applicability to GPL.
> >
> > The problem is, the argument has been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum, on
> > the hackers mailing list and elsewhere. Arguing it again is not going to
> > change anyone's mind (especially on this mailing list). That's why I try
> my
> > best not to engage in arguing the merits here anymore. Nothing fruitful
> will
> > come of it.
> >
> > (Catch me in a more appropriate venue, on the other hand, and I'll
> discuss
> > and debate it to your heart's content.)
> >
> > Chip
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.chipbennett.net/2010/07/20/wordpress-themes-gpl-and-copyright-case-law/
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Trent Martin <trentmar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > There have actually been many, many court cases regarding derivative
> works.
> > >
> > > A derivative work is a work that partially contains someone else's
> work. My
> > > code is 100% my own and because I don't distribute WordPress with my
> > > product
> > > I am not bound by the GPL. My product is combined with WordPress by the
> end
> > > user, which the end user is allowed to do; the GPL doesn't even come
> into
> > > play.
> > >
> > > For something to be a derivative work it must be a work in the first
> place;
> > > a work that is separate from the original work. A work is a fixed
> medium
> > > you
> > > can distribute to others, a user installing a plugin that mixes in RAM
> with
> > > WordPress is simply not a work. I can sell a case for an iPhone that
> > > completely depends on the shape and size of the phone, but my case is
> > > certainly not a derivative work.
> > >
> > > Further the GPL plainly and explicitly states that “You may make, run
> and
> > > propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions.” In
> > > other words, if you accept the GPL you are not bound to any conditions
> as
> > > long as you do not convey (distribute) the work to others. An end user
> is
> > > clearly allowed to modify WordPress for his or her own use and the fact
> > > that
> > > they do it themselves, pay someone to do it, or by purchasing code from
> > > someone else it doesn't make a difference because none of these
> constitute
> > > a
> > > violation of the copyright law or the GPL.
> > >
> > > The biggest argument I see is that plugins completely depend on
> WordPress
> > > and it's inner workings. However, books about WordPress also have this
> same
> > > requirement and they are not derivative works. Dependency does not
> define a
> > > derivative work.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Andy Charrington-Wilden <
> > > andycharrington at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]However, I accept that the WordPress community has rightfully
> > > defined
> > > > its
> > > > own ethos with respect to acceptable licensing of WordPress Plugins
> and
> > > > Themes.[...]
> > > >
> > > > That hits the nail on the head. Without any actual court cases
> happening
> > > no
> > > > one really knows the legality of derivative works. The whole thesis
> > > debacle
> > > > went a step closer to defining it but I think all it really proved
> was
> > > the
> > > > power and influence Matt has.
> > > >
> > > > I'm all for good ethics and morals but unfortunately it is a fact
> that
> > > they
> > > > are not always conducive to making a living.
> > > >
> > > > For what it's worth my solution was to build a hosted service. No one
> > > > downloads or even sees my code so there's no worries about people
> > > stealing
> > > > it and reselling. Whilst this solution works for me I understand that
> it
> > > > doesn't solve the larger issue if licensing and derivative works.
> > > >
> > > > I think this will keep producing massive threads until either
> something
> > > > changes within automatic or a case goes to court......
> > > >
> > > > Jealous Designs
> > > > Website: jealousdesigns.co.uk
> > > > Portfolio: jealousdesigns.co.uk/portfolio
> > > > Phone: 07903030008
> > > > Twitter: _a_n_d_y
> > > > Skype: andycharrington
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On 15 Mar 2011, at 18:08, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > However, I accept that the WordPress community has rightfully
> defined
> > > its
> > > > > own ethos with respect to acceptable licensing of WordPress Plugins
> and
> > > > > Themes.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>