[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #14703: Match Redistribution and use conditions for The Incutio XML-RPC Library
WordPress Trac
wp-trac at lists.automattic.com
Fri Aug 27 13:50:01 UTC 2010
#14703: Match Redistribution and use conditions for The Incutio XML-RPC Library
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: hakre | Owner:
Type: defect (bug) | Status: reopened
Priority: normal | Milestone: Awaiting Review
Component: General | Version:
Severity: normal | Resolution:
Keywords: has-patch |
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by hakre):
* status: closed => reopened
* resolution: wontfix =>
Comment:
Replying to [comment:23 demetris]:
> @hakre
>
> Supposedly, the problem here is that the licencing terms of the library
are not clear
No, that is not the case, the terms are clear. The author has expressed
the wish to grant usage-rights under the terms of the BSD License. The
choice of the license is not questioned nor considered problematic, at
least not by me any longer. [http://hakre.wordpress.com/2010/08/27
/wordpress-licensing-issues-the-second-24-hours/ I mistakenly thought the
BSD would not be GPL compliant], but as it's known now, this is not the
case here.
> or that they are not clearly stated.
The clarity of the terms of the BSD License are not questioned by me in
this ticket.
The only difference I can see so far is, that you assume (as ryan) that
linking is eligble as retaining the license text (leaving aside for the
moment that a website is linked that explains how to create a BSD license
and retaining a template for creating a BSD-styled-license and ''not'' a
concrete license).
Linking a license w/o providing a copy at once can be problematic for
removeable-media distributions of wordpress, like on DVDs in magazines.
Opening the software package, the license terms are not available because
the link provided might not work in the user's interface (e.g. when the
reading system has no network or internet access). There are other
examples where linking works so no need to discuss the matter of facts
here, it's just to give an example.
I for myself try at least to find out if requirements are met, because
that's the indicator of being able to redistribute the code or not. This
naturally implies to question the current practice. As long as this is in
progress - and I still see inaccuracy and substantial questions in this
dicussion here that should be clarified first, I prefer to keep the issue
open. Or would you like to say to me, that I'm not eligble to care about
this issue properly, that I have no right doing so?
I'm open in the discussion: If someone can provide a professional third-
party opinion to ensure that this kind of linking fullfills the retainment
requirements and is a somehow recommended practice for a free software
project, fine. Share it.
I try to get such a professional opinion as well to better deal with the
dissens, and to learn more about the implications. But this must not rely
on my own. So if you like to help to clarify the codes licensing, you're
welcome.
The patch was just a suggestion on how to practically reduce impact of
whatever opinion might reveal. It just might be the case that it's
adviseable to not rely on one certain opinion only, but to find a solution
that always/mostly fits, like providing the license text direclty in the
package, as we do with the GPL license text as well.
> We don’t need to start changing things in the licencing terms of third-
party libraries.
Hmm, this is not a change of the licensing terms of the third-party IXR
library, or at least not intended so. If you still think so that it got
changed, please reference a concrete change I did to the original BSD
licensing terms in my patch, so this can be fixed.
--
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/14703#comment:24>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software
More information about the wp-trac
mailing list