[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #14944: GNU Lesser General Public License file is missing

[WordPress Trac]

#14944: GNU Lesser General Public License file is missing
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hakre         |        Owner:                 
     Type:  defect (bug)  |       Status:  reopened       
 Priority:  normal        |    Milestone:  Awaiting Review
Component:  General       |      Version:  3.0            
 Severity:  normal        |   Resolution:                 
 Keywords:  has-patch     |  
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by hakre):

  * status:  closed => reopened
  * resolution:  invalid =>


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:7 nacin]:
 > But it is only recommended.
 Do you think this recommendation is problematic? Please say which points
 you see.

 > [regarding the link in the tickets description] The same page suggests
 we add the statement to every file, but there are no plans to do that.
 Please stick on topic and to LGPL licensed code. Otherwise this would mix
 issues.

 ----

 Replying to [comment:8 Otto42]:
 > Replying to [comment:6 hakre]:
 > > It is strongly recommended...
 >
 > Which doesn't change what I stated before: it is not necessary.

 Please reference something that shows it is _not_ necessary. I get the
 impression that this is just an opinion which does not stand an
 argumentation. Repeating it doesn't help.

 >
 > We do not need license bloat any more than we need any other kind of
 bloat. WordPress itself is GPL, and though some components in it (from
 elsewhere) have their own license, we are not required to distribute
 copies of that license with them.

 What do you want to argument for? That the LGPL license text inside the
 package is bloat? And to follow recommendations is not necessary? I'm
 pretty shocked that I must read such a statement by a regular.

 What's that problematic with adding the LGPL file to the Package? Do you
 really think that the text of the LGPL is bloat and providing it is
 negative for users? That there is no benefit by doing so?

 ----

 As [http://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/trunk/license.txt#L37 in the
 GPL], this is the same for the LGPL:

 > And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

 As it was criticized that "recommends" was too vague, here you have a
 "must" in the ''original terms''. Please read the licenses carefully when
 you comment and judge about them. The related literature is helpful as
 well to understand the big picture.

 But struggling about fine-details between words often does prevent getting
 the big picture. That's leading away from what this is about: To respect
 and ensure the freedom of contributed code.

 I know of the fact that programmers have the tendency to apply boolean
 logic to everything they read. It's a kind of disease we have in common.
 But that's not getting the point. Get the big picture. I don't want
 wordpress to promote such bad practice.

 What about my suggestion we let this mediate through a third party like
 the SFLC? If two regular contributors argument strongly against something
 that is so straight forward and simple to solve - providing the license
 text to the packages users - then I think that some professional feedback
 from a third-party can be helpful.

 And while discussing the matter here, please give arguments instead of
 just closing the ticket just because you have a different opinion. Only
 with contradictions we can come to good conclusions.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/14944#comment:9>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software